House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government are providing better support in a number of ways, including through our network of 38 growth hubs across England, our Help To Grow management scheme and mentorships. We are improving access to finance, not least through our start-up loans and recovery loan scheme. We are removing barriers to trade for our SMEs. Those that are seeking to grow through exports can now access support through our UK Export Academy and UK Export Finance.
Samantha Dixon
Small and medium-sized businesses are the beating heart of Chester and our country’s economy, yet their costs have become crippling, with extortionate energy bills, staff shortages and businesses forced to shut their doors for good. Reports show that a record number of people are off work due to health reasons, notably an increase in mental health issues. What is the Government’s plan to put that right and help businesses in Chester and up and down the country?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady raises an important point. The first thing we will do for any business is to ensure that the economy is growing, as it is. We are seeing much higher rates of growth than anticipated by many, and we are cutting the costs of doing business by halving inflation, which again is incredibly important for business. In the short term, we are providing support with £13.6 billion of business rate discounts. We put £23 billion into energy discount schemes, too. We also have a big programme, across government, to try to get 9 million people who are economically inactive back to work.
Stephen Morgan
Portsmouth’s fantastic small and family-run businesses tell me that after the Tories crashed the economy, they are struggling with rising business rates, supply chain issues and soaring energy costs. Why does the Minister not just adopt Labour’s plan to scrap business rates and replace them with a system fit for the 21st century?
Kevin Hollinrake
We would all like to reform business rates. When people in my constituency hear about Labour’s plans to scrap business rates, the question I always get is, “Where is the money coming from?” Business rates raise £22 billion in England alone. I have heard Labour’s plans to scrap business rates. Which taxes will be increased to make up that shortfall? That is the question. We are reforming business rates to ensure that small businesses pay less, and providing short-term discounts. Labour cannot simply wipe away £22 billion without telling us where the money is coming from.
Robbie Moore
I recently had the pleasure of hosting a business roundtable in my constituency for small and medium-sized businesses, many of whom are proud of the products and services they want to export. Will my hon. Friend outline what additional steps the Government are taking to support small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency and across the UK that are looking to export their world-leading products to the global market?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his businesses across Keighley, and I thank him for the work he does. He will know that through our export strategy, “Made in the UK, Sold to the World”, we provide extensive support and advice to SMEs, whether they are considering exporting, learning about how to go about it, or expanding into new markets. UK Export Finance focuses on supporting SMEs so that they can secure export opportunities.
Simon Fell
Barrow-in-Furness is, I hope, about to enter a 25-to-30 year jobs boom thanks to the Government’s steadfast support for Dreadnought, AUKUS and the renewable energy projects up and down our coast. However, that causes issues for our local SMEs, which are struggling to retain and recruit, not least because of the geographical isolation of Barrow-in-Furness. May I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to cross the Pennines to speak to the SME cluster that I chair over there and hear some of their concerns? Does the Department have some specialist support to help those businesses leaning into this new economic challenge?
Kevin Hollinrake
I would be happy to cross the Pennines; I have been known to. It would be my pleasure to do that. What businesses want more than anything is to make sure that we have a growing economy, which we have, and that we are controlling costs by halving inflation. The next thing that businesses want is access to labour and skills. I attended the British Chambers of Commerce’s global event yesterday at the QEII Centre, and it was one of the key asks. We are doing many things on making the workplace more attractive: flexible working and, for example, carer’s leave. We have a programme across government to try to get those 9 million people who are currently economically inactive back to work. That can solve many of the problems, along with reform of childcare and other things. I am happy to come and listen to my hon. Friend’s businesses and find out the particular challenges they are facing.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Twenty billion pounds! That is the amount of money currently held up in late payments—more than the entire science budget. It should be flowing to small businesses, allowing them to innovate, develop new products, create new jobs, drive our local economies or simply stay afloat. Instead, every day thousands of our great British small and medium-sized enterprises are wasting precious time and money chasing late payments, at an estimated cost of £684 million a year. For the sake of British business, will this Government take a leaf out of Labour’s policy book and properly legislate to tackle late payments to small businesses?
Kevin Hollinrake
Well, £90 billion is the amount of Labour’s uncosted spending plans, but let us talk about the £20 billion for now. The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the issue of late payments. I attended a roundtable yesterday as part of our payment and cash flow review consultation, which is hugely important. We have significant engagement with businesses across the piece. We are determined and ambitious to reform the rules on late payments to ensure that businesses get paid on time. We have made significant progress in recent years in our international performance, so we are not an outlier. Nevertheless, we can and shall do more. The results of the consultation will be made available shortly.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Non-disclosure agreements can be used legitimately by employers—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information. The Government understand concerns about the use of NDAs to silence victims of sexual misconduct. We have legislated to prevent higher education providers using NDAs in cases of sexual abuse, harassment or misconduct and other forms of bullying or harassment.
Layla Moran
Imagine, Mr Speaker, that you are a victim of bullying, misconduct or sexual harassment at work, and your employer pushes you to sign a gagging clause preventing you from publicly disclosing what happened to you; this sits over you in perpetuity, reminding you of the trauma you experienced. The campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence will soon be launching a business pledge to commit to ending this practice in businesses for good. Will the Secretary of State consider meeting me to discuss this forthcoming pledge, and does she back a ban on the use of NDAs in these specific cases?
Kemi Badenoch
I am aware that the hon. Member had a private Member’s Bill on this very issue. The Government are supportive of preventing harassment in the workplace, and we supported the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill. We believe that NDAs have a place, but she has raised specific circumstances where they are inappropriate, so I am happy to discuss with her what we can do to stop this problem from continuing.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will establish a new pro-competition regime for digital markets. This will boost competition between businesses in digital markets, driving productivity, growth and innovation.
Nadhim Zahawi
The Competition and Markets Authority’s recent ruling blocking the acquisition of Activision Blizzard has made us an outlier. Its intervention in the nascent, innovative cloud gaming market was based on potential rather than real market power. You will know, Mr Speaker, that regulators have as much of a lever on growth in the economy as the Government. As we are doing in financial services, all regulators should have a remit for growth, and maybe—just maybe—we can call them “regulators for growth”.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. He may have noticed that we recently launched a paper, “Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy”, so we absolutely agree with that point. Some of the measures it proposes are about ensuring that Ministers, officials and others look at alternatives to regulation, rather than jumping straight to regulation, and have an earlier impact assessment of what regulation would mean for businesses’ costs, rather than just looking at other factors. I absolutely agree with him that the best regulator is competition—the No. 1 thing we want to drive forward—which is also the best thing for growth. I am keen to talk to him about this matter in further detail after these questions.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
A huge element of growth in the digital market is the crypto industry. The European Parliament has just signed off the Markets in Cryptoassets Regulation. That ambitious and forward-thinking law gives the European Union the first rules to govern the crypto industry. When will this Government do the same?
Kevin Hollinrake
We are looking at the crypto sector carefully, and there was a report yesterday from the Treasury Committee on that matter. The crypto sector is moving at pace, and it is important that regulation keeps up with that. We have regulated already on some of the promotions around cryptocurrency, and it is something we will keep under scrutiny. I am sure my Treasury colleagues will be doing that even more than I shall.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
We are actively engaging with the steel industry to secure a positive and sustainable future. Alongside that, my Department announced the British Industry Supercharger in February—a decisive and necessary intervention that will help to reduce energy costs for energy intensive industries such as steel.
Jessica Morden
As the Minister knows, the key issues facing the steel industry are energy prices—we are still paying much more than our European competitors—and decarbonisation. There are 23 clean steel projects in Europe, but none here. In reply the Secretary of State will quote support that is historic, too little, or too late. Labour Members have a plan for steel, where is the Government’s?
Kemi Badenoch
I visited the Port Talbot steelworks, and no one there is talking about Labour’s plan; they are talking about what the Government have been doing, and they have been grateful for the support we have provided. It is misleading to call that “historic” when we have been showing continued support for the steel sector. The Government continue to provide that significant financial support, and the steel industry has been able to bid into Government funds worth more than £1 billion to support energy efficiency and decarbonisation.
Holly Mumby-Croft
I thank the Secretary of State for her visit to Scunthorpe steelworks. She knows well the challenges that the steel industry is facing. While the British Industry Supercharger was a welcome announcement that I hope will go a long way to putting us on a fairer footing, I am concerned that some of that support might not be fully in place until 2025. Given current concerns, can she do anything to speed that up?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for accompanying me on my visit to British Steel last week. We are moving quickly to deliver the supercharger policy. It will reduce energy costs to energy intensive industries, including steel, by around £20 per megawatt hour. She mentioned speed, and we will consult on the capacity market exemption shortly. We intend to bring forward secondary legislation on all three measures around renewable energy obligations and capacity market costs. I will do everything I can to ensure that businesses get the support they need as quickly as they can.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
We have secured a deal that offers brilliant new opportunities for British businesses by getting an agreement in principle to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Our exporters will have greater opportunities to sell their excellent products to some of the world’s biggest markets in the Americas and Asia-Pacific, with the bloc set to account for 15% of global GDP once the UK joins. It will be easier and less expensive to trade physical products between our countries, and more than 99% of current UK goods exports to CPTPP will be eligible for tariff-free trade.
Marco Longhi
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the CPTPP agreement, which, among other things, will be a wonderful vehicle to foster better relationships within the Indo-Pacific, as well as being a key region for UK trade. Another key area for trade for the United Kingdom is Latin America, and as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Brazil, and having lived and worked there for five years, I have seen first hand the wonderful opportunities available there. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what her Department is doing to build on that trading relationship with Brazil?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for his outstanding commitment to improving our trade relationship with Brazil in his work as trade envoy, and I wish him well on his upcoming trip to the country. Our bilateral trade with Brazil increased to £7.7 billion in the 12 months ending December 2022, and the signing of the UK-Brazil double taxation agreement in November represents a significant step in enhancing trade across all sectors. There is much we can do with Brazil—I intend to visit the country, hopefully later this year—especially around critical minerals. I look forward to working with the Brazilian Government in due course.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
As the UK crafts deeper and more comprehensive trade relations across Latin America, it is important to capture not just economic benefits but cultural benefits. In fact, student and language exchanges are a vital precursor to trade as they enable young people in both the UK and Latin America to have the mobility and skills to create those relationships and build businesses. Today, a major barrier preventing UK university students from studying in Latin America is the lack of mutual recognition agreements on qualifications. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the merits of integrating mutual recognition of higher education qualifications into trade negotiations?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, for the work that he does as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Mexico and for his interest in the region. We do look at mutual recognition for qualifications in trade deals, but most of the time they tend to be in separate agreements. Because of the nature of how free trade agreements are structured, we try to ensure that they are focused specifically on trade. We have an upcoming upgrade to our trade deal with Mexico, as we do with several other countries. If he has specific areas that he would like us to highlight, now is the time to tell us which qualifications in particular we should focus on.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
While Labour Members recognise the diplomatic and security benefits of closer ties with the Indo-Pacific, Ministers’ negotiating skills are clearly not improved if Britain’s joining the CPTPP will lift economic growth here by only 0.08%. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why, in the accession talks, she was not able to resist giving some overseas corporate giants the right to access secret courts that could override the will of the British people, bypass Parliament and cost British taxpayers significant sums of money?
Kemi Badenoch
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to investor dispute settlement mechanisms. We have used them in this country for many years, and that has protected British companies. He is wrong about the CPTPP not bringing much economic growth to the country—it will bring billions. We have repeatedly explained that the statistic he quoted is being misused. It does not take into account the growth of the bloc or the future GDP growth of those countries. We should be congratulating all our officials for the hard work they did in negotiating the agreements rather than criticising them.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As part of the UK’s strategy to secure a resilient supply of critical minerals, we are accelerating domestic capabilities along the whole critical minerals value chain, from mining to manufacturing. Our support for businesses such as Cornish Lithium and Green Lithium shows our support for these industries. Just in March, we published a refreshed delivery approach to the critical minerals strategy, including the establishment of a new industry taskforce on critical minerals that will investigate the critical mineral dependencies and vulnerabilities faced by UK industry and help it to mitigate risks.
Andrew Selous
I thank the Minister for that answer. She will know well that demand for graphite, lithium and cobalt is expected to quadruple by the 2040s. With supply currently dominated by China, what can the Government do to extract rapidly the deposits identified in all four nations of the United Kingdom so that we can gain a climate action dividend and level up the United Kingdom?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend is right. One reason why I came back into government was to ensure that we were not reliant on one country, China. We need more lithium, cobalt and graphite, as does everybody else, to make batteries for electric cars, and we need silicon and tin for electronics. We welcome the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre’s report, “Potential for Critical Raw Material Prospectivity in the UK”, which we commissioned. We are working with the British Geological Survey on next steps. Through the strategy, we are funding projects such as Cornish Lithium and Green Lithium, which build innovative, resilient value chains here in the UK.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Many are clamouring for the rights for deep-sea mining to extract critical minerals, but we know little about the seabed and the knock-on effects there could be on the environment and ecology of the deep sea and the wider oceans. Will the Minister continue to support a moratorium on deep-sea mining through the International Seabed Authority until we have a better understanding of those environmental impacts?
Ms Ghani
There is no deep-sea mining currently happening in areas beyond national jurisdictions. The UK has committed not to sponsor or support the issue of any exploitation licences for deep-sea mining projects unless and until there is significant scientific evidence about the potential impact on deep-sea ecosystems.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his fine work as part of the Regulatory Reform Group, which has just published a report. Last week the Government published “Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy”, setting out our vision for the UK’s regulation and how we can harness the opportunities that Brexit presents to re-think how and when we regulate. As part of that, we set out our agenda to ensure that regulators help drive economic growth.
James Wild
I thank the Minister for his answer and for the reforms published last week. He kindly mentioned the Regulatory Reform Group and our report last week. Will he carefully consider our recommendations in the report on the Government better holding regulators to account, and look at the proposal for an accountability framework that looks at key metrics, including competition, to judge their performance?
Kevin Hollinrake
I read that with interest, and I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) yesterday about the matter. It is important that all regulators with responsibility for regulating and promoting growth continue to be held to account for delivering on those objectives. His proposed joint committee of Members of both Houses is for the House authorities to consider, but I note that in a regulatory system that already has a number of accountability mechanisms, adding another layer could risk more uncertainty rather than clarity.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Leaving the cost of formula up to the market has resulted in soaring prices, as Sky News has revealed this week. Parents are stealing formula from shops, relying on baby banks and formula foraging on Facebook, while profits and marketing spends of the companies have soared. Will the Minister instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the sector to protect our younger citizens?
Kevin Hollinrake
The CMA is an independent body that decides where it should intervene. We keep these matters under very close scrutiny. Competition is the best regulator. We have a very competitive market for the supermarkets. There are 14 supermarkets, all regulated by the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It is important that competition is allowed to play its role in driving down prices, but we will keep an eye on that.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is clear that we live in dangerous times. Autocracies are behaving in a way that many of us have not seen in our lifetimes. The UK stands at a crossroads of this geopolitical stand-off between international rules-based systems as we know them and the system that autocratic leaders would like them to become. Trade and investment are at the very heart of that crossroads. The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally, which will continue as an independent trading nation. By growing our trading relationships, the UK can increase its influence, which helps us to open conversations bilaterally with partners on a range of issues.
Geraint Davies
The Minister knows that I am trade rapporteur to the Council of Europe. My report, which has been agreed by 46 member states, calls for due diligence on the border to protect supply chains from human rights abuse and deforestation, and more clout for the environment vis-à-vis the interests of energy companies, in particular in dispute mechanisms. Will she meet me about taking forward those proposals so that trade agreements green rather than blacken our planet and uphold rather than diminish our fundamental rights?
Ms Ghani
I have read the hon. Member’s report, because he sent it to me. I have lost many hours of my life, but I have read it and I enjoyed it. It would be remiss of me not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), the Conservative leader of the UK parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, for all his work. There is lots of really good stuff. [Interruption.] He leads the delegation, but the hon. Member wrote the report, which I have read. There are some good points, especially on China’s emissions, which are greater than USA and the EU combined.
The UK works with allies and partners through multilateral systems to promote our values globally. Multilateral forums include the UN, the World Trade Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe. I will sit down and work through the hon. Member’s report with him.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on his work on this report, which includes calling out the energy charter treaty used by fossil fuel companies to sue Governments for introducing climate policies. It is now nearly a year since the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), said:
“The UK cannot support an outdated treaty which holds back investment in clean energy and puts British taxpayers at increased risk from costly legal challenges”.
Can the Minister tell us when the Government will follow the example of other major European countries and commit to withdrawing from the energy charter treaty?
Ms Ghani
The energy charter treaty, which is under review, falls under the responsibilities of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which has been formed from half of my previous Department. In their negotiations to modernise the ECT, the former Departments for International Trade and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy worked in close collaboration and DIT led on the investment provisions, so there is no doubt that the hon. Lady’s question would be better focused at the other Department.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
Our bilateral trade with China was worth £111 billion last year. The Department provides expert guidance to help UK companies succeed in China, ranging from specialised support through the export support service to practical assistance from our extensive overseas network. We will continue to support engagement, while ensuring our national security and values are protected.
Tim Loughton
This House has voted to recognise the genocide by China. This House has passed legislation to limit companies doing business in Xinjiang and to restrict Chinese companies getting involved in sensitive UK infrastructure projects, including Hikvision, which has over a million security cameras in this country and just reported an increase in sales in this country of more 50%. What message does it send when a UK trade Minister, from the Minister’s team, goes to Beijing, feting Chinese Ministers for Chinese investment in the UK, as if the golden age of UK-China relations was still a thing?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend raises many important points, but the key thing is that the relationship with China has been laid out recently in the integrated review, the integrated review refresh and in the Foreign Secretary’s speech, and we have made it very clear that we need to balance our trading interests with our national security interests, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend outlines.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
What are the Government doing to ensure that the genomics data of British businesses held by British genomics companies that then trade or do deals with Chinese companies, such as BGI Genomics, is protected? Is it not somewhat naive, given the terms of the national security law, to think that GDPR alone is sufficient protection?
Nigel Huddleston
Through a variety of mechanisms and across multiple Departments, the Government give advice to companies investing overseas. In terms of dynamics the other way around, the Investment Security Unit carefully analyses investment in the UK, particularly relating to acquisitions in 17 sensitive areas. We are very careful at analysing and we will continue to keep a close eye on those two-way relationships.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The UK’s total exports have now recovered to pre-pandemic levels, measured against 2018. In 2022, UK exports were £815 billion, up by 21% in current prices compared with 2018, and up by 0.5% once adjusted for inflation. The latest data shows Scotland is the third highest exporting nation or region in both goods and services. In 2022 Scottish exports of goods totalled £35.7 billion, up by 23.5% in current prices from the previous year.
Dave Doogan
I know just what a favourable position Scotland is in, in terms of its trade exports. We do very well, even though we are held back by the constraints of this Union. The Office for National Statistics figures show that UK exports are lagging behind other G7 countries. Before the Minister tells us that this is because of the war in Ukraine and covid, let me point out that all our G7 partners have faced those headwinds as well, but only the United Kingdom, sadly including Scotland, faces the English Brexit chaos that is damaging our trade. What discussions has she had to apologise to the Scottish Government and to Scottish businesses for the drag she places on Scottish trade?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman started so positively. If he is against Brexit, then he is against every trade deal, and he is against the most integrated single market in the world, which is Scotland and England. All he wants to do is to split, split, split. I have already told him the good news that the total amount of exports in pounds is up. There is also fantastic news about whisky—surely that can raise a smile from the hon. Gentleman—and about services: in 2022, UK services were up by 24% in current prices, and by 4% when the figure was adjusted for inflation. I know it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to accept good news from the Government Benches, but it is good for his constituents, so he should welcome it.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am afraid the independent Office for Budget Responsibility does not share the Minister’s optimism about exports. The analysis that accompanied the spring Budget forecast that the UK would face a 6.6% fall in exports this year. That is equivalent to a fall of over £51 billion, and would represent an average hit of over £186,000 to the more than 273,000 UK exporters. It will have a devastating impact, and is it any wonder that the UK is predicted to have the worst growth in the G7? Surely, if Ministers recognised the scale of these projected losses, they would be taking urgent steps to support our exporters now.
Ms Ghani
There will always be data, forecasts, and the evaluation and re-evaluation of those data and forecasts. It is important for the House to know about all the good news that was missing from the right hon. Gentleman’s question. According to a PwC report, the UK will continue to be the fastest growing G7 economy until 2050. That is indeed good news. [Interruption.] It is a forecast. The right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned an OBR forecast.
Exports are up, including business services exports, and we are on track to reach our target of £1 trillion by 2030—and before the right hon. Gentleman jumps to his feet, let me add that 2030 is several years away, and I look forward to being on the Government Benches on this side of the House telling him, on that side of the House, how close we are to that target.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
Our free trade programme helps to remove market access barriers for importers and exporters, making the UK more competitive and contributing to a greater choice of goods. The UK’s trade policy works to increase access to good-quality, good-value food from around the world, while the liberalisation of tariffs can help to lower food prices.
Tommy Sheppard
UK food price inflation is already significantly higher than that in France, Germany and Italy. This week William Bain, the head of trade at the British Chambers of Commerce, said there was a strong prospect that new Brexit regulations coming into force later this year would drive prices even higher. Is it not time that this Government apologised for their ideological obsession with Brexit, which is forcing ordinary-working class families into poverty?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat selective. The figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that food price inflation in the UK was 19.2%—and the EU average is 19.2%. As for apologising, I will not apologise for the fact that when we left the EU, we got rid of hundreds of useless tariffs that were doing nothing other than pushing up prices for British consumers. We liberalised tariffs on environmental goods, and we liberalised tariffs on goods that we generally do not produce in the UK, thus massively reducing the total number of tariffs faced by British consumers. That is a good thing, throughout the UK.
Patricia Gibson
Recent figures from the Trussell Trust show that food bank use across the UK by people in need of a three-day emergency food supply soared to a record 3 million in 2022-23. Does the Minister accept that food bank use, which has more than doubled in a decade, has a direct correlation with the disastrous Brexit —according to the London School of Economics—causing food prices to soar, and does he agree that more must be done to tackle a disgraceful situation in which too many of my constituents struggle to put food on the table?
Nigel Huddleston
All of us, on both sides of the House, are concerned about the struggles faced by our constituents, which is precisely why the Government have supported families through the challenges of the cost of living to the tune of £94 billion—£3,300 per household. As for the specific connection with trade, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave a moment ago: since we left the European Union, 47% of tariff lines in our tariff schedule have fallen to zero. The figure is 27% in the EU. British consumers are better off because of our tariff policy.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
If we take the Minister at his word that tariffs are coming down, that does not seem to be making much difference to the prices that people are paying at the supermarkets. Governments across Europe are taking action to tackle soaring food prices caused by what is termed greedflation. For example, in Ireland, supermarkets have been given a six-week ultimatum to bring down food prices; in France, the Government have agreed with retailers to keep the price of essential foodstuffs to the bare minimum; and Italy has set up a commission to monitor unusual movements in prices. Do Ministers accept that action to protect consumers from corporate greed is necessary and urgent?
Nigel Huddleston
As I said in answer to a previous question, food inflation is very similar in the UK and Europe, because we are all facing very similar challenges, including, of course, inflation through energy prices. That is precisely why we provided support to consumers to the tune of about half their energy costs this winter. Of course, we also provided support to businesses, which otherwise would have passed on higher costs to consumers; about a third of business energy prices have been covered by Government support. We are doing a lot, and the Prime Minister highlighted the challenges with a summit on food this very week.
Richard Thomson
I accept that we might be facing similar problems to mainland Europe, but we are certainly not getting the same degree of action from the Government to tackle prices in supermarkets. Does the Minister accept that by voting against my party’s motion on Tuesday calling on them to put pressure on supermarkets to pass on falling food prices to consumers, the UK Government sent an extremely clear signal to families in Scotland that they are not on their side?
Nigel Huddleston
Again, I and my colleagues continually engage with industry about how it can help support consumers, because both the Government and businesses have a responsibility to help consumers in these challenging times. That is precisely why we had the summit this week, which I am sure the hon. Member is well aware of.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
We are committed to upholding the UK’s high environmental standards in our trade deals. In our Australia and New Zealand trade deals, for example, we included commitments to preserve our right to regulate, protect the environment, and affirm international environment and climate commitments. We work across Government on environmental matters and utilise international fora to promote our environmental aims.
Wera Hobhouse
Trade deals can protect or destroy our natural environment. What the Minister has just said seems to contradict this, but our assessment is that the Government consistently fail to guarantee existing environmental standards in trade deals. For example, they have removed European palm oil tariffs to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that that could devastate forests, destroy orangutan habitats and fuel climate change. Can he explain why the Government are happy to ignore the environment, and will the Government establish core environmental standards for any new trade deals?
Nigel Huddleston
I am disappointed to hear that from the hon. Lady, because we generally agree on a lot of things. We have no intention of weakening environmental standards through trade agreements; in fact, they are often an opportunity to enhance standards through co-operation. CPTPP prohibits parties from waiving, derogating from or failing to enforce environmental laws in order to encourage trade or investment. I am afraid the reality is the exact opposite of what she says.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
One opportunity from our joining the trans-Pacific partnership is that it gives the UK a say in different chapters of the partnership, including that on the environment, and the ability to work with Malaysia to ensure the sustainability of its palm oil exports, in exactly the same way that we helped Indonesia shape its regulations and processes for exporting timber. Does the Minister agree that the key to all this is engagement? In that context, does he share my strong enthusiasm for a separate free trade agreement with Indonesia, so that we can work together for the huge benefit of both countries?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for the amount of work that he does as a trade envoy. We both met our Indonesian friends this week, and the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) will be visiting Indonesia shortly, so we are certainly building those relationships. We are always keen to look at future opportunities for trade agreements and, outside trade agreements, at enhancing the relationship through a variety of fora, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) explains. We look forward to continued engagement with Indonesia.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The best thing we can do to help people with employment is to have a strong economy with low unemployment, and I am pleased to say that we have both. Although there is no employment Bill, the Government are supporting six private Members’ Bills to deliver on our manifesto commitments: helping new parents and unpaid carers, giving employees easier access to flexible working and giving workers the right to request a more predictable working pattern. The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 has also now completed its journey.
Rachael Maskell
According to Stop Hurt at Work, 27% of employees experience bullying or harassment at work. There is no legal definition of workplace bullying and no simple path to restitution. Although we have been promised employment legislation by this Government since 2017, and in the light of Matthew Taylor’s “Good work” report, we have not seen an employment Bill in this Parliament to protect workers at work. Can we expand employment rights in legislation to ensure that there is a clear path to restitution for people experiencing bullying at work?
Kevin Hollinrake
I point out that the unemployment rate in York is at a record low of 1.4%, which is below the national average, as I am sure the hon. Lady would welcome.
Since the good work plan was published, the Government have taken forward a wide range of commitments, including giving all workers the right to receive a statement of their rights on day one and the right to request a more predictable working pattern. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady following these questions to discuss the points she raises.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Ministers have promised an employment Bill more than 20 times, but they have consistently failed to deliver. It seems that not a week goes by without a company in the gig economy announcing that it is stripping back workers’ rights and protections, presumably because they are confident that this Government will not legislate to introduce protections in the gig economy. Will the Minister come clean on the Government’s plans? If they are not going to bring in any protections for gig economy workers, will he now apologise to them for another failed promise?
Kevin Hollinrake
Paying the national living wage is the law, and failing to pay workers the correct wage can result in significant fines, public naming and, for the most serious offences, criminal prosecution. The national living wage applies to all those who are classified as employees or limb (b) workers. If an individual feels that their employment status has been misclassified, they have the right to go to an employment tribunal.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
As Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my priority is to support UK companies to thrive at home and abroad, which is why this week I launched negotiations for an enhanced UK-Swiss free trade agreement alongside my counterpart, Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin. Trade between us is worth almost £53 billion and, as two service economies, a modernised agreement presents huge opportunities for the UK and Switzerland. I met representatives from SIX Swiss Exchange, the backbone of Swiss financial services, and several innovative start-ups at the fintech accelerator Tenity.
Peter Aldous
Fish and chip shops have been part of the fabric of British life for generations and should be the cornerstone of a revived domestic fishing industry. However, shops in the Lowestoft and Waveney area continue to face an ongoing triple whammy of high energy costs, high fish prices and the high cost of cooking oil. Will my right hon. Friend work proactively with the sector to agree a strategy that ensures the survival and subsequent flourishing of fish and chip shops?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his local fish and chip shops. We recognise the importance of fish and chip shops to local communities and the challenges they face. We have introduced a range of support measures to address the specific issues he raises, including changes to business rates that, across the country, are worth a total of £13.6 billion in lower bills. We are also supporting non-domestic energy customers through the energy bill relief scheme, and we recently introduced the energy bills discount scheme, which runs until March 2024. We will keep working closely with the sector as part of the Hospitality Sector Council to improve the resilience of businesses, including the fish and chip shops in Lowestoft.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It has now been 100 days since we first welcomed the right hon. Lady to her new post. In that time, we have seen steel production fall to record lows; the automotive sector has issued warning cry after warning cry that Government policy risks shipping jobs overseas; and the US has seen incredible sums invested under the Inflation Reduction Act and the EU has put forward its own significant response. Meanwhile, the UK remains trapped in the Conservatives’ low growth, high tax loop, with the lowest business investment in the G7. This morning, three of her predecessors, each from a different political party, have said that the Government need an explicit industrial strategy. Does the current Business Secretary agree with them?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting that we have had 100 days as the Department for Business and Trade, during which we have been able to launch the biggest free trade agreement that the UK has seen since we left the EU and since the trade and co-operation agreement. He also mentions a lot of systemic issues, which have been faced globally. He rightly talks about the US IRA and the EU green deal industrial plan, but it is good for me to mention that we are doing a lot in this space. For example, the issue that the automotive industries are talking about relates to rules of origin. This is something that the EU is also worried out, because the costs of the components have risen. This is not to do with Brexit; it is to do with supply chain issues following the pandemic and the war between Russia and Ukraine. I have had meetings with my EU trade counterpart; we are discussing these things and looking at how we can review them, especially as the TCA will be coming into review soon.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What would have been the answer to Question 19? How many businesses were supported by grant funding in North Northamptonshire during the pandemic?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Off the top of my head, I can say that during the pandemic the Government delivered an unprecedented package of support for businesses. In total, more than £22.6 billion was provided to businesses via local authorities. In Kettering, more than 5,000 covid-19 business grants were issued, amounting to £24 million. North Northamptonshire Council delivered £29.9 million to local businesses through the covid-19 business grant scheme.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady raises an important point. As she knows, one of the Government’s commitments is to halve inflation, which will also have an impact on food prices. We absolutely need to do that, particularly for those low-income households. That is why we directed support mostly at low-income households, with more than £2,000 a household this year and £900 in additional support for low-income households this year. This is a twin-track approach, tackling inflation and lowering food prices, and also providing direct support.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Some 70% of our economy is services, so what is the Department doing to reduce barriers in that area and supercharge our global trade in services?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
My hon. Friend raises an important point: more than 70% of our economy is services. Therefore, it is absolutely right that the Department for Business and Trade has a laser focus on services as well as goods, particularly in relation to international deals. Historically, some of those trade agreements have not covered services particularly well. The Secretary of State mentioned the Swiss agreement, which was silent on services. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right about this, and we have a hitlist of barriers we are working on. They relate to both goods and services, which are hugely important right across the country, including in his constituency.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
May I draw the Minister’s attention to a Which? investigation into the lack of consistency in unit pricing by supermarkets? That makes it difficult for consumers to work out the real price of goods and, crucially, to choose between them. The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at this issue, but will the Government talk to the supermarkets too?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Which? does fantastic work. The CMA acts independently, without ministerial influence, and it is right that it does. However, I am sure it is keeping a close eye on that matter. As I said in a previous answer, the best way we can regulate prices in the UK is through strong competition. We have a very strong, competitive market in the supermarkets, with 14 chains in this country, and that is the best way to hold down prices. However, she raises an important point and I am sure the CMA will have listened to it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
UK Export Finance plays a vital role in supporting export opportunities, but a company in my constituency is having difficulties landing support to secure a contract based in one of our Trans-Pacific Partnership area countries. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss this and how we can support that business?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I will see whether I can get a meeting with him, but, if not, I will make sure that one of my officials is able to look into this issue specifically for him.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. As I said earlier in reply to a question about energy support for small businesses, we do know that businesses are facing high energy costs. The Government are currently paying about half of everyone’s energy bills. I talked about the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme. We are doing everything we can to support businesses in the hospitality sector, but if there is something that is specific outside that, I ask her to please write to us and we will see whether there is any further support that can be offered.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Clearly, our regulation must work in favour of employment and helping people to get work and stay in work. I am very happy to meet him, possibly with one of my colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions, to look at this matter.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I am honoured to chair the all-party group on steel, and, as such, I have invited the Secretary of State to meet us, as all four of her predecessors have agreed to do. I am very disappointed that she has declined to do so. I urge her to reconsider that position.
The US is investing $282 billion in green manufacturing. The Spanish and German Governments are each investing £1 billion in the decarbonisation of their steel industries. Labour would match that opportunity with a £3 billion clean steel fund, but the Government’s response to date has been woefully inadequate. When will the Secretary of State bring forward a steel transition strategy that matches up with what our competitors are doing and that matches the ambition of our professional and dedicated steelworkers?
Kemi Badenoch
I have not declined to meet the all-party group on steel; I just said that it was subject to diary requirements. Where I have been is in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, visiting the steelworks. I did notify him before we went there, but he showed absolutely no interest in accompanying me to visit the steelworks in his constituency. We are spending quite a lot of money on supporting the steel industry. We look at what has happened at Teesside and how we have regenerated the former steelworks. Those on his side of the House, however, have spent most of their time smearing the Mayor of Teesside and making it very difficult for the businesses there to continue to make the investment they need in order to help turn the sector around.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Marshalls Bakery, a small business in my constituency, has just closed its doors after 43 years of trading. The owners told me that they were unable to withstand the combined pressures of covid, rising wheat and container charges and high energy costs. They feel let down and are angry at the lack of Government support for businesses such as theirs. Can the Minister tell me what further steps he is taking to ensure that other small businesses can survive in this challenging climate to provide the certainty from Government that they so desperately need?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sorry to hear about the demise of that business in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Clearly, it has been a very tough time for businesses in recent years, with the covid crisis followed by the cost of living crisis. I am very happy to meet her to discuss what support we provide, which is to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. I am informed that there has been £1 billion of support to businesses over recent years. The schemes running at the moment include: the rates discount at £13.6 billion; and £23 billion has been put into helping businesses with energy costs. I am very happy to meet her to discuss that further.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
UK semiconductor businesses have been crying out for the semiconductor strategy. I have asked a number of questions about this, and two weeks ago the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation told me it would be published in “a matter of days”. The Secretary of State loves a doughty champion; can she be a doughty champion for the semiconductor industry and speak to colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to get the strategy published?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I do not need any excuse to chase up the Department on the semiconductor strategy, and I will do so. As the hon. Lady knows, it does not sit within our remit, but with DSIT. In this Department, we are making sure that the critical minerals needed to put semiconductors together are in the supply chain and that we can get hold of them, but I am more than happy to chase up that strategy.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Large global car makers have warned that the UK’s transition to electric vehicles will be impeded if the UK Government and the EU do not delay the stricter rules of origin, which could add tariffs on car exports. Will Ministers negotiate on the issue to safeguard the UK’s automotive industry?
Kemi Badenoch
The answer is yes; we are actively working on the issue, and we are not the only country impacted by it. Just yesterday, officials from Germany were talking about how they needed to look into it. It is due to the rising cost of components, which we will look at as part of our trade and co-operation agreement, but it is something that both sides are interested in resolving, so I assure the hon. Lady that we are actively working on it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Businesses and organisations in my constituency, and no doubt beyond, have ended up marooned on exceptionally high energy tariffs because they were forced to sign contracts at the height of the crisis. What conversations have Ministers had with Ofgem and with the energy companies to see what can be done to support those businesses, as those tariffs will be a drag on their future growth and development, and in some cases threaten their very survival?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Alongside the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, I met energy suppliers and Ofgem recently to discuss the matter. The problem is principally that energy prices have fallen, so businesses entering into new contracts today are getting more competitive rates, but the ones who entered contracts between July and December last year are facing difficulties. The energy suppliers have promised to help, but if the hon. Lady wants to talk to me about any particular instances, I am happy to help.
Stephen Kinnock
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the exchange I just had with the Secretary of State, I want to underline the point that her office has declined and said that she would not be interested in meeting the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries. While she did come to visit the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency, which of course I welcome, I was not invited to join her on that visit, whereas I understand the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) was invited to join her on the visit to the Scunthorpe steelworks. I just want to set the record straight on those points.
Mr Speaker
Does the Secretary of State want to come back on that?
Mr Speaker
First of all, that is a point of correction rather than a point of order, but if somebody has made a mistake in the information given to the House, it must be corrected. I will leave that to whoever is right or wrong, and I am not going to make a judgment.
Kemi Badenoch
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that what he has said is the case, but I will check the records and make sure that he gets a response to the correction he has made.
Mr Speaker
Thank you, Secretary of State. Please check, but please also correct the matter in writing for the record of the House—if that was the case, may I add?
Business of the House
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 22 May will include:
Monday 22 May—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.
Tuesday 23 May—Opposition day (16th allotted day). Debate in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 24 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
Thursday 25 May—Debate on a motion on recognition of the Ukrainian Holodomor, followed by a general debate on tackling Islamophobia. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 25 May and return on Monday 5 June.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. May I say how refreshing it is to see a Tory Cabinet Minister speaking at the actual Dispatch Box, rather than at the National Conservatism conference podium?
I assume that the Prime Minister signed off on the announcement by the Leader of the House today, but it would not surprise me if he had not, as we have Cabinet Ministers jockeying for position and coming up with whole new agendas—left, right and, well, even further to the right. Civil war season in the Tory party comes around faster every year, but every time it is working people who suffer. Ministers pass the buck, blame anyone but themselves and act as commentators, as if they have no power. That is reflected in the business.
Perhaps we could find time for a debate on ministerial responsibility; perhaps the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities could lead it. At that conference, he admitted that
“there simply aren’t enough homes. It is increasingly difficult to get on the property ladder.”
I presume he realises that he is the Housing Secretary. Why has he not done anything about it? He is only making the situation worse by prioritising his Back Benchers over Britain’s young people. Is it not time that he came here and answered questions from MPs?
After calling for it last week, I was glad that the Renters (Reform) Bill was announced this week. Can the Leader of the House tell Bristol’s renters when that Bill will receive its Second Reading? I did not notice it in the business. Labour wants to see a four-month notice period, a national register of landlords, and a host of new rights for tenants, including the right to make alterations to their homes, to request speedy repairs and to have pets.
Many Bristolians also want to buy their first home—that is true of people up and down the country—but we need more affordable green homes. If the Government do not have any ideas of their own, perhaps they could introduce a Bill that includes Labour’s plans to fix the housing crisis. We would take on planning reform, bring back local housing targets and remove the veto used by big landowners to stop shovels hitting the ground. We would also prioritise first-time buyers. Where is the Government’s plan for aspiring homeowners? Can the Housing Secretary come and tell us what it is?
Can the Leader of the House clarify whether Tory Ministers are taking full responsibility for their own conduct? Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—I have notified them both of my intention to mention them—saying that the Government found no signs of corruption or illegality in the redevelopment of a massive site in the north-east. She did not declare in that letter, however, that she had received thousands of pounds in a donation from a local businessman who has a holding in Teesworks Ltd, the company redeveloping the site. I must stress that she has registered that donation in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but the ministerial code states that
“Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”,
so can the Leader of the House clarify whether any rules have been broken? If so, what steps will be taken?
To continue the theme of failing to take responsibility, I see that the Home Secretary also enjoyed a day out at the circus. Contradicting her own Prime Minister, she said that she would cut immigration. I wonder whether she realises that she is actually the Home Secretary. Shortly after, the Prime Minister hit back with an announcement of visas for 10,000 more seasonal workers. Who are we to believe? Who holds the authority: the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister? What is the Government’s policy? We need clarity. Instead of answering questions from friends at the Conservatives’ conspiracy comic con—I love a bit of alliteration on a Thursday—perhaps the Home Secretary could get on with her job, come to this House and answer questions from MPs.
Why is the Prime Minister not taking responsibility for the behaviour of his Cabinet colleagues? Is he really so weak that he will let them get away with openly undermining his authority like that? Will the Leader of the House at least try to fill some of the massive leadership black hole that is lingering over the Conservative party right now? Perhaps she will follow the example of an important figure in England’s other great civil war. In Parliament 375 years ago today, Thomas Fairfax, an English politician and parliamentary commander-in-chief—yes, he too had a sword—spoke of the need to suppress the insurrectionists. I am not asking for that, but perhaps the Leader of the House is today prepared to stop her Cabinet colleagues squabbling among themselves and get them to take responsibility and actually start governing.
Finally, I do not normally do weeks or days, but this week is Dementia Action Week. I recently attended the funeral of a family member who lost their life to dementia, and so many colleagues and people up and down the country will have had that experience. Some 40% of people currently with dementia are not diagnosed. I am asking the Leader of the House, as a special personal request and on behalf of everybody who has met people who have dementia, to ask for a progress report from her colleagues on dementia diagnosis, as 91% of people who have one say that it is better to know.
Penny Mordaunt
I will take the hon. Lady’s last point first. These awareness weeks afford us an opportunity to put a spotlight on what is happening on care, research, support and the progress made. There is some good news, in that our fantastic scientists have made real breakthroughs in recent years, but of course raising awareness and getting an early diagnosis can make a huge difference to the quality of people’s lives. I shall certainly ensure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard that point and updates the House in one form or another.
This week, we have commemorated the 80th anniversary of the Dambusters raid. We all know in this place that Wing Commander Gibson led that mission, and he later died after completing 170 war operations, aged just 26. What Members and the public may not know is that he was also the prospective parliamentary candidate for Macclesfield. At his death, Churchill wrote:
“I had hoped that he would come into Parliament and make his way there after the stress of the war was over, but he never spared himself nor would allow others to spare him. We have lost in this officer one of the most splendid of all our fighting men. His name will not be forgotten; it will for ever be enshrined in the most wonderful records of our country.”
We should never forget what a privilege it is to serve in this House, nor the price others paid so that we could.
On the very serious point that the hon. Lady raised about the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), this is recent news, but I know that the Department has issued a statement saying that all the reporting that should have been done had been done, and there was not a conflict of interest; it was something that happened before the election. I think she has honoured all her obligations in that respect.
With regard to the Teesside issue, it is a concern for all people, and even the Mayor last night was asking for more scrutiny to demonstrate that all that should have been done had been done. It is important that we focus on the facts. I understand the need and wish to make political capital out of this situation, but it is also about ensuring business confidence in a part of the world that we are keen to level up.
The hon. Lady talks about different policies and division in the Conservative party, which is high praise indeed from a party so qualified in the art, although—credit where credit is due—I think some unity has broken out in the Labour party. The shadow Deputy Prime Minister, the shadow Levelling Up Secretary, the shadow Health Secretary, the shadow Justice Secretary, the shadow Defence Secretary, the shadow Business Secretary, the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, the shadow Environment Minister and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland are all united against the Labour leader’s latest policy U-turn. They are all what he would describe as “blockers” to development. To give them some comfort, most of his policies and pledges have been ditched within a few months, so my advice to them is to hang tight and that is bound to happen.
The hon. Lady is right: people want to own their own homes. It is important to their financial resilience and it provides them and their family with certainty about their future. While I recognise that there is more to do, I am very happy to contrast our record with Labour’s on building homes. Some 2.2 million additional homes have been delivered since 2010. House building starts have increased by over 108% since Labour was in power. There are 15% fewer dwellings failing to meet the decent homes standard. Housing supply was up 10% on last year and last year saw a 20-year high in people taking their first steps on the property ladder. Through Help to Buy, we have assisted 837,000 households to own their own home.
The hon. Lady talks about ministerial responsibility and the focus we have had this week on conservative philosophy. To me, being a Conservative has always meant taking responsibility for yourself and others. The facts of life are conservative, and ours is a party that values the individual and their potential. We are the party that puts people first, and we are the party of the first-person plural, “we”—not us or they, but we. We widen opportunity, responsibility and pride in our nation, and the stake people have in it. It is the Labour party, her party, that narrows and diminishes.
Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the widespread need to reduce speed limits on rural roads for safety reasons, and to reduce the protracted procedures that can apply when trying to achieve that, even on one individual road? This is an issue of great concern to my local councillors Patrick Redstone and Liz Wardlaw, who are working hard on the issue, as is the Cheshire police and crime commissioner, John Dwyer.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question, and for the work that she is doing with her councillors and the police and crime commissioner on that important matter. She will know that the next relevant questions will be on 8 June and I suggest she raises the matter with the Secretary of State.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
This week, Britain has been treated to not one, but two, Conservative conferences: the far-right Conservative Democratic Organisation and the extreme far-right National Conservatism conferences. I was rather surprised that the Leader of the House was not there after her recent starring role; nevertheless, the Home Secretary, the Levelling Up Secretary, and lots of up-and-coming Tory Back Benchers all made eye-catching contributions, along with some other rather extraordinary speeches. The holocaust was dismissed as Nazis mucking things up, and we were told that only married straight couples could safely bring up children, that pagans and narcissists are harming western civilisation, and that woke teachers are ruining children’s education—it should make for an interesting Tory manifesto. Many of my constituents are extremely concerned by these latest developments. Can we have a debate to examine the extremist language and attitudes that we have witnessed at those conferences, and can the Leader of the House tell us whether they further signal her Government’s alarming slide into the grip of the far right, or will she reject these ideas out of hand like all decent people?
At Prime Minister’s questions last week, the Prime Minister said that the Scottish Government should ditch plans to introduce highly protected marine areas, apparently unaware that the Scottish Government are only at the very start of a consultation process, with many hundreds of responses to go through yet, and that our First Minister and Ministers have said that no community will have an HPMA forced upon it. I do not know why some of the Prime Minister’s Tory MSPs could not have told him that, although judging from recent behaviour in the Scottish Parliament, perhaps some struggle to use the internet.
However, rather embarrassingly, I see that the PM himself, when touting for Tory membership votes last year, signed a pledge from the Conservative Friends of the Ocean group supporting the creation of HPMAs, and his Government recently announced that three HPMAs will be created in England. What is going on here? I know that the Conservatives are desperate to win back the Scottish coastal communities after their Brexit catastrophe, but those communities will see through this hypocrisy, and my jaw nearly hit the floor when I saw that the lead patron of that same Conservative Friends of the Ocean group was the Leader of the House herself. Perhaps a debate sorting out exactly where the UK Government are on this important issue would be helpful, and can the Leader of the House clarify how she is dealing with the PM’s flip-flopping on HPMAs? Will she be resigning from Government to honour her role as patron, or resigning as patron to uphold Government policy?
Penny Mordaunt
First, the hon. Lady asks me about the National Conservatism conference. That is not a conference that has been organised by Government or the Conservative party, and is therefore not within my remit or responsibilities to respond to. I am taking this as a positive, as she is running out of complaints to raise about my Government.
She raises the matter of HPMAs. I am very proud of my Government’s record, both on improving water quality and boosting the economic resilience of coastal communities and the many things that we have done around the world to protect our valuable oceans, including the Blue Charter and others. I am proud to be patron of that Conservative group that looks after our oceans and the industries they support.
I gently say to the hon. Lady that I hope we all share those aims in this place, but how we go about doing things is also rather important. The complaints that not just Conservative MPs and MSPs have about how the Scottish Government have been going about this, and the concerns that have been raised by many coastal communities, are because the Scottish Government do not consult and do not listen to those communities. It is the same story with their disastrous bottle deposit return scheme, which will impact negatively on recycling rates and cause massive problems for businesses.
I was surprised this week that the hon. Lady decided to have an Opposition day debate on the cost of living, given that the SNP is hiking taxes, spending like there is no tomorrow and failing to deliver on decent public services. We have heard this week that it will now cost more to finish those ferries that are so massively overdue than to do a complete new build. We know that Scottish Ministers appreciate the difficulty for and impact on their constituents and the travelling public, because in order for them to visit the island of Rùm, they had to hire their own boat; they were not able to use the ferry services.
I wonder whether the hon. Lady and her colleagues have read any of Audit Scotland’s reports or acted on any of its recommendations. They have no concept of the catalogue we now have of arrests and raids and multiple police investigations into the mismanagement of their party finances, and of how negatively that has reflected on Scottish politics. We also have the poor stewardship of public funds and an increasing question about the ongoing saga of the Scottish National Investment Bank. We are wondering not just how much longer those CalMac ferries will be in the dock, but how many SNP figures will be as well.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The European Scrutiny Committee, with three formal invitations, has been trying to secure the appearance of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade before our Committee on the issue of retained EU law for almost three months. That is not to mention last week’s urgent question and my business question last week to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Over the past few days, I have been trying to secure the attendance of the Secretary of State through No. 10 and otherwise. My Committee understood that she might appear before us today. Despite everything, that has not transpired, and we have received no response from her or her staff. It is not possible to believe that she does not know that we have been making these representations through No. 10. She must clearly know that, given the timing of procedures, the need for her appearance by today was critical. It is now too late, given the proceedings in the Lords. We have heard nothing from her or her team. The Bill has now completed Report in the House of Lords. The failure to appear before our Committee is a grave discourtesy to the Committee and to this House in obstructing our work and the work of the House. Does my right hon. Friend know why the Secretary of State has been so clearly obstructive to my Committee on a matter of such vital national interest?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he and his Committee have done on this incredibly important issue. He has expressed concerns about the schedule of EU retained law to be revoked, the Government’s policy on that and Brexit opportunities, and the opportunity that his Committee and other Members of this House will have to scrutinise. I go through those concerns, because I emphasise to him that this Government take those concerns extremely seriously. My understanding, and I checked this morning, is that the Secretary of State has agreed to appear before his Committee. After this session, I will make sure that he is updated on that, but that is my understanding as of a few moments ago.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench Business debates for next Thursday. The Backbench Business Committee already has a very busy schedule for Chamber debates for June, but we do rely on a steady flow of applications for debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. As I have mentioned, we are already quite busy for June, but upcoming commemorative dates in July that Members may wish to consider applying for debates on to recognise them include, among other things, the International Day of Co-operatives, World Youth Skills Day, Nelson Mandela Day and, of course, International Moon Day. We are looking forward to an application for a debate on International Moon Day and I am sure that will be forthcoming.
Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing success to Gateshead football club, my home town team, who are playing in the final of the FA trophy at Wembley on Sunday, where I will be in attendance?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for again giving an advertisement for the work of his Committee. I think I heard him say International Moon Day. I do hope it is in relation to the astronomical interpretation of that word, otherwise it is going to be an extremely interesting debate.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her recent visit with me in Stafford to see for herself the Beaconside campus and the Home Office’s proposed site for a new asylum seeker site in my constituency. I explained to her my very strong objections to that proposal, and shared those of the huge number of constituents who have written to me to complain about it. Can she provide time for a debate on asylum seeker policy and its impact on the west midlands?
Penny Mordaunt
I was pleased to respond to my hon. Friend’s invitation for me to visit her constituency, and in particular to see that site. I know she has been speaking to many people in Government to emphasise her concerns and represent the views of her many constituents who are worried about this. She will know that this is one reason why we are bringing forward new legislation to relieve the unsustainable pressure on our asylum system and accommodation services, which are costing this country £3 billion a year. She will note the remarks of the Prime Minister, at the Council of Europe the other day, in calling for other countries to recognise how we need to work together to make sure that the finite resource we have to support people in desperate need is directed to those people who need that care most.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Women’s organisations have warned that the cost of living crisis is having a devastating impact on women, putting them at greater risk of violence and abuse. On my visits to refuges, I have heard stories of women who are considering returning to their abuser because they are living in poverty and the rising cost of living means they cannot see a way out of their situation. Can we please have a debate on mitigating the cost of living crisis for domestic abuse services and victims?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises an important point. She will know that the next Home Office questions will be next week, and she can raise that matter then. This is a concern to Government, and it is why we have brought forward new measures to ensure that financial support is in place for anyone fleeing those situations.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend be able to provide time for a debate on the efficiency of some Government Departments in responding to correspondence? I refer particularly to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to which I wrote on behalf of a constituent on 18 December, the five-month anniversary of which occurs today. I reminded it on 13 February and 10 March and I actually took to the airwaves on a certain television programme to remind it on 13 April, and still no answer is forthcoming. May we cover in this debate whether Departments that are incompetent at replying to correspondence are competent at bringing forward legislation?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about that situation. My right hon. Friend is also a Privy Counsellor and it is a courtesy to Privy Counsellors that Secretaries of State should respond to their correspondence. Of course, every Department must be responding to correspondence from Members of this House in a timely way. I would be happy to take up this particular instance and I am sorry that he has had this shoddy treatment.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say to the Leader of the House that it might be worth while if we were to have a meeting with the Chief Whip? It is becoming more and more apparent that Members—Back Benchers in particular —cannot represent their constituents when Departments do not answer their correspondence in good time. I would say that it is now becoming the way forward not to answer Members. That is not acceptable, we need to get it resolved and I am sure that we can both do that together to represent Back Benchers in the way they should be and, more importantly, their constituents.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
One hundred and thirty years ago, Ivor Novello was born in Cowbridge Road East in my Cardiff West constituency. Today, we celebrate the Ivor Novello awards that bear his name, with the wonderful, brilliant song writing and composing community that we have in the UK. May we have a debate about the contribution that is made, both culturally and economically, by our brilliant song writers and composers in the UK, and explore Government policy and the implications of artificial intelligence and so on for the future of our brilliant song writing and composing community?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising awareness of that important anniversary, and for affording us an opportunity to reflect on the recent triumph of the city of Liverpool, which has such an incredible musical heritage, in hosting Eurovision. Music has a huge legacy and tradition in this country, and it is also important to our economy. If he were to apply for a debate, I am sure that it would be well attended.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Vahid Beheshti was carrying out his hunger strike on the opposite side of the road from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for more than 70 days before being taken to hospital. The good news is that he is likely to be allowed to leave hospital today. The bad news is that there are continued threats to his peace camp. May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary about measures that the Government will take to combat the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the nefarious activities that it has launched in the UK, and about the literal epidemic of executions taking place in Iran right now, involving innocent people whose only crime has been to demonstrate against the current Administration?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, and I am glad that Vahid Beheshti is recovering and regaining his strength. His protest was not just about what was happening in Iran, important though that is; it was also about the increasing intimidation of and threats to murder individuals who are in the UK. That should concern us. Such threats have been made against Vahid Beheshti and others supporting his protest, and the message we should all send from this place, today and every day, is that our eyes are on those people. We will ensure that they have the right to protest and get across their point of view about what is happening in Iran.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Last night the Environment Secretary chose to say on ITV that there is “misinformation” about sewage being dumped into our rivers, rather than acknowledging the problem. That is really insulting. People have been made sick after swimming in raw sewage. It is a serious and disgusting stain on our country, yet the Environment Secretary blames “misinformation” for the scandal. May we have a debate in Government time, led by the Environment Secretary, on the alleged misinformation of sewage reporting, including why thousands of sewage monitors are broken?
Penny Mordaunt
When we came into office, just 6% of storm overflows were monitored. That figure is now 100%. But I know that there are issues, which are different in different areas, with the monitoring systems. The hon. Lady will have heard today’s announcement from Water UK about the £10 billion that is being invested by 2030 to stop storm overflows, and it also announced some additional measures to improve monitoring. This is an ongoing situation, and we have a clear, funded plan to end storm overflows. That is incredibly important to our coastal communities, and we need to stick to those facts.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I recently raised concerns about National Grid connection times, as I know have other colleagues. I am concerned that long waiting times may be hampering business and industry, our attractiveness as a place to do businesses, and our environmental credentials. I recently spoke to the British Metals Recycling Association, which raised those concerns on behalf of its members, who potentially face waiting times of years to be connected to the grid. Will the Leader of the House support a debate in Government time so that we can talk about how to prioritise some of those key installations, and do our bit to support business?
Penny Mordaunt
That is an excellent topic for a debate, and my hon. Friend will know how to apply for one. The next Energy Security and Net Zero questions are on 23 May. She will know that we are working with Ofgem and the network companies to reform the connection process and bring forward connection dates, and we will set out further action in a connections action plan this summer.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I am amazed that we are not having a statement from the Environment Secretary today, given the announcement from the water companies. They issued an apology for their appalling performance, discharging sewage into our rivers and coastal areas, but alongside that apology they announced that water bill payers will have to fork out £10 billion to put all of that right. Imagine if a garbage disposal company decided that it was cheap and quick to dump rubbish in our town centres, disrupting all of those businesses, or if local authorities chose to dump it in swimming pools because that was cheap for them, disrupting people who want to take their families swimming? That is exactly what the water companies have been doing. They have been wrecking tourism in coastal areas and seaside towns, and stopping people from swimming in our rivers—that is totally intolerable. And now they are telling us that, to put all of it right, they will charge us £10 billion. When will we get a statement on that?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall ensure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s request for a statement, but I do not think that what he says is quite correct. The only way to end storm overflows and sewage going into our rivers and around our coast is to invest in and upgrade infrastructure. Work has started now. We have legislated so that every water company needs to have a plan in place and to meet those targets. It is a shared cost, but I will give him some hope. We know from where work has already been done—in London, for example, with Thames Water—that the cost to the bill payer has not been great. We have got to make this investment, which will be shared between bill payers—all of us—and those companies. It needs to be done.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I was delighted to welcome Molton Monthly, the south-west enterprise champions, to this week’s Countryside Alliance rural oscars here in Westminster, celebrating some of the best rural businesses, presented by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In the same week, we have seen the Farm to Fork Summit, with additional support for our fabulous farmers. While warmly welcoming all the work that DEFRA does to support rural communities, does my right hon. Friend agree that rurality should be considered in decisions across Departments such as on decarbonising transport, energy efficiency and equity of health and education outcomes, as work to design such policies in SW1 may need adapting to be effective in our rural communities? Might we secure a debate in Government time to see how practically we can implement a more rural focus?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate everyone who took part in the Countryside Alliance rural oscars. I thank them for coming to Westminster. She will know we take this matter seriously. DEFRA has launched the £110 million rural England prosperity fund, and we also have Project Gigabit funding and our multimillion-pound rural mobility fund. Those things are in place precisely because of the issues that she raised.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Can we have a debate about the switchover from copper cables to fibre for our phone networks? Concerns have been raised about vulnerable citizens—particularly the elderly and the disabled—and what might happen were there to be an outage in the fibre network. We now hear that a survey from Citizens Advice says that up to 1 million people have cancelled their broadband subscription because of the cost of living. We need to know the implications of that in terms of the fibre network, so could we have that debate, which would give Members the chance to thrash out the issues and get some concrete answers from the Government?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the issue that the hon. Lady raises is a concern to many Members in this House. I have written to several Departments on this matter. If she were to apply for a debate, I am sure it would be extremely well attended. Such issues are very timely, so I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what she has said.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The very encouraging Government White Paper on gambling tackles the destructive impact, especially of online gambling, without damaging legitimate betting, racing or the lottery fund. But just as we consider banning gambling advertising from football, so the industry now turns its focus towards rugby. Although I do not believe that premiership rugby union clubs wish to accept gambling advertising, they may be tempted to do so in a tough financial situation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity for the Government to influence Premiership Rugby Ltd to reduce the cap on players, and perhaps extend the repayment of Government loans during the pandemic? Does she agree that this is a great opportunity to have a debate on the future of rugby, so that we can proactively tackle these problems before gambling shifts from football to rugby?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend not just for his question, but for proposing a solution for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport so that those clubs do not have to rely on income from particular sources. Given that the relevant questions are not until 15 June, I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard his question and his suggestion.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
There have been shocking revelations this week of desperate parents forced to steal in order to feed their infant children. When challenged, the Prime Minister replied that the Healthy Start allowance was the mechanism to support such families, yet it has been frozen in each of the last two years, despite huge food price inflation. When I asked the Leader of the House about this issue three months ago, she told me to raise it with relevant Ministers. I have done so, to no avail, so I have secured a Westminster Hall debate on this issue on Tuesday. Given the seriousness of this matter, could she advise me on what other mechanisms are available to Members who want to ensure that no parent has to make such a decision again?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing his Westminster Hall debate—he has successfully advertised it today and I hope it will be well attended. He will know that, in addition to the Government’s £94 billion support package to assist with the cost of living, we give funding to be distributed nationally as well as ensuring that local authorities have enough flexibility to be able to target households in greater need or that have fallen through the cracks, through the household support fund and others. This is a serious and important matter to us. I will see what is said in his Westminster Hall debate, and I thank him for securing it.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the ongoing situation on the provision of mental health services via Tees, Esk and Wear Valley NHS Foundation Trust, with a rapid review underway into its services. In recent weeks and months we have seen continuing coverage of yet more alarming news about TEWV in The Northern Echo. As we await the publication of the rapid review, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the performance of TEWV and a potential public inquiry into the trust?
Penny Mordaunt
I am extremely sorry to hear about the ongoing situation and the difficulties for my hon. Friend’s constituents. He knows that I am unable to comment on current legal proceedings before his local magistrates court, but I congratulate him on his diligent campaigning on these matters and on ensuring that his constituents will get the services that they are entitled to and deserve. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard his concerns again today.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Why is it that Westminster is always the last to the table to accept state responsibility for the most vulnerable members of society? Between 1949 and 1976, an estimated quarter of a million children across these islands were taken from their mothers and fathers and forcibly adopted. I stand here as possibly one of those children. Despite the Scottish and Welsh Governments issuing a formal apology, the UK Government stopped short and said:
“We are sorry on behalf of society for what happened.”
Adoption is a formal state practice; it is the state that is responsible for setting standards and protecting people. Forced adoption is not simply a historical injustice, but an ongoing injustice. Can we have a statement in which the UK Government will finally issue a formal apology to those mothers, fathers and children who continue to be affected by what was an abhorrent practice?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. We are grateful to him for sharing his personal experience, which helps us to understand the impact on individuals and others who are affected. I will make sure that Cabinet Office colleagues have heard his concerns today. It will be a matter for several Departments, so I will ask the Cabinet Office to get in touch with his office.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
Many of my constituents have written to me saying that they are extremely upset about the state of Heath Town swimming baths, in my constituency. Heath Town swimming baths is a grade II listed art deco building of which many people in Wolverhampton are extremely proud. It has been closed for nearly 20 years and the council has allowed it to get into an absolute state of dereliction. There was a fire there last year. Residents living near the baths have suffered antisocial behaviour and various problems with drug taking and disruption. Can we have a debate about the responsibility of councils towards heritage buildings under their stewardship? It is extremely important to lots of Wulfrunians that we preserve this valuable asset for our city.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I fully appreciate the ambitions her constituents will have for this important facility, both as somewhere that teaches life skills and keeps people fit and healthy, and as a building that provides a sense of place to the community and is part of a treasured heritage. Where local authorities drop the ball, this Government have done a considerable amount to facilitate community asset transfers. My local lido has been the beneficiary of that and is currently being refurbished through the levelling-up fund. I would be happy to ensure the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has heard my hon. Friend’s concerns, so that we can see what we can do to assist her and her community in protecting this important and much-loved asset.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House as her words last week seem to have done the trick. The director general of the BBC has agreed to meet a cross-party group of MPs to talk about the vandalism to BBC local radio. At the same time, published figures show that BBC Radio Humberside’s audience is going up in reach and hours listened, which is positive. Can we have a debate about the Government’s decision this week to scrap regional levelling-up officials and whether that shows that they have given up on their flagship policy of levelling up?
Penny Mordaunt
First, may I say “Hooray!”? I thank the right hon. Lady for raising the matter and all Members of the House who put their shoulder behind her to secure that meeting. I hope it goes well. As I said last week, BBC local radio is not only a vital lifeline for people to get information and keep in touch with what is going on in their communities, but also important for democracy and the business of this place. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has heard her concerns, but I assure her that we are very much committed to the levelling-up agenda and making good progress against it.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Hemel Hempstead and Berkhamsted are fewer than 15 miles from Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and Houghton Regis, and yet petrol has regularly been 10p a litre cheaper in Hemel Hempstead and Berkhamsted than in my constituency, quite often at the same supermarket. The tanker is literally going up the road and charging 10p a litre more to my constituents. The Competition and Markets Authority is independent—I understand that—but it should be accountable to this House. It is simply not acceptable to have that level of profiteering from my constituents, who are struggling with their bills at the moment. What are the Government going to do about that?
Penny Mordaunt
This has been an issue for some time. As my hon. Friend will know, Fair Fuel UK has been monitoring the disparities, and the Competition and Markets Authority has suggested that something additional is going on, over and above the lag between wholesale purchase and the price at the pump. The issue is important to many people, and The Sun has been campaigning on it as well. The message from all Members to the CMA should be that it pulls its finger out and gets to the bottom of this so that we ensure our constituents and businesses are dealt with fairly. Such a huge additional cost is not helping the cost of living. Fuel at the pump is a vital commodity, and people should not be paying pay more for it than they have to.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I know very well that the Leader of the House values Portsmouth lifeboat station every bit as much as my constituents value those at Montrose and Arbroath. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution is an august organisation which holds a special place in the heart of communities throughout these islands, especially coastal communities, so it is deeply unfortunate that in Arbroath, in my constituency, it has chosen to downgrade the Mersey-class all-weather lifeboat to an Atlantic 85 rigid inflatable boat rather than a Shannon-class all-weather lifeboat. This goes against the will of the community, it goes against the will of the local crew, it follows a fairly scant—I was going to say “consultation”, but this was more of a monologue—and it goes against three coastal reviews which found that the Shannon-class lifeboat would have the best life-saving effect in Arbroath. May we have a debate about the nature of the RNLI—not just about the outstanding work that it does, but about the need for partnership working?
Penny Mordaunt
Members in all parts of the House would want to express support and admiration for the incredible work done by the crews of the RNLI. I greatly value the Portsmouth team, who save lives and prevent all kinds of terrible things from happening, and I know that the downgrading of the hon. Gentleman’s local lifeboat will be of concern to the crews and also to many in the community. The RNLI is an independent organisation which relies on public donations, and I hope that in raising local concern about this matter, we will also encourage people to donate to it.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
My constituency has benefited from more than £300 million of additional investment during the current Parliament, including more than £100 million in levelling up moneys. Our final ask in Blackpool is a £30 million package for the redevelopment of the Bond Street area, which is one of the most deprived parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the impact of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and the positive benefits that it is bringing to communities such as mine?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the funding that he has already managed to secure, and wish him luck in securing the further amount that he wants for the area that he mentioned. We have been investing in communities that have been neglected for a long time. These schemes are not just about the infrastructure, the new buildings and the look and feel of a place, but about bringing people together to have an input in the design and help to shape their communities. This is incredibly important work, and I am sure that if my hon. Friend applied for a debate, it would be well attended.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The UK life sciences sector excelled during the covid crisis, and we applauded it for that, but since then the picture has been less rosy. The number of clinical trials being undertaken has fallen back badly, and we have fallen down the international league table. The Government are aware of this; they have appointed Lord O’Shaughnessy to conduct a review, and his findings are expected soon. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made at that time, so that there can be a proper interrogation about his conclusions?
Penny Mordaunt
As the hon. Gentleman will know, this important matter is a priority for the Government. Our future national prosperity depends on it, and we also want to ensure that the people of this country benefit from the life sciences sector and innovations can be taken up quickly. I shall certainly ensure that my noble Friend Lord O’Shaughnessy has heard the hon. Gentleman’s request.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Erewash proudly boasts some of the finest indoor and outdoor bowls facilities in the country, including those at Stanton Clubhouse bowls club and Victoria Park bowls club, both of which will mark their centenary next year. Will my right hon. Friend provide Government time for a debate to discuss the physical and mental health benefits of this popular but often overlooked sport for people of all ages?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter, and I am glad to hear that those facilities are being put to good use in her constituency. We encourage all forms of physical activity through funding that we provide to Sport England. The Bowls Development Alliance, a partner of Sport England, receives just shy of £2 million to support a wide range of provision across the country. My hon. Friend will know how to apply for a debate, and I encourage her to do so.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for her help with the redundancy modification order. Although I trust her, I also submitted a written question to ask the relevant Secretary of State for his timeline for completing it. I received a response remarkably quickly—in about two weeks—and it said:
“Announcements will be set out in the usual way.”
I have been chasing the matter for eight years, and it was a problem before then. How much longer does the Leader of the House think my constituent will have to wait to get her organisation added to the list?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. I will take the matter up with the Department again and chase an answer for her, and perhaps suggest that the Minister meets her.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Back in May 2019, Joanne and Andrew Doody lost their much-loved son Peter, who died suddenly from epilepsy aged 21, having been diagnosed at the age of 17. Joanne and Andrew went on to form the Peter Doody Foundation, which has three aims: to raise awareness of epilepsy, to provide much-needed support for young adults with epilepsy, and to reduce the stigma associated with epilepsy. Will the Leader of the House join me in supporting Joanne and Andrew in their endeavours through the Peter Doody Foundation, and provide Government time for a debate on this incredibly important issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which is timely as next week is National Epilepsy Week, when I know many Members will want to shine a spotlight on the work going on in their constituencies. I know that all Members will also want to send our thanks to Joanne and Andrew for doing something so positive to help others out of the immense tragedy that they have suffered.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Tamil Remembrance Day is marked every year on this day, to remember the thousands of predominantly Tamil victims of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Fourteen years on from the end of the conflict, there is still no international mechanism for holding the perpetrators of war crimes on the island of Sri Lanka, such as extrajudicial killings, torture and rape, to account. Will the Leader of the House be good enough to ask the Foreign Secretary why Britain still will not use Magnitsky sanctions against some of the worst perpetrators, or even consider a referral to the International Criminal Court?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter and advertising the important moment when we can consider and remember all those victims of human rights abuses. He will know that the next Foreign Office questions are on 13 June. That is probably the best way to get an answer from the Secretary of State, but given that it is a little way off, I shall also make sure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I have been struck by the number of pubs and restaurants in my constituency, including the John O’ Gaunt in Hungerford and 137 Eat Drink Distil in Newbury, that have been in touch with me about the severe labour shortages that they are experiencing. May I invite my right hon. Friend to consider a debate in Government time to discuss the acute pressure on hospitality businesses across my constituency and, I think, more widely, and whether hospitality staff could be added to the Home Office’s shortage occupations list?
Penny Mordaunt
Such matters are for the Home Secretary, and the next Home Office questions are on 22 May. My hon. Friend will know that labour market participation has become a major challenge. Unemployment is at a near 50-year low, and since the covid-19 pandemic there has been a significant increase in the number of people neither in nor looking for work, resulting in near record levels of labour market tightness. I will make sure that both the Cabinet Office and the Home Secretary have heard her concerns.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The International Development Committee recently released a report recommending that Parliament introduces legislation to ensure that private lenders play their part in cancelling debt when lower-income countries are in crisis. The report describes the current debt distress of developing countries as “bleak” and “catastrophic”. The economic crisis and high interest rates mean that a staggering 54 countries now face a debt crisis, with speculators able to make more than 200% profit on debts. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out her support for the International Development Committee’s recommendations to help support the poorest countries on earth?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the International Development Committee for producing this report. The nation has a huge amount to offer on this agenda. A great number of the most innovative finance solutions that are helping people around the world have come from the City of London. Such organisations work very closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and other Departments to spot opportunities and to make sure that everyone who can help in a given situation is doing so. I will make sure the FCDO has heard the hon. Lady’s comments, and she will know that the next questions to the Foreign Secretary are on 13 June.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Department for Transport has confirmed that the Ukrainians who have come here from the conflict need to apply for a new driving licence after 12 months of residency, and they need to complete a practical driving test to confirm that new licence. There are huge backlogs in the testing system, and two of my constituents are concerned that they can no longer use their Ukrainian licence, cannot get a test and risk losing their jobs. Their employers have been on to me, begging for Ministers to intervene to ensure that these people, who have faced so much, can get their licences quickly and keep their jobs. Could the Leader of the House raise with Transport Ministers the urgent need to resolve the huge backlog in practical tests to ensure that these people, who have faced so much and who have come here at our invitation, get the support they need to keep their job?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman asks a very important and sensible question. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has been a huge success, but clearly, a year on, there will be new issues and new things that those being hosted here will need. We want people to be able to go about their life and take care of their family, and being able to drive is clearly a major part of that. This is an important matter, and I will make sure the Secretary of State for Transport has heard about this issue. I will also make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has heard it, as the scheme comes under his responsibilities.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
First Steps Nutrition Trust research has found that the cost of first infant formulas has increased by between 17% and 45% in the past two years. Sky News has reported this week on parents stealing, going to food banks, formula foraging on Facebook and watering down formula, which has a dangerous impact on infant health and development. Can we have an urgent statement from the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Prime Minister, given his food summit earlier this week, on the need to cap the cost of infant formula, which remains an essential item for many families? Letting the market set the cost is a big part of this crisis.
Penny Mordaunt
We are supporting families through the current cost of living pressures, and supporting families with young children is a priority for this Government. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) has advertised his Westminster Hall debate on this matter, to which a Minister will respond. I will also make sure the Minister has heard the hon. Lady’s comments.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
There was a disturbing report earlier this week from the BBC about a reporter who had accessed three private clinics for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment. They had told him that he had ADHD, but when he went for an NHS assessment he was told that he did not. That raises huge questions about the regulation of these private clinics, but a wider issue is involved: people cannot get access to the NHS for assessments in the first place. I have heard of stories of people waiting up to five years to receive an assessment, and in my area the NHS is refusing to accept new referrals. May we therefore have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about what they are going to do to tackle this growing problem?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. He will know that the next questions are not until 6 June, so I shall make sure that the Secretary of State has heard his remarks. It is incredibly important that people have access to a diagnosis and access in regard to education, so that what they need, be it care or additional support, can be put in place. We take these things extremely seriously and I shall ensure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), I was contacted by a constituent who states:
“I have recently connected to the internet under the Home essential broadband, with BT. I was supposed to be connected on the 4th May, today is the 11th. I have had 2 engineer visits and today I was told I couldn’t get connected unless I upgraded my package by £10 per month, on top of the £15 already agreed”.
The position on the issue of social tariffs has been supported by Ofcom, whose figures have revealed that just 5% of eligible households had taken them up as of the last period. My constituent, who has argued their point, is now connected to the internet, but does the Leader of House agree that it is time we had a statement from the relevant Minister to hold these companies to account and to force them to keep up their end of the broadband bargain?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point, and I am sorry that his constituents have had that experience. He has just missed Business and Trade questions, so I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard his concerns. He is right: it takes a number of players to ensure that we are able to get people the connectivity and broadband speeds that they need, and we expect the private sector to play its part too.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a statement on oral health for children? Last year, there were 26,741 extractions for decay of children’s teeth, involving children who were three and a half times more likely to be from deprived communities. This cost the NHS £50.9 million. Clearly, the situation is completely unacceptable; we know children cannot access NHS dentistry. Now that the responsibility has moved to integrated care boards, can we ensure that they prioritise oral health for children and have an NHS dental service for children up and running within the year?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important matter. Not only are regular exams crucial for ensuring good oral health; they can also detect other health conditions that need to be dealt with early. This problem has been exacerbated by the pandemic, with children and vulnerable and looked-after children in particular not getting check-ups. She will know that this issue has been a priority for the Minister responsible. In addition, the Health Secretary has created a mechanism so that we can see and compare what care boards are doing. That is an incredibly valuable tool. I have been talking to him about how Members in this place can access that data on a real-time basis and I will make sure that he has heard the hon. Lady’s comments today.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The discussion in this place and in public about the controversial proposals for highly protected marine areas has rightly focused so far on the potential impact on fishing and coastal communities, in Scotland, in particular. I was reminded by the Scottish Government’s policy paper that:
“It is intended that no new renewable energy projects will be allowed in an area designated as a HPMA. This includes exploratory activity or construction of new infrastructure.”
May we have a statement on whether the UK Government are aware of the potential implications in this reserved area and whether any discussions are ongoing with the Scottish Government about it?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady is right that there are concerns about the scheme. Understandably, we tend to focus on the impact on coastal communities and they have been very vocal in their concerns. However, there are other implications, which is why we need to ensure that, when such schemes are proposed, there is proper consultation and engagement with all communities and all parties. Clearly, we would hope that there are ambitions for energy generation; that is certainly what the Scottish Government say. These are matters for them, but I know that the hon. Lady and my Conservative colleagues will do everything they can to make sure that all voices are heard and that this scheme makes sense.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Later this week, we will see the publication of the latest version of the rich list in The Sunday Times. It will show that the rich are getting richer and that the country’s wealth is being concentrated in ever fewer hands. In response, a group called Patriotic Millionaires has been formed, which is campaigning for higher taxes on themselves. Given that millionaires themselves are asking for it, can we have a debate in Government time on the introduction of a supplementary wealth tax, which will allow those who are blessed with extreme good fortune to be able to make a greater contribution to the public good?
Penny Mordaunt
That is a very interesting suggestion. I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the actions of the Scottish Government have been not to raise taxes on those who have the most. Furthermore, low and middle-income earners in Scotland are facing the highest tax burden of anyone else in the UK.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My constituent recently got in touch after her father was in an accident on a short bike ride and suffered a fractured skull. She told me that he always wears a helmet, but on this occasion, he unfortunately was not doing so. I will be supporting the ten-minute rule Bill of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on 7 June, but will the Leader of the House join me in wishing my constituent a speedy recovery and schedule a debate in Government time on the merits of making bike helmets a legal requirement for cyclists?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that all Members of this House would want to send our best wishes to the hon. Lady’s constituent for a full and speedy recovery. I am very sorry to hear that that has happened to them. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on his ten-minute rule Bill and also thank the hon. Lady for raising awareness of the importance of wearing helmets.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That finishes business questions. I thank the Leader of the House for responding to questions for more than an hour.
Points of Order
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Next week, the BBC’s economics correspondent will publish a book and release whistleblower testimony, telephone recordings, emails and documentary data on a number of serious miscarriages of justice in the LIBOR scandal that emerged in 2012. It will show that British and US authorities covered up state involvement in LIBOR rigging, and the scapegoating of 37 low and middle-ranking bankers, some of whom spent years in jail.
In this evidence, there is a prima facie case to believe that state agencies coerced individuals into perjury that led to false evictions. I will write to the Metropolitan police asking them to investigate any potential perjury, but, more importantly in this context, I am also greatly concerned that the Treasury Committee may have been misled by state agencies about the knowledge and involvement of the state in setting false rates.
This is a big and complex issue with hundreds of pages of evidence. I have written to the Chair of the Treasury Committee suggesting that the Committee might want to look into the issue. Can you confirm that that is the appropriate mechanism to deal with this serious matter, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and advance notice of it. It is a very serious issue that he has raised. He has put his point on the record and shown that he is experienced enough to take appropriate steps even without any advice from the Chair.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that as a Parliament we are keen for members of the public to come to this place and see us at work. However, yesterday the Home Affairs Committee was interrupted by protesters and the session had to be suspended while the protesters were removed from the Committee Room. I just wondered whether, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I as the Chair of the Committee and the Members could thank the Clerks, the security staff and the police, who acted very quickly to ensure that the Committee was able to resume its very important work of scrutinising the policing of protests without much delay? I just wanted to put that on the record.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving notice of it. I join her in thanking all the staff involved for their swift action yesterday, which enabled that important Committee sitting to continue after the disruption.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the right hon. Lady for raising the matter and inform the House that the protest that was going on outside this building and outside a major hospital yesterday, preventing traffic from moving freely, was resolved within 15 minutes by the Metropolitan Police.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House for that point of order further to the previous one. We too thank all the authorities for enabling people to get on with their normal daily lives and indeed with the process of democracy that people have elected us to come here for.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the Order Paper today is the matter of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Second Reading. Indeed, I understand that the Joint Committee on Examination of Bills is considering today whether this is a hybrid Bill. I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party Parliamentary group on holocaust memorial, but could you use your good offices, Mr Deputy Speaker, to inform us how the result of that Committee will be communicated to this House so that we can get on with this very important project? The project is welcomed across the House, apart from a small numbers of Members of both Houses, but the key point is that we need to know what is going to happen, because the current projections are that it will take a very long time indeed.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and advise him to go to the Table Office and put the question to the Clerks, because I think they will have a better idea of the timetabling of any announcements that will be made either today or later on.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not giving you prior notice, but I have only just received the email that I wish to raise. The email is from UK Visas and Immigration on a constituent’s case. My constituent claimed asylum in December 2020 and the email I have received from them today says that,
“your client may expect to receive their asylum decision by 31 December 2023”.
That is quite a long time to wait in limbo for a decision, as I am sure most hon. Members would agree. Have you received any notification from Home Office Ministers about any statements to the House with an update on the asylum backlog, which is having a serious impact on the lives and wellbeing of so many of my constituents?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. This is a very serious issue, and people being left in limbo is clearly not acceptable. I have not received any notice that there will be any statements today, but should that alter, people will be informed in the usual way. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point she has made and will make sure it is passed on to the Home Office.
Backbench Business
Public Access to Nature
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind the House that the judgment in relation to Darwall and Darwall v. Dartmoor National Park Authority, the Dartmoor wild camping case, has been appealed and the case is therefore sub judice. Members must avoid making reference to that case in this and any other debates.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered public access to nature.
It is a pleasure to open this debate on increasing public access to nature and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting it. In an age where we are increasingly isolated from the natural world, and in a country that ranks lowest in Europe for nature connectedness, improving access to green space could not be more important. Yet that very framing somehow suggests that we are separate from the world around us and that nature is simply something to be visited on occasion. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Others have pointed out that it has been around 7 million years since our ancestors started evolving into the modern humans we are today. During that process of evolution, we have spent more than 99.9% of our time living in a natural environment. Our bodies are adapted to nature.
In debating the urgent need to improve access to nature and to reforge our connection with this precious earth, it is also important to reframe that relationship so that we no longer see nature as something other, but something of which we are a part and which is also part of us.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Wildlife and Countryside Link has made a number of recommendations for improving public access to nature, including the expansion of the right to roam and investment in widely publicising the countryside code. Does the hon. Member agree that by realising those recommendations in tandem, the Government can aid more people to enjoy the UK’s natural spaces responsibly?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member will not be surprised to know that I agree entirely with her points. Indeed, I will come to them a little later.
In my introductory remarks to the debate, I will set out the many benefits of increasing access to nature, identify where the Government could amend and update existing legislation to achieve that, and, indeed, make the case for a new comprehensive right of responsible access in England. Before I do so, I pay tribute to the many organisations and individuals who have done so much to promote that idea, and I single out Marion Shoard in particular, who I believe is watching us from the Gallery today. Marion has done more than perhaps any other individual to push land on to the agenda in Britain, and to advance cogently and fearlessly the case for a right to roam.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for initiating the debate and for allowing me to intervene. I wonder if her interest in nature extends to water and blue spaces. On the rare occasions when parliamentary duties and childcare allow, I seek joy from canoeing, but there is an unfettered right of access to only 7% of appropriate inland waterways in the UK. Voluntary access arrangements are clearly not working in any significant way. Does she agree that, at a minimum, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 needs to be extended to cover water as well as land?
Caroline Lucas
I agree entirely with the hon. Member. It is slightly unfortunate that the phrase “right to roam” does not automatically include the right to access water, but that is exactly what is understood by it. I will in a moment pay tribute to canoeists for their work in setting up a voluntary code of conduct on how they treat the water to which they have access. They need a lot more access, however, and that is certainly part of the proposals that I will set out.
On the benefits of access to nature, we have long known that being in the outdoors is good for our soul, but the evidence increasingly demonstrates that it is vital for our health as well. First, for our physical health, beyond the obvious health benefits of walking or running, the very act of being in green space has been found to lower blood pressure, reduce the risk of diabetes and heart disease, and boost our immune systems.
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way once again. It is understood that exercising in the fresh air can also ease mental health issues such as anxiety. Polling by the Mental Health Foundation highlights that 70% of adults find that being in nature improves their mood. Clearly, those benefits cannot be overlooked. Does she agree that widening public access to nature could be instrumental in responding to the country’s mental health crisis?
Caroline Lucas
Indeed, the hon. Member anticipates my very next point. She is exactly right: the benefits of being in nature are not limited to our physical health; they very much affect our mental health as well, easing anxiety and increasing positive emotions. Spending time in nature has been proven fundamental to good mental health. Indeed, the growth in green social prescribing shows that that is increasingly being recognised more widely.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem with health and income inequalities is that access to nature is not equally distributed in this country? Some of the wealthiest constituencies have far greater access to nature than some of the poorest. That goes along with the historic theft of land by the very wealthiest—facilitated by this place—who stole it from the poorest communities. That has never been properly readdressed.
Caroline Lucas
I agree very much with that point. Inequalities go right through from start to finish in terms of access to the countryside, and I will say more about that, but he also rightly points to the fact that this is nothing new; this is part of a history of land grabbing that has been going on from the enclosures onwards, if not before that. It is something that we need to address if we are serious about wealth inequalities in this country as well as health inequalities, because unless we address the issue of the distribution of land, we are not going to solve that problem.
There is economic sense in increasing access to nature, too. Figures suggest that the NHS could save around £3 billion in treatment costs every year if everyone had access to good-quality green space. Despite the importance of access to nature to the nation’s health, and that significance only being underlined throughout the covid pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, there is no national strategy for ensuring that everyone can enjoy access to nature. My first question to the Minister is whether she will look to rectify that and to direct and co-ordinate policy action and resources across Government.
As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) set out, we know that access to nature remains incredibly unequal, and covid underlined that. Black people and people of colour, as well as poorer households, are far less likely to live close to green space. Friends of the Earth research suggests that 40% of people from ethnic minority backgrounds live in the most green space-deprived areas, compared with just 14% of white people.
While I welcome the Government’s goal outlined in their environmental improvement plan to enhance engagement with the natural environment and the commitment that everyone should live within a 15-minute walk of a green or blue space, the Minister will know that, as it stands, that commitment is not legally binding. It urgently needs to be accompanied by ambitious legislation, together with funding for local authorities to help achieve it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate, of which I am a co-sponsor. Does she agree that, along with access to nature, we need restoration of nature? Local authorities can lead the way, but they need the money, and it is so important that our urban communities in particular can benefit from local authorities restoring nature where they can.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and very much agree with the point she makes. Local authorities have a vital role to play, and yet their budgets have been slashed over the past 13 years.
To return to the issue of how the lack of access has played out in different constituencies, new research by the Wildlife and Countryside Link shows that in more than one in 10 neighbourhoods, between 90% and 100% of the population currently have no access to nature within a 15-minute walk. The Right to Roam campaign recently calculated that 92 constituencies in England currently have no right to roam at all, with many more than that having very little access.
The Minister might be aware that when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was going through the Commons, I tabled an amendment on Report that would have created a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and required public authorities to increase equitable access to nature. That call is backed by the public, with 80% of people wanting to see a legal right to local nature. With that Bill now going through the Lords, I urge the Minister and the Government to pick up my amendment and show the level of ambition that is needed.
I know that Ministers are, rightly, extremely proud of the English coastal path and the establishment of the coast-to-coast national trail. I welcome these efforts, which undoubtedly improve ease of access, but I am concerned that they do not begin to address the scale of the challenge at hand—not least because, for example, much of the English coastal path, which involves essentially a pretty thin strip of land along the coast, was already accessible through existing rights of way. The coast-to-coast route has long been an unofficial long-distance path linking east and west coasts across northern England. Last year it was designated as an official national trail, but as a result, it needs to be better signposted, better maintained and better publicised.
The bottom line is that much more needs to be done to improve public access to nature. As such, I urge the Government to look closely at other proposals, such as giving national park authorities a range of new purposes, including one to improve people’s connection to nature, which would also implement a key proposal from the Glover review of protected landscapes. Will the Minister look again at embedding public access into the new environmental land management schemes, which would help farmers to create more opportunities for people to enjoy the outdoors? Will the Government remove the new 2031 deadline for recording historic rights of way? The reimposition of that artificial deadline risks losing thousands of footpaths.
Will the Government urgently conduct a mapping review of existing open access land? Ministers have tabled a further amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to defer that review until the end of 2030, which is more than 25 years after the first maps were produced, despite a legal requirement that they be updated every 10 years. Will the Minister bring forward new funding for local authorities to maintain public rights of way? Finally, will the Government support local councils and national park authorities to improve access to the countryside for everyone, including those with disabilities and those who do not own or have access to a car? For both those groups of people, much of the countryside remains out of reach—a situation that has undoubtedly been exacerbated by cuts to local bus services.
Having said that, I am just going to give a quick shout-out to the Brighton & Hove bus company and its “Breeze up to the Downs” service—I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown will agree. That service is supported by the council, the National Trust and the South Downs National Park Authority. Those kinds of models, which enable people to get into the countryside affordably and easily if they do not have a car, need to be supported. I will also use this opportunity to congratulate the former Green administration in Brighton and Hove, which blazed a trail with its transformative city downland estate plan. That plan contains commitments to consider proposals to designate every site under the council’s management as statutory open access land.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Lady raises an important point about the ability for councils to use their own estate. Is she looking forward to the exciting plans that we might have in Lewes, as I am?
Caroline Lucas
I am indeed looking forward to exciting plans in Lewes, and I pay tribute to local councillors there.
However, we must go further to truly transform our relationship with nature, with access to wilder spaces where we can marvel at the wonders around us and be fully immersed in the natural world. Those who organised the mass trespass of Kinder Scout in 1932, which so many of us have taken so much inspiration from, knew the value of access to our dramatic Peak district, and their actions united the campaign for access to the countryside.
At the start of this millennium, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 finally gave us a right to roam in certain areas, over mountain, moor, heath and down, designating them as open access land. However, that designation still covers only 8% of land in England, and much of it is remote. Too often, tracts of legally accessible open country land lack any legal means for the public to cross other land to access them, rendering them effectively off limits. Just 3% of rivers in England and Wales are accessible, and even that is only provided by voluntary agreements with landowners and can therefore be taken away.
That is why last year, I tabled a Bill that would have extended the right to roam to woods, rivers, green-belt land and more grassland. In doing so, it would have provided access to nature on people’s doorsteps, as those landscapes are found in almost every community, and it would have extended access to approximately 30% of English land. Since I drafted that Bill, the momentum behind the campaign for access to nature has only grown, and I believe now is the time to be even bolder and more ambitious. It is time for a reset of our very relationship with the natural world around us, one that re-establishes the intimacy and connection that is essential if we are to restore the state of our—quite often literally—scorched earth.
I believe it is time to expand our minds and our horizons and look north of the border to Scotland, where the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 enshrined the right of access to most land and water, providing that the right is exercised responsibly. Of course, there will be some sensible exclusions such as fields where crops are growing, seasonal restrictions for sensitive nature sites, school playing fields and even gardens. However, that is essentially a much more expansive approach. It designates a universal right to roam with exclusions carved out, rather than the opposite approach that is taken in England, which is based on a universal exclusion with access only to some very specific landscapes. The Scottish approach is far simpler, meaning that we are no longer reliant on confusing and often outdated land designations that no longer reflect the nature of our countryside, and it is more equal, meaning that everyone has shared access to this island that is our home.
Margaret Ferrier
The Government made a number of welcome commitments in their environmental improvement plan, but legislative change is needed to deliver on those commitments. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government now need to advance policy that successfully expands public access to nature?
Caroline Lucas
I hope that everything I have said so far demonstrates that I entirely agree with the point that the hon. Lady makes.
I believe it is time to consider a comprehensive right of responsible access in England. With two decades of lived experience, Scotland provides an important model for us to learn from and emulate south of the border. It is important to note that Scotland is not alone in its approach; in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Estonia, the right to roam has long existed as a common right and a defining concept of nationhood that has only recently been codified into law. In America and Australia, there is free access to all navigable rivers. Why should we in England be denied that right to enjoy, know and protect our shared world?
In recent months, the Opposition have announced that they would pass a right to roam Act in government, and I welcome that, but when the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) speaks, I would be interested to know what exactly their version of a right to roam Act would entail. Would it be a fully expanded right to roam, or a partial one based on specific designations? I am arguing for a new approach: an extension of the right to roam in the context of a wider recentring of our relationship with nature—moving to a relationship built on community, care and reciprocity, with a deep love and understanding of the world around us, rather than one defined by extraction and exploitation. Re-establishing our connection with nature is essential if we are to effectively address the terrifying biodiversity crisis that sees a million species on the brink of extinction.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that target 12 of the global biodiversity framework agreed in Montreal in December was to:
“Significantly increase the area and quality and connectivity of, access to, and benefits from green and blue spaces”.
The public can be partners in that endeavour and become guardians of the natural world, but only if they and we are given the opportunity to better know, love and protect it. That so many are not able to delight in the blackthorn bursting into blossom in the spring, the sight of fledglings making their first leaps to freedom, or the sound of grasshoppers singing in the heat of summer is a personal tragedy, but it is also profoundly concerning for the future of the species with which we are blessed to share this one planet. In the words of one scientist, Robert Michael Pyle,
“What is the extinction of the condor to a child who has never known the wren?”
While greater access to the countryside obviously cannot solve the ecological crisis, I genuinely believe that it is nevertheless a precondition to our ability to try. I know some Members will be concerned about the impact of a renewed right to roam, and in particular the irresponsible behaviour of a few. Let us be clear that those are the actions of a very small minority among a nation of nature lovers. The response to David Attenborough’s “Wild Isles” demonstrates how fiercely the public love nature and want it to be not just conserved, but restored. I welcome initiatives such as the “People’s Plan for Nature”, which sets out the public’s vision for the future of nature and the actions we all need to take to renew it.
Secondly and crucially, the right to access has to be balanced with responsibilities. No one is suggesting that a right to roam should be absolute. It has to be balanced against other rights, such as the rights of wildlife to be protected and the rights of landowners to gain a living from their land. However, arbitrarily applying rights to some classes of land but not to others is no way of securing that proper balance, and that is why it has to go hand in hand with a renewed outdoor access code that clearly sets out the responsibilities of the public and landowners.
The Scottish outdoor access code has been instrumental in successfully establishing a right to responsible access. It makes it clear that visitors must respect the interests of others, care for the environment and take responsibility for their own actions, and it enjoys widespread public awareness. That simply is not the case with the countryside code in England. The work that has gone into updating it has sadly not been matched by work to promote it. Wider education has a vital role, whether that is public information campaigns or making sure we are teaching the countryside code in every single school so that children grow up with a much clearer understanding of their responsibilities in our countryside. In that respect, I am encouraged and inspired by examples such as the new paddlers’ code, produced by British Canoeing, which sets out guidance for canoeists, kayakers and paddlers on how to enjoy our waterways responsibly.
Let me be very clear that there will be some times and some areas where a right to roam is simply not appropriate, whether that is to protect sensitive sites and rare and endangered species such as the wood calamint or the ghost orchid, or to avoid disturbing ground-nesting birds such as nightjars and woodlarks. Our remaining biodiversity is immensely precious, and we must be vigilant in protecting it. I also want to acknowledge that there are particular concerns about dogs, especially for wildlife. Even if they are on a lead, their presence can not only cause birds stress, but disrupt their behaviours and even cause them to leave their nest. We therefore do need a proper debate about whether a right to roam should be extended to dogs, and I will look at this very closely when I present a revised Bill in future.
As I draw my comments to a close, I want to challenge the idea that it is somehow the public who are a threat to nature and that that is why they have to be kept away from it. The UK did not become one of the most nature- depleted countries in the world, where 15% of species are at risk of extinction, because some people are dropping litter. To borrow some words from author and campaigner Nick Hayes:
“It’s not the wild swimmer who poisons our rivers, nor the rambler who burns the moorland. When they took away our right to access the land, they took away our ability to protect it.”
No, we know it is the greedy water companies that relentlessly pump sewage into the rivers and seas while handing billions to their shareholders, or it is the landowners who burn our precious peatlands, a vital carbon source, for blood sport and profit. Frankly, it is also this Government, who have failed to give enough support to farmers to transition to agroecological farming when nature restoration and food production can go hand in hand.
In closing, I pay tribute to the work that has been done by campaigners from right across the access movement. Fifteen years ago, Marion Shoard wrote of her concerns about new barriers to the countryside—not just the landowners’ fences, but the new shutters that she argued have closed people’s minds against the very idea of being able to roam freely in the countryside. Today, thankfully, that is changing. There is now a vibrant and growing movement, with those such as the Right to Roam campaign, spearheaded by Guy Shrubsole and Nick Hayes, asserting their rights—our rights—to the land. My hope is that we can work together for our health and wellbeing, for our happiness and fulfilment, and of course for the love of life on Earth, because nature needs us to know it, love it, restore it and defend it, and, frankly, we need nature if we are to learn to be fully human.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and I congratulate her on securing this very important debate. I want to focus most of my remarks on the importance of access to nature for children and for education. The hon. Lady and I have worked together on campaigns on these issues. However, I also want to touch on some local matters relating to developments in Worcestershire and Herefordshire to do with how we ensure that the children in all our schools benefit from the fantastic countryside and the fantastic nature around us, and how we protect those special places.
Last Saturday, I was on a sponsored walk for my local hospice up in the beautiful Malvern hills. It is a historical place for conservation, and the work of the Malvern Hills Conservators to protect the landscape of the area goes back over a century. We can see three counties from up there, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). We cannot quite see Gloucester, but we can certainly see Gloucestershire, as well as Herefordshire and Worcestershire. It is an incredibly valuable landscape, and it was great to see, as we went on with our miles of walking, that scouts and guides were up on the hills and enjoying them as well. I pay tribute to all the voluntary organisations that provide access to nature for children of school age, including of course the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme, and the very important work that they do in getting kids out into the natural environment.
It was very interesting during my time as schools Minister to visit schools in the inner cities of London and Birmingham that were doing really important work, recognising the benefits of nature for the mental health of pupils, in trying to connect their pupils with nature. I remember one visit to a school in a very built-up area of Lambeth, where the teachers had determined to use the resources they had available to develop a garden, create a natural environment and have a pond in the small urban space they had, so that children could engage with nature. They talked about the mental health benefits of that. When we face such a huge mental health challenge in our schools and in our education system, I think we should see access to nature and engagement with nature as one of the solutions. It is certainly not the case that only schools in the countryside can deliver that—schools in urban environments can deliver that, too—but it needs to be something that we consider as part of our curriculum.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Member makes a great case for young people needing to have access to nature, but because there is so little directly accessible in their local area, they often have to travel a very long way. Does it not make sense to open up more nature, so that people do not have to travel, but have it on their doorstep?
Mr Walker
I absolutely recognise that, which is why it is important that councils work together with voluntary groups to make sure that we signpost those green spaces. In my own consistency, which is an urban constituency— Worcester is surrounded by beautiful countryside, I accept —we have seen a fantastic local project by the Worcester Environmental Group and the council to develop the Wild about Worcester Way, a walking route around the city. It connects green spaces in the city and accessible areas such as the Worcester Woods country park, Nunnery wood and Perry wood, where Cromwell allegedly met the devil, to our primary schools, so that there are walking routes for children to enjoy. In areas where they might not enjoy great parks and facilities, to link schools, through active travel, to such places is important.
We also need to look at routes through the countryside. I do not represent many farmers and I am not going to get into the detail of the debate about the right to roam, but I do think we should be exploring more greenways—more long-distance travel routes from area to area. I am interested in proposals for a Hereford to Worcester greenway to enable both active travel and engagement with nature for people. For that to work, there needs to be join-up between different Departments—the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—to make sure we have an approach that can support these things with proper funding.
I touched on this earlier, but there is also the importance of having nature as part of the curriculum. I have spoken before about the amazing work being done by the Rivers multi-academy trust in my constituency, which is promoting a curriculum based on the sustainable development goals. Right at the heart of that curriculum is engaging children with nature and making sure that they understand their responsibilities to nature. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said about the balance of rights and responsibilities when it comes to access. It is absolutely key that children have the opportunity to learn those responsibilities at an early stage in their education, and they are not going to do that unless we connect them with nature and give them those opportunities to be outside and to be engaged with nature.
Caroline Lucas
As someone who spent the first 18 years of their life in Great Malvern and spent a lot of time on the Malvern hills, I appreciate the hon. Member’s words about that. I have been enjoying his speech very much, but is he going to come on to the natural history GCSE? We have worked together with the wonderful Mary Colwell to try to make sure there is a natural history GCSE in the curriculum, which would absolutely give young people that empirical exposure to the nature around them.
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right and pre-empts my very next point. I did have very interesting meetings with the hon. Lady, Mary Colwell and Tim Oates discussing the case for a natural history GCSE. I have to honest and say that I was initially sceptical. Going into those meetings, I had extensive briefing from officials as to all the questions to ask and all the reasons why we might not approve a natural history GCSE, and I felt that the campaigners, collectively, were able to answer those questions in an incisive way. That demonstrated the academic benefits of restoring subjects such as botany to the curriculum, and the opportunity to engage students at a crucial time and to make sure that we fill the gap between the primary science curriculum, which includes good elements of nature, and the A-level in environmental studies, which the Government have put forward. The conversations I have had in schools since taking the decision that we should go ahead and develop that, show there is enormous appetite for it. I will be writing to the Minister for Schools to urge him to come forward with the detail needed to ensure that the natural history GCSE can be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity. It is important that we move forward with that. I know that many groups, including The Wildlife Trusts, are interested in contributing to the work on that. I think it is possible to deliver an academically rigorous, challenging and interesting natural history GCSE, which will also widen opportunities for students in our schools to undertake field work.
It is so important to have a natural history GCSE. People say, “Well field work is covered in biology and geography”, but not every student takes those subjects. Many students will opt out of geography before they choose their GCSE courses, and many will take combined sciences and might not have the opportunity to take part in field trips. A natural history GCSE will give students another opportunity to engage in field trips and outdoor activity, and to develop some of the skills that we as a country will need if we are to meet our long-term ambition of leaving nature in a better state than we found it.
We have recently seen in Worcester the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection. It has been interesting talking to it about the job and skills opportunities there are for people who can understand and monitor levels of nature, biodiversity and environmental issues. Some hard skills are required for that, such as data science and scientific knowledge, so we must ensure that we take advantage of those opportunities. We must look at careers guidance in schools and prepare children for a greener, more environmentally aware future, in which increasing the quality of our natural environment and biodiversity is a key goal shared by all parties across the House. That is also a good reason for stepping forward with access to nature for schoolchildren in general, and with the natural history GCSE in particular.
A couple of things have improved in recent months and years, one of which is the conversation around environmental land management schemes. I have met my local wildlife trust regularly, and our discussions have led me to think that the Department is now in a much better place on ELMs than it perhaps has been sometimes in the past. Some of the concerns that the trust raised strenuously regarding the direction of travel about a year ago seem to have been met, so I am grateful to Ministers for their ongoing engagement with The Wildlife Trusts on that.
A number of constituents have written to me recently about the so-called Save the Shire campaign and the interesting challenge of saving literary landscapes. When that first came in, I imagined that it might refer to the view from the Malvern Hills, which I have always understood was very much the inspiration for Tolkien’s Shire. It turns out, however, that it is to do with another part of Worcestershire, which the Tolkien family had connections with, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). It is an example of some of the tensions between access to nature and other environmental issues, because it is a campaign against the development of a solar farm. People are saying that they do not want the development of the solar farm because it will change the nature of the countryside and change access. that is a challenge. I will not wade into the planning area. Of course it is important that we protect our rural landscapes, and it is also important that we develop renewable technologies and renewables, but access must be a key part of that and one concern is that, if we have large renewable installations on land, they will restrict access. We should ensure that we enable access, both for nature and creatures, but also for people, to those sites and that we do not allow rights of way, which are important, to be shut off.
We need to continue to work on this area. Some of the figures on the health benefits have been cited. I suspect those understate the reality. The £2 billion figure I have seen in a Natural England report about health benefits largely focuses on physical health. As a country we face such huge challenges with mental health, particularly among our young people. Engaging people with nature and ensuring that they have that opportunity to reflect and engage with nature—as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion ably pointed out, that has very much been part of our natural development as human beings over the millennia, let alone the centuries—will be better for people’s mental health and in the long run it can save the health system a fortune.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it. Research in 14 different European countries has shown that the UK’s record is woeful, with biodiversity, wellbeing and natural connection the worst among those countries. Among the G7, we come bottom and across our world we are in the lowest 10% of countries. So today’s debate should kickstart the Government’s thoughts, as well as drive forward the Opposition’s ambitions to establish a plan for nature. I welcome that the Government this year published the environmental improvement plan, but its 10 goals lack ambition and teeth, and the rigour we need to ensure that the commitments in that project are delivered in a timely way.
Wera Hobhouse
In the south-west, only 5% of land is accessible to the public. A lot of green-belt land is privately owned and therefore not accessible to them. Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the plan should be to open up green-belt land to the right to roam?
Rachael Maskell
I absolutely agree. The historic injustice in who owns our land across our country has to be addressed. We have much work to do on that. The environmental improvement plan does not address those issues, which must be addressed, so that everybody can have access to our natural environment.
The plan also lacks ambition when it comes to addressing inequality. The word “inequality” is not sewn through the plan and it must be. Inequality is why we are standing here today, whether that involves the historic injustice of who owns the land in Britain, or the diversity of our communities, where access is far more restricted for those from the most deprived communities—something I recognise within my constituency. Just 8% of England is covered by the right to roam, and 3% of our rivers and 15% of our woods.
We are indebted to Chris Smith, and the work he did in bringing in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to open up access to mountains, moors, heaths, downlands and common land. However, even after those efforts, most of our country locks us out. We need a fresh start and I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) will have that ambition when a Labour Government come in. Even in York, with our incredible bioeconomy, pathways are still closed to the public as developers buy up land and lock them out. We need to address that injustice too.
I personally have known the enrichment that access to nature gives. It is my place to go for restoration. It is a privilege to walk many national trails, over hills and mountains, to be lost in complete wilderness when finding myself, and to cycle the breadth of the country. Even in my constituency, each day, I seek to have a brisk walk to enjoy the rivers and strays, and the environment that comes into the heart of York. I always say that the most important skills I ever learnt were to ride a bike and use a map and compass, yet many of our young people today have no access to either. It is so important that young people learn those vital skills as part of their formal education process. Many youth organisations such as the Brownies, Guides, Scouts and Cubs teach those skills, but every child should have that enrichment.
I will never forget talking to a teacher at Carr Junior School in Acomb in my constituency, who talked about how the children in her school had never seen crashing waves at the seaside and never felt the “sand between their toes”. We have incredible assets across our country, but our children cannot necessarily access them unless their schools have proper funding to afford those trips, or unless we have a strategy that really focuses on young people getting that love of nature.
Mr Walker
I agree with the hon. Lady’s point. One visit that I did during my time as Schools Minister was to a primary school in Hastings and Rye, which was all of a mile and a half from the sea—admittedly up quite a high cliff—and I was struck by the headteacher saying that probably two thirds of the children there had never been to the seaside. That is an extraordinary example of how, even with very small distances, communities sometimes get locked in and do not have that opportunity to go and enjoy the natural resources right on their doorstep. It is crucial that schools are resourced but also challenged to provide that engagement with those natural resources, which might be close by but are still considered inaccessible.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point and could not agree more. It often comes down to funding in schools and being able to afford those opportunities for young people to experience the natural environment. That should not be the case, because we know how that further bakes in inequality. Of course, at a time when children really need to access nature, they are denied it. We have such incredible assets all around us, so we need to provide that opportunity to young people.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Will she join me in congratulating Second West Kirby Sea Scouts on the work they do to take children out on the water and give them the experience of enjoying water sports? I met them recently at a May Day fair, where they said they were sure that they would have about 15 children sign up to go kayaking and so forth, but they were looking for volunteers. Does she agree that the work of volunteers is invaluable in that regard?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As a former Beaver Scout leader and someone who is much involved in the scouting movement, I know the value that scouting and guiding bring to many of my constituents. Of course, we need scout and guide leaders—that is always the issue. Volunteers gain so many skills as well, so I urge people to come forward and enjoy that too.
We often talk about these things in this place, but if we do not see that opportunity hardwired into legislation and Government strategy, it often becomes talk and not action. For example, I spent six months on the Bill Committee for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, bringing forward amendments that aimed to provide greater access to nature, whether by developing one of the missions to focus on nature or by bringing forward opportunity for access to nature and protection of nature, which is vital at this time.
In that Bill Committee I made arguments about how we use our brownfield sites. I would like the Minister to respond on this. In debates in this place, we often hear that we must drive development on brownfield sites. However, I have witnessed in York how a brownfield former rubbish dump has been turned into St Nicks nature reserve, providing real access to nature in an urban environment. When we are developing brownfield sites, we need to think about opportunities to create wildernesses and parks. We even need to be thinking about exchange with green- belt land so that we do not push everything into the urban centres, denying access to nature to people living in urban environments while there is so much for everybody else. We could look at that policy to ensure that we get a fairer share. With that legislation, we talk about using little pockets of land for development, but those are often where people in those communities have the opportunity to enjoy nature. We should look at protecting those areas for community interest purposes.
I thank those who have campaigned long and hard to provide access, right back to the Kinder Scout movement and to this very day. In York, I see the work that York Cycle Campaign and Walk York are doing to open up access. It is not always just about getting there. That is a major issue, and for that I thank the dales and moors buses who take people out, including facilitating day walks for people from the urban environment, giving them an opportunity to experience the natural environment while ensuring that there are things to do.
That is where i-Travel York comes in. It has created interactive maps so that as people go on cycle routes and walks, they can know what places to go, what they are looking for and what kind of nature to spot. That is why we must ensure that we facilitate the travel. I welcome reducing the cost of buses that go out into the environment, but there is too little infrastructure. We need to address that. People also need to know what to do when they get out into the natural environment and how to enjoy and get the most out of it.
We recognise how during lockdown so many people were trapped in flats and urban environments. Getting that reconnection is really important. Social prescribers are doing fantastic work by opening up opportunities, but we must ensure that they are properly funded and that that programme can be built up even more. We know that when people access nature, their physical and mental health improves. We have heard how about £2.1 billion could be saved, but I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) that it could be far more. There is talk of £7.4 billion to the wider economy, and of course there is the difference that could make to people in our communities. The mortality gap in my constituency —just in York—is 10 years, so we know that inequality is clearly embedded in people’s ability to walk and enjoy the natural environment; that must be closed.
We need that programme of nature recovery to be integrated with human recovery. I think hard about what happened after the pandemic in many schools and getting that focus on children’s wellbeing. Some independent schools put farming and engagement in the natural world on their curriculum. However, in many state schools it was a case of young people having to work harder at the core subjects, which the Government identified, in order to catch up—as opposed to being able to catch up with themselves. In fact, that caused greater harm to those individuals rather than the replenishment that nature could bring.
We also need to look at where people can stay when they are out in the community. We have heard much about the opportunity to visit places, but I would argue that people should have the right to wild camp and stay in locations. There is nothing like waking up to the dawn chorus or seeing a spectacular sunset in a wild area and getting that connection with nature. The opportunity to wild camp is therefore really important. Of course, we must preserve that land and take care of it while there. In just a week’s time, I will be packing up my tent and walking the hills with my father, who is now well into his 80s. We are both really excited about spending time together, recharging and climbing those hills once again. It is such a privilege, and I want everyone to enjoy that.
I want to raise with the Minister the decline in youth hostels across the country. I am a life member of the Youth Hostels Association. Rural hostels have been in decline and disappearing, and it is really important that we deal with that so that all ages can engage. In fact, the Government could do so much more to ensure that people have those stopping points. Certainly, for those walking a national trail without the infrastructure there, trying to find somewhere to stay can be a nightmare. I think about the Pennine way—I think it is 276 miles—where several of the youth hostels on the route have now disappeared, which makes it a difficult journey. It is really worth looking at where people can stay, whether camping or indeed in a youth hostel, so that everyone can access nature and enjoy those rural retreats.
In this debate we have talked about such joy, such opportunity and the amazing landscapes we have. Before I close, I want to touch on one more issue: bringing nature into the urban space. In York I want to see a city farm. I have long talked about the therapeutic benefits that could bring. We know from research that when animals are brought into care homes, it has helped residents and older people re-engage, re-live memories and feel connected. I want young people to be able to learn the basics of animal welfare, and for people with mental health challenges, and indeed all of us, to enjoy the opportunities and enrichment that a city farm can bring. We need those facilities in our urban environments to draw out the interest of young people to help them find themselves and to connect.
We need to see so much more ambition. We have a Labour Government coming, and I am excited about that because we can create wonderful connection and restore our rhythm of life.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must say that, although I have no policy views, I am delighted to represent the Ribble Valley during this debate, and I cannot wait to get back there this afternoon.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This is a rare debate, is it not, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is becoming an ode to nature; a long series of prose poems of colleagues’ enjoyment of nature and what it brings to us and our constituents.
I very much enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) describe her upcoming walk with her father, now in his 80s, and the joy that will bring them both. My father is now 94. Sadly, his walking days are very much behind him, but they are strong in his memory. He can still vividly describe landscape, nature and birds from throughout his long life. I am sure that is true for everyone here and across the country. I welcome this debate, opened in style by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), with strong support for things that she and so many of us believe in.
My starting observation would be that my sense of nature and public access to it is slightly less central and less driven by Government fiat; it is more about the joys of volunteers, charities and individuals incrementally improving the landscape around us, to hand it on to our children and grandchildren in slightly better shape than we inherited it. It is more a conservative vision of what human involvement with nature is all about. That is what I want to touch on today.
In many ways, one would expect the representative of the city of Gloucester to talk about access to the great nature all around our city. We are so close to the Cotswolds escarpment, Crickley hill, and all of the lands that Laurie Lee and Ivor Gurney described so beautifully. Whether up in the hills or looking the other way to the Forest of Dean, May hill and even to the Malvern hills —which we can see clearly from quite a lot of Gloucester, and where I vividly remember as a small boy tobogganing from school through the snow—we are part of a wider landscape around us. That includes the River Wye, which, despite everything that one might read, is still a wonderful place to go swimming, whether from Lydbrook or Symonds Yat. It has some of the most spectacular country for walking, swimming and canoeing, arguably. That is a free advert for my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
It is about recognition that in each part of the country that we represent, we have very special nature all around us. As a couple of Members have already said, that came to the fore during the pandemic, when at one stage we were able to go five or six miles for our daily exercise. Five or six miles from Gloucester leads to spectacular places, including Haresfield Beacon, close to where Beatrix Potter used to draw. Aren’t we lucky?
I want to focus on what is happening within my own urban environment in Gloucester. There are lessons and opportunities for the whole country from what is happening in the small city, which the Minister knows so well—she was there not long ago. We could not find a better champion for nature and everything that it can bring to us than the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
What is Gloucester all about? It is 5.5 square miles of urban environment, which happens to include the Robinswood hill, and water in the shape of both the River Severn and the Sharpness to Gloucester canal, as well as other things that I will come to. It has many parks, most of them enhanced considerably over the past dozen years, often with playgrounds—the city council has doubled the number playgrounds in Gloucester over the past 12 years. Playgrounds are often the entry point for small children to first visit and be around nature with their parents and grandparents.
In the same sense, we are lucky to have the headquarters of Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust on Robinswood, which has understood that amazing asset and now taken over its management from the city council. That is a really good example, if the House will tolerate this, of what some people would call privatisation but I would call simply a more imaginative management of important resources, better done by a specialist charity. In the same way, the Canal and River Trust has done such a good job of looking after our major canals all around the country, although there are one or two things about that I will come to. It was handed over from British Waterways by a very good Minister in DEFRA at that time, Richard Benyon, who is now in the other place and still doing great work on the environment for his country. We are lucky, geographically, to have those amazing assets. We are also lucky to have good partnerships that make the most of them.
Thematically, I am looking at ways in which we can preserve, enhance and create. Preservation almost speaks for itself, but preserving and enhancing together is a theme that every wildlife trust in the country should—and no doubt is—looking at. The Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, under the leadership of its recently moved on chief executive Roger Matlock, who is now taking over the Council for the Protection of Rural England, led some important steps forward to use Robinswood as a place for education and enjoyment. Sustainable wooden playgrounds and enhanced car parks have been used as a way of bringing families in from all backgrounds.
Colleagues have made points about people from ethnic minority communities who live further from nature than others. That is true in some parts of the country, no doubt, but in a city our size of only 5.5 square miles, where we have a primary school that has more than 50 nationalities, we are all very close to the extraordinary combination of the canal, the hill, the river and the lakes. The question is, does everyone have equal inspiration and drive to go and find, use and draw pleasure from those great natural assets? That is where schools play a major part.
I want to highlight Meadowside and Clearwater in Quedgeley, which has its own town council in the city of Gloucester. Those two primary schools—both rather different, one very new—have embraced the opportunities that using the green spaces and exploring outside can offer children. They are joined by many schools in Gloucester—Abbeymead Primary School was the first to take up my offer for every child in our city to plant a tree at the new Hempsted woods on our recycling centre, where we hope to plant 100,000 trees. Almost 8,000 have been planted so far by five schools. We have a long way to go, but the opportunity is huge and some schools are seizing it fast, particularly the local Hempsted primary.
Creation is important, too, and it can be done in lots of different ways. After the terrible floods of 2007, which hit Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Worcestershire and all around the River Severn, the Environment Agency, encouraged by the Government, created a new balancing pond that will become a diversion for the Sud Brook, rather than it flooding the suburbs of Elmbridge and Longlevens, in particular. That balancing pond serves the functional task of protecting humans, but it has also become an incredibly attractive area for birds, ducks and marine life. It now provides a wonderful leisure opportunity for people to walk and picnic with their families and dogs, with some areas protected so that dogs cannot disrupt nesting birds, ducks, moorhens and coots. That is a creative way in which a government agency has prevented the flooding that had badly impacted thousands of people’s lives, as flooding does, and provided a huge new natural resource that everybody can enjoy.
On a more micro level, in Barton and Tredworth ward, which has the least green space and the most ethnic diversity, last year we were able to open a new community garden—the Sudbrook Community Garden—which I have wanted to do for a long time. With the help of several partners, including businesses, the city council and a housing association, we were able to deliver. I know on the Minister’s next visit to Gloucester this little pocket park will inspire her, as it excites me and provides wonderful opportunities for people living nearby. It includes a little brook beside it.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech. Last week, I had the pleasure of a walk around Poulshot, in my constituency, with Dave Yearsley and Tim Lewis from the Wiltshire Ramblers. They showed me a series of brilliant interventions to make the countryside accessible, most of which had been done by volunteers. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we empowered local councils, particularly parish councils, and encouraged landowners to do their duty to keep paths open and properly accessible, we could bring in a huge number of volunteers who would also step up and we could open up all those wonderful lanes and paths to a far greater part of the population?
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he so often is on issues to do with communities, volunteering and the big society, which many of us were inspired by when first we came to this House. That is true in practical ways, as well, because the joy of charities being involved is that they have access to funding and foundations that city or parish councils do not necessarily have. When there are partnerships between private landowners, communities, such as the ones he described, and charities, all sorts of good things can happen.
A good example of that is the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust’s Severn treescapes project, a 60-mile walk along the edge of the River Severn that crosses five, if not six, constituencies. It provides a walk along the riverbanks from which people will derive huge pleasure—it is a massive opportunity. The project has been supported by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which funded the trees, but it is also a collaborative, community effort. If we can get one plus one plus one to equal about five and a half, that is definitely the way forward. I am sure we will hear more about that from the Minister in due course.
Let me continue on my brief tour around scenic Gloucester, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I hope will inspire you and others to visit this most spectacular small city. I pay tribute to the Gloucester Urban Greening Project, a collaboration between the county council, a couple of borough councils, the University of Gloucestershire and the Environment Agency. The project has delivered some remarkable and tangible incremental improvements.
For example, in no particular order, in Quedgeley, in the south-west of my constituency, the Quedgeley orchard now has an area left as meadow, with paths cut through it. This is an increasingly fashionable thing for people to do in their gardens, as well as in bigger spaces. Many councils are adopting the No Mow May approach, not in order to save money on mowing, of which some accuse them, but in order to allow for greater biodiversity. Wild flowers can be seen on the edges of roads such as Eastern Avenue and the entrance to Westgate, and there is much greater enjoyment of those areas by humans as well as by bees, damselflies, dragonflies and others. The fruit trees in Quedgeley are available for anyone to harvest and eat, which is always attractive.
We have the Friends of Saintbridge Pond, whose founder and former chairman, Ken, has sadly just died. He leaves the great legacy of a wonderful wildlife space that is rather hidden from many people’s knowledge, but which is right in the middle of Gloucester. It benefits from grants provided by the county council.
I touched on the Sud Brook, where it comes through Barton and Tredworth, but in Barnwood and Abbeydale the re-naturalisation of the Sud Brook has created more wild flower meadows and wetland features, and we have greater numbers of moorhens and coots, as well as bees and dragonflies. In Barnwood Park, the wetland areas beside the balancing pond are much more biodiverse than they were a decade ago, as is the balancing pond at Appleton Way.
The land around the Clock Tower, on which there was a mental health institution years ago, has been spectacularly reinvented as a centre for native tree planting and wild flower meadows, providing great enjoyment for residents.
At the King George V playing fields, which has been a large sports area for almost 100 years, we have added a huge amount of tree planting around the edges. The spoil removed for the swales will be used to create butterfly banks, which will provide habitat for other pollinators. That is good news for primary schools on the edge of the King George V playing fields.
At Matson and Robinswood, towards the great hill, we have done a huge amount. When I say “we”, I mean everybody collectively. Nobody should try to take individual ownership, because we must encourage everybody to create and to take individual and collective community ownership to make these projects sustainable and successful for more generations. Matson Park has improved, as has Haycroft Drive. We can see similar trends across the constituency of allowing more wild flowers and meadows, with paths through them. That greatly increases the amount of insects and birds that we can all see on our walks or cycle rides around the city.
Part of the success of an active wildlife trust is stimulating friends of parks organisations, whether that is the Friends of Gloucester Park, the Friends of Tuffley Park or others. There are more such groups and the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust co-ordinates them. There are sessions where they can share best practice, look at how best to access new seeds, talk about tips on planting, and look at the management of friends’ groups, so that the finances are in good order and the governance is safe and accountable. All those things add to a greater sense of ownership. It is less about, “Why hasn’t the council done this, that or the other?” and more about, “What can we do, as friends of the park close to where we live, to help improve the state of the park, to litter- pick it ourselves and to take much more ownership and joy in what is being done?”
That can include restorative justice. Some 18 months ago, I planted 20 cherry trees—the sakura tree—donated by Japan in Gloucester Park. Just as they came into blossom, in spring last year, sadly all 20 of them were cut down by an individual. That was captured on CCTV and we know who the individual is. I am going to ask him to come and plant another 20 trees, which have again generously been donated by Japan. We will do that this autumn. I hope that the individual involved will come and take ownership and want to protect these trees, rather than to attack them, forever after.
I could talk about lots more, but I want to touch on two things, because not everything is rosy. Opportunities also have challenges. What is great about having water can mean floods or drought. We have work still to do on Alney Island with the Environment Agency, particularly to try to protect the Showmen’s Guild community who have lived there for a very long time and who travel around the country for many of their fairs. We need to do a bit more to protect them. I will be seeing the Environment Agency soon to discuss progress.
Likewise, we have had problems with our canal because of the severe drought in the River Severn. Water lifted and taken into the canal had a heavy amount of silt. Dredging has gone on for longer this year and been less satisfactory than it should have been, which has led to difficulties for narrowboats coming to moor in the basins of the canal in Gloucester, and to some friction from businesses that feel they have lost out as a result. I have had encouraging meetings with the chief executive and others in the Canal & River Trust, and I believe that all the problems should be resolved by 6 June and that lessons have been learnt. However, there is clearly a need for large stakeholder groups to meet regularly and share problems, communicate what is being done and check that everyone is happy, knows what events are coming up and will support them. That is one of the lessons that we have learnt and will act on.
Sometimes, of course, human needs will clash with the needs of nature. There is what I consider to be a sensible plan to develop a sports hub and some playing pitches in the large open field at Blackbridge, in Podsmead. That will be good for children living in the area—they will no longer have to travel several miles for their sports, which will also reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality—but it will slightly reduce the space available for dog walking and so on. We have to manage the different interests in a way that means the green spaces are still there, but human needs are taken into account as well.
I know that the Government will play their part in all this, working with charities and statutory agencies such as the Environment Agency to ensure that those of us who treasure what nature offers in our constituencies—paddleboarding, walking or cycling in Gloucestershire, which I spend so much of my time doing—have opportunities to pass on to our children and grandchildren, providing the best public access to nature that we possibly can.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing such an important debate.
One of life’s great pleasures is to be able to enjoy the natural world, but for many it is a pleasure denied. Goal 10 of the Government’s recently published environmental improvement plan is
“Enhanced beauty, heritage, and engagement with the natural environment”.
The Government say they will ensure that the
“natural environment…can be enjoyed, used by and cared for by everyone.”
However, there is a great deal of work to do in that regard. For example, the Government must address the fact that in recent years numerous studies have found that there is unequal access to green spaces across the UK, and that people from less affluent areas and those in ethnic minorities are less likely to enjoy easy access to local green space.
In 2020, 57% of British adults who responded to a survey carried out for The Ramblers said that they lived within a five minutes’ stroll of a local park, field or canal path, but just 39% of people from ethnic minority backgrounds said that they enjoyed the same proximity to green space. Fewer than 50% of those with household incomes of less than £15,000 a year lived close to a green space, but 63% of those with annual household incomes of more than £35,000 could find a green space within five minutes’ walk from their homes. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister what recent assessment the Government have made of the inequality of access to green spaces, and what specific steps they are taking to increase engagement with the natural world among disadvantaged socioeconomic groups and people from ethnic minority backgrounds.
It is beyond dispute that access to nature is immensely important to our health and wellbeing. The mental health charity Mind has said that spending time in green space or making nature a part of everyday life by, for instance, growing food or flowers, exercising outdoors or being around animals can benefit both mental and physical wellbeing. In his 2010 Review “Fair Society, Healthy Lives”, Michael Marmot observed:
“'Well designed and maintained green spaces can encourage social interaction, exercise, play, and contact with nature. Well designed, car free and pleasant streets encourage feelings of well-being, chance interactions and active travel; good quality and good access to public spaces contributes to pride in the community, integration and social cohesion.”
Spending time outdoors was one of the key factors enabling people to deal with the stress of the covid-19 pandemic; there were countless reports of the importance of that. Nearly half the respondents to a survey by the Mental Health Foundation—about 45%—said that throughout the pandemic, visiting green spaces such as parks helped them to cope.
People in my constituency can enjoy beautiful parks, farmland and beaches. Off the coast of West Kirby are the picturesque Hilbre Islands, which sit in the Dee estuary site of special scientific interest, an area of international importance for migrating birds and a favourite place for seal-spotting. The estuary has been at risk of industrialisation through underground coal gasification. I led a campaign against that, and on previous occasions I have raised in the House the importance of protecting the Dee estuary. I should be grateful for a commitment from the Minister that there will be no underground coal gasification in the Dee. Remarkably, the Government have not categorically ruled it out; they have only said that they are not minded to support the technology, so the threat remains. I therefore hope that the Minister is able to give a cast-iron assurance today.
Across the estuary are the scenic Welsh hills, and if weather conditions allow, one can see as far as Anglesey and even Snowdonia, one of the UK's 15 national parks. Of course, the national parks are a proud Labour achievement, as they were created by Clement Attlee’s Government through the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. We are also indebted to Beatrix Potter, who bought up great swathes of Cumbria for all of us to enjoy, and was closely involved in the early days of the National Trust. In Wirral West, Caldy Hill, Thurstaston Common, Irby Hill and Harrock Wood are all owned and cared for by the National Trust, which does an extremely important job in maintaining the sites so that they can be enjoyed by local people and visitors alike.
My constituency is fortunate to have much-loved areas of green belt, but they are under threat of development by Leverhulme Estates. Residents are campaigning passionately against that development, and I fully support them. The threat to the green belt is a threat to the very character of Wirral West. People care deeply about the natural world, and it is vital for us to ensure that it is accessible and unspoilt. It is important to create opportunities for children and young people to enjoy the natural world as well, and the growth of the Forest School movement is an indication of the growing awareness among parents and educationists of the value of access to that natural world. Ganneys Meadow Nursery School and Family Centre on the Woodchurch estate in my constituency does excellent work in this regard, supporting children’s play and exploration and giving them hands-on experience in a natural setting. Children, parents and staff enjoy flower planting and an area that includes an orchard, willow dens and paths that encourage the children to explore the natural environment.
Access to nature is something that has been fought for, and it is vital for us to recognise the importance of protecting and enhancing the right to roam. The Kinder Scout mass trespass in 1932 was aimed to highlight the fact that walkers were denied access to areas of open country. It is generally agreed that hundreds of people took part, and those of us who enjoy the great outdoors today are hugely indebted to them for their actions. Remarkably, some of those trespassers were arrested, and some were given prison sentences, but it was the actions of those who trespassed on that day that led to positive change, and we need to see more change. The Government should introduce legislation to extend the right to roam, and to improve promotion of the countryside code.
It is no surprise that artistic expressions of the natural world are a major part of our cultural heritage. Its beauty has inspired numerous writers and artists, including poets such as Wordsworth and Keats and painters such as Turner and Constable. Their popularity is due not just to their genius, but to the beauty of the natural world that they evoke. It is extremely important for people of all ages and backgrounds to be able to access nature and enjoy the many benefits that it brings. We all have a responsibility to address inequality in access to nature and to care for the natural environment, and I urge Government to address that as a matter of urgency.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am going to look at access to nature in relation to protection of the natural world—and, indeed, access to it—through the prism of my constituency, which means that I will be very parochial, but I am also going to pitch a series of arguments to the Minister, as I have done in addressing previous Ministers. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing the debate; it is also nice to see the Minister here, and it is great to see a fellow co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) on the Opposition Front Bench.
First, I will explain why I believe that the Isle of Wight, for the purposes of the natural world and human access to it, should be seen as a single whole rather than, as is currently the case, a patchwork of designations with some undesignated land. Secondly, I will make the case for a specific island designation. There is no national park on the Island, but I should like to see an island park, which would be slightly different. That could possibly be introduced on other islands as well, such as Anglesey and the Scottish islands. I may have misunderstood, but I thought that there was to be primary legislation following the Glover review. We were looking at the idea of city parks, and I should like that to be extended to the idea of an island park. Thirdly, in support of those two points, I shall explain why the remarkable depth and diversity of animal life, marine and landscape habitat and geology on the Isle of Wight, which is unique in the United Kingdom, should be much more valued by policymakers in London. First, however, I will make my argument in a little more detail.
The Island is said to represent England in miniature. The east resembles Sussex and Kent, with its thick hedges and coppices; the stone walls around the Undercliff on the south side of the Isle of Wight resemble Cornwall, as do the sandy little coves; in the south-west, where I live, the windswept chalk downs somewhat resemble parts of Dorset; and the creeks of Yarmouth, Newtown and Wootton on the north of the island resemble those in Devon. Importantly, being an island, we have not had the invasion of non-native species such as deer, grey squirrels and escaped mink from mink farms—we are free of those.
The Island has a series of internationally and nationally important nature conservation sites, which I will list. We have special areas of marine conservation; as part of an island designation, we would include marinescape as well landscape. We have the Newtown national nature reserve. We have a remarkable 41 SSSIs and 395 local wildlife sites. We have two of the south-east of England’s four heritage coasts, and just over half of the Island is an area of outstanding natural beauty. It should be much more. Someone turned up in 1963 from the Ministry, spent half a day on the Island, threw a few splotches of AONB on the map and left; it was not a well-conducted exercise.
We are again applying for dark skies status for the south-west of the Island. I got back from London last Friday morning at 2 am—I got the midnight ferry down. Even with a partial moon, the intensity of the night sky in the south-west, where I live, is breathtaking. Having dark skies and being able to see the night sky—sadly, in our light-polluted civilisation, fewer and fewer people are able to—is humbling and uplifting at the same time.
Let me put all those explanations and categorisations into terms that geographers might recognise—again, I apologise for listing, but I am using the geographical terms from Natural England and other organisations. Our landscape and seascape include: broad-leaf mixed and yew woodland; maritime cliff and slope; lowland calcareous grassland; coastal and floodplain grazing marsh; lowland meadows; reedbeds; lowland dry acidic grassland; fens; lowland heathland; the chalk downs that provide the spine of the Island, from Bembridge on one side to the Needles all the way over in the west; saline lagoons; mudflats; coastal sand dunes, and coastal vegetated shingle.
I will mention specifically our chines, which are mostly unique to us, although I believe there are a few in west Dorset too. Those are spectacular steep-sided gorges where rivers and streams flow down to the sea and, over thousands of years, have carved their way through soft sandstone. Shanklin chine, celebrated by Keats, is one of the more famous, but there are chines all over the Island, including near me on the south side.
What does all this mean? With our English landscape in miniature, our range of different habitats and our role as an island, we are pretty unique geologically and geographically—I will say a little more about that in a second. We are also home to many different species, some of which are unique to the Isle of Wight. Importantly, we have species on the Island, some of them flourishing, that are near-extinct in other parts of the United Kingdom. Those include red squirrels, dormice and water voles, because we do not have grey squirrels or lots of escaped mink. I thank the Isle of Wight Red Squirrel Trust for its great work looking after injured red squirrels, which we sadly see occasionally on the roads.
We have some of the UK’s rarest bats. I think 17 or 18 species have been identified on the Isle of Wight, including the greater horseshoe bat, which those who know their bats—I do not, but I read the work and talk to people who do—tell me is very rare nowadays. We also have the Bechstein’s bat and the grey long-eared bat. I thank the Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeological Society for the information.
Our specialised flora includes early gentian, which is found in Wiltshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight; field cow-wheat, which is present in only a few locations in the country; and wood calamint, which we have in a single dry chalk valley on the Island. For insects, the Island is the sole British location of the Glanville fritillary butterfly and the reddish buff moth. About a decade ago, we rediscovered the bee hawk-moth in part of the Island. I am sorry to list stuff, but I want to get it on the record, because it is important to the arguments that I am going to make.
For birds, the Solent as a whole, including our marshes, is a Ramsar designated site—a wetland of international importance. Brading marshes and the Newtown and Western Yar marshes and estuaries are internationally important for migrating and wading birds, and for the insects and plants that exist in that saline estuary— I think that is the geographers’ term—habitat. The sea eagle—the second largest in the world—was reintroduced in England on the Isle of Wight, and there is now a nesting pair, I think at Brading marshes. Buzzards, which were once rare, are now relatively plentiful, especially in the middle of the Island.
The areas surrounding the Island are protected by marine conservation zones, special protection areas and special areas of conservation. There are two species of seahorse that can be seen—sadly, often to a lesser extent nowadays—around the British coast. Those are the spiny seahorse and the short-snouted seahorse—a bit of an alliterative struggle, that one. Both exist in and around the shores of the Isle of Wight. We have other rare or semi-rare marine species, including native oyster, peacock’s tail and stalked jellyfish. There is a plan to reintroduce the white-clawed crayfish, the English crayfish having died out in many parts of the UK because of the bigger American crayfish, which we find in Pret A Manger sandwiches and so on. I thank the Wildheart Animal Sanctuary for that potential work.
The purpose of my listing those species is to show the Minister the variety of the wildlife that exists on the Island but is relatively rare in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is a little bit more of the list and then I shall come to my points.
We have seagrass meadows in Osborne bay, Yarmouth and Bouldnor. Seagrass is very important for carbon capture, which is why a project is taking seeds from those coastal waters around the Isle of Wight and replanting them in the Beaulieu river in the Solent. The relative strength of our natural world—I accept that it is relative—is being or will be used for the benefit of the wider UK, as is exemplified by what is happening with the crayfish, the seabeds and the sea eagle.
All that—thank you for bearing with me, Mr Deputy Speaker—means that the variety, diversity and depth of our habitats, natural flora, and common, rare and unique insects, marine life and animal life are pretty much unique in the United Kingdom.
Let me say a word on geology, too. We have one of the most complex geologies pretty much anywhere in the world, but certainly in Britain. The Undercliff, a breathtakingly beautiful area along the southern tip of the Island, is the most geologically unstable inhabited part of Europe. Sadly, our roads occasionally slip alarmingly towards the sea. The last time that happened, eight years ago, about 75 metres of A road parted company with the rest of the road during a particularly bad storm. Sadly, that road has not yet been repaired.
Along the south-west of the Island, we have a near-complete exposure of Cretaceous coast—of orange Wealden rock. If one looks at the Isle of Wight, one sees white rock and orange rock. They are from roughly the same period, about 120 million years ago. The Wealden rock produces dinosaur fossils in relative abundance, which is why the Isle of Wight is Europe’s No. 1 site for the discovery of fossilised bones of dinosaurs. Indeed, we have dinosaur footprint casts near where I live in Brook bay. I hope that I can say without sounding like a member of the Flintstones that we actually have a family dinosaur. Fossilised bones of an iguanodon were found on my great-great-great-grandad’s farm in about 1870, so there is actually an Iguanodon seelyi. There is some discussion among palaeontologists about whether it is a true species or a subspecies. I will let others argue that point.
The point is that our wildlife is pretty unique and there is not such concentration of different landscapes in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is not to question the beauty of the moors, the lake district, bits of Yorkshire or Dorset, but there is not the concentration of almost every type of habitat in the UK in one place, apart from on the Isle of Wight. There is not the concentration of wildlife—common, rare on the mainland, or unique to the Island—anywhere else, and, frankly, there is not the geology.
Our access to nature is relatively good; we have 500 miles of footpaths. That is probably largely because we avoided enclosures back in the 18th century—we were quite slow to take up those things—so we kept our medieval rights of way, which existed for hundreds of years before that, into the modern era. We also have about 2,000 hectares of open access land, and we have a coastal path, which in most places goes along the coast. We have some 2 million visitors a year.
Frankly, back in the 1940s and ’50s, the case for making the Isle of Wight Britain’s first national park was overwhelming. J. B. Priestley, one of the great authors of the 20th century, argued as much. Unfortunately, it did not happen. I am not arguing for a national park, but I am arguing for a specific island designation because of the uniqueness of our geology and so on.
The Isle of Wight should have a unique role. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) talked about Save the Shire and how people have written in celebration of the landscape. For its size, nowhere compares to the Isle of Wight on that score. Lord Tennyson used the landscape and the seascape in many different ways, and he used the Solent in “Crossing the Bar”, a breathtakingly beautiful poem about crossing from the mainland to the Island, and metaphorically from life to death—it was one of the last poems he wrote.
John Keats’s most famous poem “Endymion” was probably written about Shanklin Chine:
“A thing of beauty is a joy forever”.
Like many others, he was bowled over by the Island’s natural beauty. Turner sketched and painted on the Island, and the 19th-century Freshwater and Bonchurch sets were hugely influential on the Island’s artistic heritage. Some of the finest collections of pastoral poetry, in which we have tended to specialise, were written in the 19th and 20th centuries, including some breathtakingly beautiful poetry. The daughter of William Makepeace Thackeray asked on a visit to the Island in 1853,
“Is there no one who is commonplace here? Is everybody either a poet, or a genius, or a painter”?
Considering that she was talking about previous constituents, I would undoubtedly say yes, but it shows that our countryside, our seascape and our landscape are widely celebrated.
I now come to my political argument. Thank you for bearing with me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am constructing an argument, but there is a reasonable amount of detail that I want to get on the record.
The Isle of Wight has a single designation under the UNESCO biosphere, but that has no standing in UK law. How about thinking of ways that it could? I thank Joel Bateman of the Isle of Wight AONB for his great work leading that campaign. In UK designations, more than half our land is an AONB, which I believe is wrongly parcelled into different areas. If we are to treat one bit of countryside as a unified entity, surely it should be an island, and therefore it should surely be the Isle of Wight. I have driven through the Cotswolds AONB and it is very beautiful—do not get me wrong—but it has flat, boring bits. Different lumps of the Cotswolds were not parcelled out. The Cotswolds were taken as a single entity, so why is a much smaller part of the world, the Isle of Wight, not being treated as a single entity? It is effectively a patchwork because someone turned up on the ferry in 1963 at midday and left at 6 o’clock, having pottered around the Island in an Austin 7 and made a few notes. Not only did we not get a national park, but we did not even get a unified area of outstanding natural beauty.
Our protected landscape, although fragmented, is incredibly special. Our finite landscape is in danger of being damaged. Natural England has said:
“Urban development is spreading, with waste disposal sites, extensive holiday and industrial developments and caravan parks blurring the edge of settlements.”
The extent to which rural landscapes on the Island have been disturbed by urban development increased by 27% between 1960 and 2007. Some of our rivers have been badly damaged—we now know of the dirty rivers scandal—and Southern Water is thankfully now using the Isle of Wight as an example of best practice in how to clean up rivers. I hope the rest of Britain will catch up with the Island’s natural regeneration in the years to come. In this area, we are leading the way.
An all-island designation could encompass both maritime and landscape. Why not have both in a single entity? A single protected landscape status for the Island would fit with its single unitary authority and its biosphere status. Frankly, it would also help our branding. The Island is special in many ways, but we are not one of the richest parts of Britain, and we are certainly not one of the richest parts of the south-east. Environmental and ecological tourism would be a significant benefit. The Island’s 2 million visitors already contribute about £560 million to our economy.
If I had a choice, I would choose controlled development that both looks after the Island’s housing needs and protects our landscape, without appealing to a mainland market, because the landscape is important in its own right and it is important for our tourism economy, rather than the endless urban sprawl. Large-scale development is completely unsuited to the Island.
An island park designation would see the Island as a single ecological and environmental entity. Access to nature would be provided wherever necessary, respecting the law, but it would primarily function for the benefit of the nature recovery plan. I thought the Glover review would result in primary legislation.
I assure you that I will be winding up in the next two or three minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I normally make concise speeches, so I feel a bit guilty whenever I go for more than 15 minutes.
An island park would effectively function like an AONB. It would rule out large-scale development, so we would no longer build for a mainland market, but we would, importantly, look after the Island’s housing needs, which we have not done for 50 years. We would probably have more affordable housing, more social housing and more housing association housing. That would be our priority to get our youngsters on to the market. If people want to retire to the Isle of Wight, that is great, but the back pages of the Isle of Wight County Press list 500 homes for sale at any one time. If we are building, we should build for Islanders—mainly the young, but occasionally the old when they need to downsize. I would seek a ban on largescale housing development in favour of smaller developments in existing communities, using the few brownfield sites and perhaps mildly increasing the density of our towns.
I am frustrated that, whenever I talk to the Government or Natural England, they say they are looking at extending the Cheshire Sandstone Ridge AONB and the Yorkshire Wolds AONB, as justified as that would be, and potentially creating two new AONBs. We will have to wait 10 years for a review of our AONB. Why? The next time we have a landscape protection Bill for, say, city parks, why do we not consider special island designations for the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isle of Arran and the Outer Hebrides?
The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), committed to 30 by 30 and to an additional 4,000 sq km, which is welcome, and I assume the current Prime Minister would do the same. In the Isle of Wight, the Government have a natural partner that wants to work with them. The council has committed to an all-island designation, and so have I, because we want to be an example of best practice for how human beings can live in harmony with the natural world and for how we can get the nature recovery we need, because it is obvious that we are becoming less biodiverse. If we can do that on the Island, with its multiple types of species and multiple habitats, we could learn how to do it elsewhere. This is a no-brainer, as the Americans would say, and I would welcome it if the Government wanted to work with me on this.
To recap, the Island should for the natural world, and the human enjoyment of it, be seen as a single whole. There is a very strong case for introducing an island designation in our landscape protection, and I believe it should be introduced first in the Isle of Wight because of the uniqueness of our environment, the uniqueness of our habitats, the uniqueness of our wildlife and the uniqueness of our geology. I look forward to talking further about this with the Government.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate on an important yet under-discussed subject.
The United Kingdom is
“one of the world’s most nature-depleted countries”.
Those are not my words but the words of Lord Goldsmith, a Government Minister. Research by the Natural History Museum has revealed that the UK ranks at the bottom of the G7 in biodiversity preservation. In fact, we find ourselves languishing in the bottom 10% of all countries. There will be people in this place today who have repeatedly heard that statistic from me and others so, although I apologise for sounding like a broken record, I want the House to consider how serious the situation is for our beloved natural environment.
For nature to recover and thrive in the UK, we need to manage our land and ecosystems in a way that restores biodiversity and leaves room for nature, part of which involves having a stronger connection to nature. Research shows that people with a strong connection to nature are more likely to behave positively towards the environment. Establishing a long-lasting connection between people and nature would play a crucial role in ensuring the conservation of precious wildlife, habitats and species in the future. It is quite simple: the more people engage with nature, the more likely they are to protect it.
The green space we currently have access to provides significant benefits, especially for our physical and mental health and well-being. Research suggests that access to nature saves the NHS approximately £110 million a year in fewer GP visits. That fact was starkly reinforced during the pandemic, when many people gained a greater appreciation of nature, green spaces and local parks.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was spot on when she talked about the environmental improvement plan, the need for more ambition and the lack of discussion of equality within the EIP. She was also right to acknowledge Chris Smith’s important role in opening up access to nature, which we need to expand, delivering much more of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) rightly linked access and health, reminding us of the Marmot review and of those great and brave pioneers who climbed Kinder Scout. I climbed there myself just after the pandemic restrictions were lifted.
However, accessible nature is distributed unfairly across England. In 2020, Friends of the Earth’s “green space gap” report highlighted that 40% of people from ethnic minority backgrounds live in the most green space-deprived areas, compared with 14% of white people. We heard a great tour of constituencies and their surrounding areas from Conservative Members, including the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr Walker), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and, perhaps most expansively, for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). He knows that I lived on the Isle of Wight for a year. I particularly recall the dark skies there and the ability to see the beautiful starscape. Again, the Glover review recommended giving young people access to those dark skies. He made some excellent points that I am sure we will discuss in future.
The Government commissioned the Glover review to assess the 70-year-old protections that led to the creation of England’s national parks and AONBs. The review was clear in calling for a stronger focus on natural recovery and improving the state of the national parks in the UK. It also called for greater access to our countryside, citing the barriers to access for children, minority ethnic groups and those living in the most deprived areas of England. It was a comprehensive and important review.
National parks were created in part to provide a healing space, both mentally and physically, for the many who had given so much to protect our country during the second world war. They were meant for everybody. The Glover review recognised that, stating that
“it feels wrong that many parts of our most beautiful places are off-limits to horse riders, water users, cavers, wild campers and so on. We hope that”—
the Government—
“will look seriously at whether the levels of open access we have in our most special places are adequate.”
It is perhaps unsurprising that the Government failed to address the adequacy of open access rights in their lacklustre response to the Glover review when their interests so closely align with those seeking to prevent it. The Minister will no doubt extol the virtues of the EIP, which promises to ensure that everyone lives within a 15-minute walk of blue or green space, but there has been no detail on how that will be achieved. I hope that she will give us some of that detail today. Currently, nearly 2.8 million people in the UK live more than 10 minutes’ walk from green space. So where is the road map to achieve that goal? Where is the road map to achieve 15-minute access?
We need a robust strategy that goes beyond the Conservative’s ambition for ambition’s sake. That is why Labour will take tangible action to ensure every Briton is able to access the nature our country has to offer. We will introduce a right to roam Act, a new law allowing national parks to adopt the right to wild camp, as well as expanding public access to woodlands and waterways. As has been said by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), Labour will give the
“right to experience, the right to enjoy and the right to explore”
our countryside, as opposed to the current right to roam, which gives people only the right to pass through.
Labour will improve the quality of our national parks and expand the area of national parks, AONBs and SSSIs that the public can experience, enjoy and explore. A Labour Government will also ensure that there are sufficient responsibilities and protections to manage and conserve our natural environment for all.
Caroline Lucas
It is interesting to hear the plans from the Labour party, which I welcome, but could the hon. Member answer a question about the kind of right to roam Labour is supporting: is it the universal right, based on the Scottish model, or is it a more specialised one, based on exclusions?
Alex Sobel
The hon. Lady is prejudging the conclusion of my speech, but perhaps I will get to that now and put her out of her misery. Like in Scotland, Labour’s approach will be that our right to roam will offer access to high- quality green and blue spaces for the rest of Britain. We will replace the default of exclusion with a default of access and ensure the restoration and protection of our natural environment. I hope that that answers her question.
Alex Sobel
The hon. Lady seems to indicate that it does, so I will try to find the space further back in the speech and not repeat that point.
Currently, only 3% of our rivers are accessible to the public, although perhaps that is not such a bad thing for swimmers, given the state of our waterways under the current Government. Labour will end 90% of sewage discharges by 2030 and introduce strict penalties for water bosses who fail to comply. Only the Labour party will ensure access to clean rivers, lakes and seas, so that those swimmers and other water users can enjoy them. Of course, it is important that any expansion of access encourages responsible behaviour, with measures to protect our most vulnerable habitats and species from harm. By incorporating responsible practices into our access rights, we can ensure the wellbeing of our environment for generations to come. That is a far cry from the attitude of the Government, who currently spend less than £2,000 per year on promoting the countryside code.
In conclusion, Labour will create a future where nature thrives, people have a deeper connection to the environment and everyone has equal access to the benefits of green spaces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think you are a very lucky fella, because so often you are in the Chair for these fantastic debates and today’s has been no exception. It feels like Parliament’s own version of “Wild Isles” or perhaps “Wish you were here…?” Where shall we go? I know that for you the answer will be Ribble Valley. I was preparing for this debate with my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who was so disappointed not to be able to contribute because his constituency equally has many wonderful attributes in nature that people can enjoy. But of course there is a serious point here and there is a significant challenge. I welcome the successful debate we have had and the contributions on constituencies across the country. I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to the folks involved with the “People’s Plan for Nature”. I have been working on that with non-governmental organisations and others in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Many Members have contributed and I wish to run through some of their comments. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) for his work when he was Schools Minister in the Department for Education to make sure that that GCSE will come in in 2025. I will join him to ensure that the current Education Minister absolutely makes that happen and that DEFRA can be part of it as well. While he was walking the Malvern hills last Saturday, I was walking the Eskdale fells. I also enjoy hiking, biking and kayaking, which we have heard about today. In fact I was awoken on the wonderful Fisherground campsite in Eskdale not rudely, but wonderfully, by the dawn chorus. I would recommend the outdoors and enjoying nature to anybody.
My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of schools. So many of us visit schools in our constituencies to learn about forest schools and eco schools. When I was chair of governors at Captain Shaw’s C of E School, we ensured that the children got out into nature as much as possible. I pay tribute to Bikeability. He referred to the need for children to be able to access active travel—it has been a theme throughout today’s debate—and Bikeability does a tremendous job.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Rivers multi-academy trust. Today in Grizedale there is an event celebrating women in forestry. It is important that we have these schools providing the education so we can continue the legacy in eco-tourism and ecosystems services.
Margaret Greenwood
The Minister is making a strong case for encouraging people to access nature. As I mentioned in my speech, in Wirral West, we have Hilbre Island in the Dee estuary. It is incredibly important for international bird life and very much enjoyed by people who live in the area and people who visit the area. It has been at risk of underground coal gasification. I am seeking a commitment from Government that they will rule out underground coal gasification. Can she give me an answer today, or write to me with such a commitment, having consulted with colleagues?
Trudy Harrison
The hon. Lady is right that I would need to consult with colleagues on that point. I am happy to do so and write to her.
I also wish to raise the important role played by Active Travel England—it is headquartered in the constituency of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), which is a very good thing—ensuring that we have access to nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned my visit to his constituency. It was wonderful to hear his effective promotion of Gloucester. Surely he could send an invoice to VisitEngland for that. We learned about the wonderful nature in his beautiful area and the many reasons to visit it. He also talked about the benefits that children enjoy in schools such as Clearwater Academy, Meadowside and the many others that he mentioned.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) about the benefit of community involvement and pay tribute to the enormous amount of charities, not-for-profit organisations and trusts across this country that are helping us to protect, preserve and ensure that we have access to nature. But the Isle of Wight is perhaps the winner here today for the promotion of nature. I know that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) hosts red squirrels. I also share his appreciation of dark skies. I have Wild Ennerdale in my patch, which is a dark sky site.
Caroline Lucas
I am not quite sure how long the Minister is going to speak, but I am anxious that she will come to answer the questions. I counted eight or nine of them in my opening statement and, although I appreciate her eulogy of everyone else’s speeches, I just hope that she is leaving herself enough time to answer those eight or nine questions.
Trudy Harrison
Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just going to reflect on the variety of references that we have had—from Beatrix Potter and Fred Flintstone at Yabba Dabba Do Town to the introduction of paleontology.
Let me set the record straight on publicly accessible land across England. It is not quite accurate to say that it is just 8%. Although I enjoy a hike and getting out on my bike, I also recognise that it is simply not safe to consider the fell tops and mountains to be truly accessible. So I wish to draw the House’s attention to the physically demanding, courageous and relentless work of our mountain rescue and inshore rescue teams and many other volunteers who give up their time—often, their weekends and family time—sometimes at risk to themselves, to rescue others.
On that theme, may I take the opportunity to restate the countryside code, which has been mentioned many times ? It is especially important right now, during the lambing season. In brief, it says: keep dogs under control and in sight at all times; take litter home; leave gates as you find them—if they are open, leave them open, and if they are shut, leave them shut; and, most important, leave no trace.
Members have raised the importance of accessing nature, so I will set out how we can access nature at the moment and how we will improve that. Our public woodlands and forests are mostly open to people, too. Forestry England has 258,000 hectares. There are national parks, as we have heard, including England’s largest, the Lake district, where I live, at 912 square miles. But we do not just want to improve access to nature.
There are 1,800 miles of existing national trails in England and, increasingly, we are committed to making these trails as accessible as we can. It is not just about the square miles; it is about the linear miles too. When complete, at 2,700 miles, the new King Charles III England coast path will be England’s longest national trail and the longest continuous coastal path in the world. The Coast to Coast national trail will add another 197 miles of national trail. When both the King Charles III England coast path and the Coast to Coast national trail are complete, the total length of national trails in England will be 4,952 miles. There are also 43,910 miles of inland waterways in England and Wales. The national cycle network spans 12,000 miles of signed routes for walking, wheeling and cycling and includes more than 5,000 miles of traffic-free paths.
I think that I have well and truly set out that there is far more that 8% of the countryside and indeed urban areas for people to enjoy. That is important because we know the links between greener living and higher life satisfaction, including improved mental health. I am delighted that there have been 7,000 referrals through green social prescribing and we look to do even more of that.
As has been mentioned many times, we published our environmental improvement plan on 31 January with its 10 goals—I recommend it to all Members. In that plan, we have announced our intention to work across Government to ensure that everyone lives within a 15-minute walk of a blue or green space. This recognises the fact that 68% of trips to green space are made within two miles of home, so it is crucial that nature is close to where people live. We will be working with Natural England to achieve this. We have already put in place our green infrastructure framework, which is being used to identify those areas where Government funding should be prioritised, especially where we have higher levels of deprivation.
We are also taking steps to increase the number of routes to and through nature. For example, last week the Bridlington to Filey stretch of the King Charles III England coastal path was opened, connecting thousands of people to the Yorkshire coast.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I really could go on and on about the existing access to nature, but I know that it is important to talk about what we are doing in the future. We have our Farming in Protected Landscapes scheme, which is increasing access to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It has been incredibly successful, and we will be extending it through to 2025. There has been much reference to the environmental land management scheme, which is enabling farmers to make their land more accessible to people too.
Our local nature recovery strategies will be across all 48 upper tiers of local authorities in England, and will involve working with farmers, private landowners, trusts and local authorities to make sure that we are increasing access to nature. I also wish to mention what we are doing with trees. Our target to increase tree canopy cover to 16.5% by 2050 means that we need to plant about 400 million trees. That will also bring people closer to nature.
In conclusion, connecting people with nature is at the heart of our environmental improvement plan. We are beginning to tackle the inequalities that have been referenced in the debate today and we are doing that particularly in urban areas where there are levels of deprivation, but there is much, much more to do.
Trudy Harrison
I am sorry that I cannot give way, because I must conclude.
I thank Members for their contributions today. I very much hope that I can continue to look forward to their support as we drive forward to ensure that nature is protected, most importantly, more abundant and truly there for everyone.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The final two minutes go to the mover of this debate, Caroline Lucas.
Caroline Lucas
I hope the Minister will allow me to re-present in a letter the questions that I asked her in my speech, because she has not answered a single one of them, which is somewhat disappointing. I will just correct her: when we are talking about open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, 8% of English land is accessible, as I said.
I am grateful to all Members for taking part in this debate. It has been inspiring to hear people’s very real love of the environments close to them, from Worcestershire to the Isle of Wight, from York to Gloucester.
This debate is not just an opportunity to share paeans to nature, important though that is; it is a deeply important debate about the lack of equitable access to nature and about the state of nature in our country. The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. We are in the bottom 10% of countries globally for protecting nature. A total of 15% of our species are threatened with extinction, so I am afraid that some of the complacency that I have heard from the Minister is extremely misplaced.
People will not protect what they do not love, they will not love what they do not know, and they will not know what they do not have access to—touching it, smelling it, feeling it and really being intimate with it. That is what we are talking about here. It is not just about more footpaths, important though they are, or more trails; it is about an immersion in wild nature.
Yet people cannot do any of that right now because they are confronted by fences, barbed wire and notices that say “Trespassers will be prosecuted.” Half of England is owned by just 1% of the population; 24 dukes alone own almost 1 million acres of our land and the rest of us are shut out of it. Until we change that, we will not be able to ensure that the nature that we are blessed with can thrive into the future.
I hope the Minister, as well as answering my questions, will meet me so that we can discuss how we can genuinely move forward on a comprehensive right to roam, which so many people both inside and outside this House want to see. That momentum is growing and the campaign is not going away.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered public access to nature.
Psilocybin Treatments
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are now moving on to the final debate before the Adjournment, on the motion on access to—is it psilocybin? [Hon. Members: “Psilocybin”]—psilocybin treatments. I have learned something today, and I will learn a lot more, I suspect.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the development of treatment options in mental health; further notes there have been no new pharmacological treatments for depression, with the exception of Esketamine, in over 30 years; recognises that psilocybin, a naturally occurring compound, has the potential to revolutionise the treatment of many of the world’s most hard to treat psychiatric conditions such as depression, PTSD, OCD, addiction and anorexia nervosa; recognises that no review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status under UK law has ever been conducted; regrets that psilocybin is currently more controlled than heroin under the most stringent class and schedule under UK law which is significantly stalling research; and calls on the Government to take steps to conduct an urgent review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status as Schedule 1 under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 with a view to rescheduling, initially for research purposes only, in order to facilitate the development of new mental health treatments and enable human brain research for the benefit of researchers, patients and the life sciences sector in the UK, and to deliver His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to be world-leading in its approach, with evidence-led and data-driven interventions, and building the evidence base where necessary.
Psilocybin is a psychoactive substance found in more than 50 species of fungi, including many native varieties of mushroom that grow wild across the UK. There is a certain irony in the fact that this debate follows on from the debate on access to nature, because in many respects our debate is also about that.
Psilocybin is a naturally occurring substance and produces a window of neuroplasticity that lasts for a number of hours. When administered in a controlled environment with psychotherapeutic intent by trained professionals, psilocybin could be a powerful and effective tool to help treat society’s most complex mental health conditions, and that is what we call on the Government to make possible.
The evidential basis for psilocybin’s current status as a schedule 1 substance has never been reviewed since it was first controlled more than 50 years ago, and there is an urgent and medically justified need to reschedule psilocybin under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. It is unethical to deny that any longer. A review of the evidence of psilocybin’s harms and utility should be undertaken immediately, with a view to rescheduling it.
The use of psychedelics in medicine is not novel; they have been used throughout human history to treat the sick, from peyote ceremonies in Mexico to ayahuasca in the Amazon basin, and the San Pedro cactus in Peru. The earliest evidence of psychedelic use can be found in a cave in the Tassili-N’Ajjer region of the Sahara desert in Algeria, with a mural depicting what is referred to as the “mushroom man” or “mushroom shaman”, a bee-headed figure with mushrooms identified as Psilocybe mairei, native to the region, sprouting from his body. The mural has been dated as being between 7,000 and 9,000 years old.
The Selva Pascuala mural in a cave in Spain features mushrooms that researchers believe to be Psilocybe hispanica, a local species of psychedelic mushroom, and is dated as being approximately 6,000 years old. We can also date back to the 13th century western scientists first discussing the use of psychedelics in healthcare in Latin America. None of this is new.
Modern psychedelic research began when Albert Hofmann first synthesized lysergic acid diethylamide, or LSD, in 1938, causing something of an explosion in interest among psychiatrists and psychologists, with studies from the period showing the safety and efficacy of psychedelics, including psilocybin, in treating a whole range of psychiatric conditions. However, all that progress was stalled by the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s, which ultimately led to the criminalisation of the drugs. Since then we have been in stasis, until in recent years something like a psychedelic renaissance has taken place among researchers.
Today, there are serious and considerable barriers to legitimate research associated with the schedule 1 regulations. While current legislation does not preclude scientific research with the drugs, it does make them significantly more difficult, time-consuming and costly to study. I will share with the House just one example of this, from Rudy, a psychology PhD student whose thesis is investigating psychopharmaceutical treatments for addiction—a noble avenue of study, as I am sure we would all agree.
Rudy was first motivated to undertake this research after reading incredible findings that psilocybin administration was associated with sustained nicotine cessation in humans, with 80% of participants abstinent after 6 months. Rudy wanted to see whether those results could be replicated to treat other addiction disorders. However, he ran into problems due to the schedule 1 status of psilocybin. He says that
“in order to undertake my research, I would have had to spend upwards of £20,000 applying for Home Office Schedule 1 licences and retrofitting my laboratory to the correct security standards. Meanwhile, I can work with heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine with no qualms. In light of this, I had to modify my experiment to instead investigate the effects of ketamine. I find it shocking that this government is willing to throw life science research under the bus and push life scientists out of this country with an outdated and downright illegitimate understanding of the medical benefits psilocybin can provide. Please do what you can to fix this!”
That is just one example. At a recent seminar at the Royal Society of Chemistry with some of the country’s most eminent neuroscientists, psychopharmacologists and psychiatrists, I spoke to countless researchers who have run into the same issues, making their research either needlessly more expensive or so prohibitively difficult to do that it has had to be abandoned. There is a huge credibility gap between psychiatry and politics for that reason; psychiatrists cannot understand why, at a time when we claim to be listening to the experts in the field of health, and when this country is facing a mental health crisis, we in Westminster are satisfied with doing nothing on this issue.
Why do we set up expert bodies and not listen to them? It is dangerous, immoral and unethical, and it is frankly offensive to both psychiatrists and their patients that we seem to think that as politicians we know better because of some moral panic 50 years ago. Multi-criteria decision analysis shows the comparative harms of various different kinds of drugs. Psilocybin is physiologically non-toxic and consistently found to be one of the safest controlled drugs, with the broader category of psychedelic compounds it falls into considered relatively safe physiologically and not drugs of dependence. The idea that psychedelics, including psilocybin, are dangerous is a myth, created and perpetuated to justify keeping them illegal.
Psychiatrists tell me that psychedelics are the best clinical tool and the best bit of psychiatric equipment they have, altering states of consciousness to allow for deeper processing and exploration of trauma and opening a therapeutic window where treatment can work, versus sub-optimal treatments with maintenance medications and substandard psychotherapies.
Moving on to patients, there is not a single other field where we would accept a 90% failure rate as acceptable, yet in mental health treatment that is where we are. There are a number of mental health conditions, including borderline personality disorder, that we seem to be satisfied with having no proper treatments or cures for. Psilocybin has been shown in numerous studies globally to have a profound and lasting effect over placebos for a range of different mental health conditions including treatment-resistant depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anorexia nervosa and addiction.
I want to talk first about one of those conditions, PTSD. I have referred previously to living with PTSD, and that is where my interest in the potential promise of psilocybin as a treatment first began—so please consider this a declaration of interest, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was first diagnosed almost two years ago, after being the victim of a crime, and I cannot overstate the impact it has had on my life.
PTSD is a condition that I can expect to live alongside potentially indefinitely, and that can only ever be managed. It is a condition that has, for me, proved almost fatal. I manage it through a combination of a powerful serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, Venlafaxine, taken daily, benzodiazepines taken for sleep and to stave off a dissociative episode if I am triggered by something, and regular therapy, following an almost month-long period as a psychiatric inpatient, having been sectioned in 2021 for my own safety. I am not telling the House this for sympathy, but because I hope my experience can be illustrative of just how debilitating a condition such as PTSD is.
We all know that being an MP can be a difficult job at the best of times. However, I ask hon. Members to consider for a moment what it is like living with a condition such as PTSD and the myriad subtle and unsubtle ways my body lets me down: having to put my best face on and go into a meeting after a panic attack; having the energy to make it through our long working hours after a virtually sleepless night plagued by night terrors, where I try to fight my attacker off me and wake up covered in bruises; seeing someone who looks like my attacker on a tube platform and feeling a terror so acute that I want to jump in front of the oncoming train to make it stop; going for walks until I am exhausted and my feet are bleeding in order to burn through the nervous energy that fizzes up inside me; finding myself in dangerous situations and being more vulnerable as a result; hearing a car going past playing the song that was playing when my PTSD began and vomiting; dissociating and losing time; being angry, messy and erratic; crying at everything and nothing; being snappy with my loved ones and becoming convinced that ending my own life would be a kindness to all those who have had to deal with me throughout the worst period of my PTSD, from my staff to my family. Even at its best, it is a living hell. There is nothing I would not give, nothing I would not do, to go back to who I was before my diagnosis.
My experience is not unique. This is the reality of living with a serious mental health condition. I am making it through as best I can because of the love and support of friends, colleagues and psychiatric intervention, but I know that, just as I am a million miles better than I have been, and there are many more good days than bad these days, I could easily relapse because of something I can neither plan for nor prevent.
I am hopeful that this sort of treatment may offer a light at the end of a very dark tunnel and finally give me my life back. The evidence shows that psilocybin, as with other psychedelics, can be such an effective treatment for PTSD that following a successful course of psychedelic-assisted therapy, many patients no longer even fulfil the diagnostic criteria any more—they are all but cured. But this Home Office, and its scheduling policy, which says against all the evidence that this is not allowed, is stopping that. It feels like institutional cruelty to condemn us to our misery when there are proven safe and effective treatment options if only the Government would let us access them.
Just as that is one story—my own experience—consider the millions of people in this country and around the world living with the same, with no hope that things can or will ever get better. Depression is one of the most socially, medically and economically burdensome diseases of the modern world. It is the single largest cause of global disability and the leading contributor to suicide. An average of 18 people take their own lives every day. Up to one third of people with depression do not respond to multiple courses of medication; an estimated 1.2 million adults in the UK live with treatment-resistant depression.
The direct treatment and unemployment costs to the UK associated with depression in 2020 have been estimated at £10 billion. The human and economic burden of that condition is profound, and there are clear benefits to supporting development of therapies that may be effective where all other treatments have failed. Mental health costs the UK £117.9 billion a year—around 5% of GDP—yet that is not nearly enough money to address our current crisis. Waiting lists for specialist treatment are often years long. There is both a moral and economic imperative for the Government to act.
We are being left behind as a nation. Some US states have legalised the use of psilocybin in mental health treatment. In 2018 it was granted “breakthrough therapy” status for depression by the United States Food and Drug Administration, expediting the research and approval process, with expected approval by the FDA in 2024. In Australia, from 1 July this year,
“medicines containing the psychedelic substances psilocybin and MDMA can be prescribed by specifically authorised psychiatrists for the treatment of certain mental health conditions.”
In Canada, healthcare practitioners may be able to access psilocybin for emergency treatment under a special access program when a clinical trial is not available or suitable.
We have charitable organisations in this country, such as Heroic Hearts, which take veterans abroad to be able to access treatment that they should be able to get in this country on our NHS. We have scientists, including the brilliant Dr Ben Sessa, leaving the country to pursue research and treatment abroad. That is utterly, utterly shameful. The real-world data from those countries will only make avoiding change in the UK even less justifiable.
The motion would make no difference to the laws around recreational use or supply of psilocybin or magic mushrooms. Further, there is no evidence of diversion of schedule 2 substances from clinical research. Use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms is low, and there is no evidence of users developing a dependency. As psilocybin mushrooms grow wild throughout the United Kingdom, psilocybin does not represent an opportunity for profit-motivated gangs and criminal individuals. These proposals do not risk increasing drug-related harms but will allow us to assess and access the benefits of psilocybin as a substance.
Of all of the psychedelic compounds that show promise in this area, psilocybin has the lowest risk profile across all metrics, so there is little reason not to reschedule it but plenty of reasons to make the change as soon as possible. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that psilocybin does not pose a major risk to the individual, to public health or to social order. Its schedule 1 designation is not morally, medically or economically appropriate.
We are supported in our call today not only by politicians from across the House, but by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Campaign Against Living Miserably, the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group, Drug Science, Heroic Hearts, Clusterbusters and SANE, among many other organisations. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for having the political courage and will—those are, sadly, too often lacking in this place —to grant us this important debate so that we may move ahead on rescheduling psilocybin. Now it is the Government’s turn to show that political courage and will.
Psilocybin’s current status as a schedule 1 drug is incommensurate with the evidence of its harm and utility. I beg the Government to support our motion and finally, finally right the historic wrong of its scheduling.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I think the whole House will wish to commend the hon. Lady for her courage in bringing this matter before the House and for the way in which she has put her case this afternoon.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I wholly concur with your words, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). I also offer my thanks to those on the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. They were plainly moved by the brilliant words crafted by the hon. Lady, which I was privileged to deliver to the Committee on her behalf. I also thank the 25 parliamentary colleagues from across the House who supported the application for this debate on a technical and—as we heard from your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—tricky-to-pronounce subject, which is of astonishing potential importance to the future of mental health treatment.
The debate helpfully falls during Mental Health Awareness Week. The Government are formally committed to evidence-based policymaking; that is stressed in the White Paper of 22 August 2022. There is an immediate need to act on all available evidence in respect of psilocybin. Having spent the last six years specialising in this country’s failing approach to drugs and drugs harms, and setting up a think-tank on the subject to provide me with expert advice on the issue, I know the challenges all too well.
On 14 March 2023, the Minister with responsibility for drugs, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I debated this very issue on the Adjournment. I purposely used that debate to raise the principal issues involved in this narrow question. I did not seek answers from the Minister on that occasion, but sought to give him a little time to look at options to resolve the question. It was already my intention to follow up with this debate to demonstrate publicly that this is not just my view but one that is widely shared, as the hon. Member for Warrington North said, including by the Royal College of Psychiatrists; mental health charities CALM and SANE; veterans’ charity Heroic Hearts, of which I happen to be a trustee; cluster headache organisation Clusterbusters; Drug Science, a drug charity chaired by the former chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt; and across this House.
I wanted to give the forewarned drugs Minister the opportunity, in responding to the debate, to show that His Majesty’s Government understand the potential improvement to mental health treatment, and that they are straining every bureaucratic and regulatory sinew to follow up the strongly indicative research evidence to date about its potential. I put that in terms in the previous debate. I said:
“I do not want or expect an answer this evening; these matters demand careful consideration. There will shortly be an application to the Backbench Business Committee, supported by more than a score of colleagues from across the House, for time for a fuller consideration. I hope by the time that debate is secured we can enjoy the news that this Minister is taking the available opportunities of his very tough policy inheritance.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 805.]
It is now two months since that debate and almost six years since the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was first commissioned to look at the problem, so it is frustrating, to put it mildly, that it is the drugs Minister’s colleague who has been put forward to reply to this debate. I have the highest regard for the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the quality of his attention to detail on issues he has been responsible for, such as planning, which is of immense importance to my constituency of Reigate, but this issue needs the policy Minister across the complexities engaged, and with the authority and confidence of his colleagues to carry them with his strategy, to enable the benefits that only bureaucratic inertia prevents.
Where is the drugs Minister? Having told him in terms of today’s opportunity and the date of this debate, when I had notice of it from the Backbench Business Committee, and of my expectation that he would have spent those ensuing two months engaged with these issues and able to come to the House today, what are we to make of his absence? What has he prioritised over Parliament, with notice? Does it remain his view that this issue is not a priority? Has he nothing new to say? Has he so little regard for the people who are raising this that he has prioritised the apparent visit scheduled for today, having initially tried to palm it off on the Minister for medicine, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), in the Department of Health and Social Care?
The Immigration Minister is now having to reply to this debate, and I already know the speech he is going to give on officials’ advice. The irony is that it should be the Minister for medicine replying to this debate, but the Department of Health and Social Care does not own this policy—the Home Office does—and that is part of the reason our drugs policy is in such an unforgivable mess. I am not sure who should be more insulted and put out by the drugs Minister’s dereliction of parliamentary duty: my right hon. Friend answering, with no new defence to offer, or myself, who tried to create this opportunity and deliver an incentive to his colleague to get the necessary focus to clear the bureaucratic hurdles to enabling this potential medicine.
What we can certainly conclude is that this Home Office, with the collective responsibility of all Government Ministers, can now be held accountable for the delay in delivering psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy and psychiatry as a new mental health treatment in the United Kingdom. Having heard the powerful opening speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North, it must be clear to any reasonable person that the duty on His Majesty’s Government to act and act now has been established.
The hon. Member for Warrington North, with personal courage of the highest order, has used her own massive trauma to advance the public interest engaged. She speaks for tens of thousands suffering from apparently untreatable, life-changing mental health trauma. How can my right hon. Friend the Minister look our parliamentary colleague in the eye and read his prepared script? She also speaks for 1.2 million of our fellow citizens with depression. One hundred and twenty five people end their battle every week by killing themselves. Knowing what they know, that makes the Government guilty of joint enterprise in those decisions, because we could and should now be on a path to avert them.
The hon. Lady speaks for about 2,500 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who have PTSD from their service that is currently untreatable. She speaks for Scotty, the ex-paratrooper medically discharged after 15 years of service who presented himself with military dignity on my train home last week to his fellow passengers. He gave his Army number and his service record of five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan as he asked for food, not money, understanding his health condition to be untreatable. He was apparently medically discharged after 15 years’ service due to an untreatable mental health condition and a borderline personality disorder. His dignity in these appalling circumstances, when simply under the care of his GP, being prescribed every kind of chemical cosh going but with no hope of cure, was humbling. It is the absence of hope that I found so distressing.
The current cost of depression alone to the United Kingdom economy is estimated to be about £110 billion a year—5% of our GDP. Even if psilocybin delivered a fraction of what is hoped, the benefits to the economy would be immense, and giving hope to those suffering without it today would be priceless. The ask is simple: that psilocybin be placed in the same schedule as heroin and cocaine through an urgent review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs of the evidence of its harms. The original controls were not based on a review of the available evidence but simply on the fact that no product had yet reached market, which itself is an accident of history. No review has ever been conducted since, for over half a century. In what other area of policy would that be acceptable? Where it has been assessed—in Australia and the United States, for example—change has happened.
It is especially shocking that psilocybin has never been subject to analysis of harm and utility, when the Government admit they are aware of the many studies regarding its potential therapeutic applications. Adding insult to injury, the Government have confirmed that they have no plans to commission the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to assess the scheduling of psilocybin because it is “not currently a priority”. The potential treatment of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of mental health patients is not a priority—really? Does the word “scandalous” do that position justice? If psilocybin treated a physical health condition such as cancer or epilepsy, Government inertia not to swiftly lift barriers to research and treatment would not be tolerated, given the level of clinical potential and safety.
Let us not forget that in the last four months alone, His Majesty’s Government have commissioned the ACMD to conduct rapid reviews of the evidence of the harms of both nitrous oxide and monkey dust. In the case of nitrous oxide, it took the ACMD four weeks to reply. It took the Home Office about four hours to formally ignore that advice, but we know it is possible to commission a rapid review of harms, so why not do so for psilocybin? The Royal College of Psychiatrists and various mental health charities wrote to the drugs Minister to say:
“It is unethical to wait any longer. Psilocybin’s schedule 1 designation is not morally, medically or economically appropriate.”
Now let me address the speech that we shall hear from the Immigration Minister. He will explain that research trials are possible under schedule 1. While research into schedule 1 drugs is possible, only a tiny fraction of the possible research actually takes place, almost all of which is conducted by large pharmaceutical companies trying to bring drugs to market. This red tape not only discourages competition, as only very big companies can afford to conduct the research; it also means that, as the research is unnecessarily expensive, it will be the taxpayer who ultimately picks up the bill through higher drug prices for the NHS. Moreover, leading UK academics have had to relocate to North America and Australia, where the research is easier, which is leading to a brain drain in this vital bioscience area, despite our desire to be a science superpower. Put simply, the Home Office is the enemy of the Prime Minister’s aim to make Britain a centre of global bioscience.
The Immigration Minister, reading his script, will explain that barriers to research are already being investigated and that the ACMD is currently undertaking a review of the barriers to research into controlled drugs beyond cannabinoids. We are told that the drugs Minister is apparently pressing for urgency on psilocybin, but it was six years ago, in 2017, that the Government first asked the ACMD to review this. There is no current deadline for the completion of the current report. In 2017, the Government rejected the ACMD’s recommendations, just as they did with nitrous oxide recently.
In the meantime, since 2017, 40,000 people with depression and trauma have taken their own lives. As butchers’ bills for Government inaction go, I hope that statistic alone will gain some attention. Are the Government hoping that this issue will simply go away? Let me tell them: it will not. Under the current procedures, even if the ACMD is supportive of rescheduling, the Government will still need to issue a further review to reschedule psilocybin under statute to the same schedule as heroin and cocaine, as the current review does not look at the evidence of harms for rescheduling specifically, meaning more delay, more deaths and more misery for those people suffering from depression, who will eventually get treated with pharmacology accompanying psychotherapy and psychiatry.
The Government have also taken the view that specific compounds will be rescheduled once a drug containing psilocybin reaches market authorisation. Nowhere in law, nor in the standard scheduling operating procedures for the ACMD, is that required. In truth, there are three routes to rescheduling: one is that market authorisation triggers a review of the scheduling of that product rather than the generic compound, as was the case with Sativex in 2018, but rescheduling can also take place through the ACMD self-commissioning a review of the evidence or the Home Office commissioning an ACMD review of the evidence. Waiting for a product to reach market authorisation produces a Catch-22 situation where a product cannot be researched in the first place because the barriers of schedule 1 are too high. More importantly, rescheduling only patented products could create a pharmaceutical monopoly on a compound that grows naturally in the United Kingdom, increasing waiting times for patients and costs to the NHS and, ultimately, the taxpayer.
The Home Office has the power to commission a review of the evidence, and there is precedent for commissioning such a review in cannabis-based products for medicinal use. Indeed, in 2018, the wretched situation of just two epileptic children enabled change to start the deployment of cannabis-based medicines, but the regulatory treatment of the psychedelics—psilocybin in particular—remains unaddressed. Perhaps the Minister might like to have a go at advancing an explanation of why 1.2 million people with depression can go hang, compared with the very deserving but relatively few epileptic children.
There is some good news, in that thanks to the Chancellor’s Budget measures, psychedelics will benefit from the expedited approvals of medicines via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency announced in the Budget. While welcome, that would still leave UK patients without access until approval has been achieved abroad, leaving the UK trailing behind Canada, Australia and the United States. In this scenario, the United Kingdom has become a world bioscience follower and not a leader, with the Home Office seeking to deny competitive advantage to our prestigious universities and research companies—indeed, to impose disadvantage on them.
Finally, psilocybin has been consistently found to be one of the safest controlled drugs. It is physiologically non-toxic, and there is no evidence of diversion from schedule 2 substances of whatever danger from clinical research of any kind. Use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms is low, and there is no evidence of users developing a dependency. Psilocybin mushrooms grow wild throughout the United Kingdom, meaning that psilocybin does not represent an opportunity for profit-motivated gangs and criminal individuals. To argue that they might conceivably cause excessive damage to the population, especially when the ask is for medical use under medical supervision, is nonsense—not least when tobacco and alcohol are already legal.
If the Home Office is not prepared to act, it is surely now crucial that the ACMD demonstrates its independence and a proactive approach by prioritising the wellbeing of patients in the UK, particularly given that it is chaired by a practising psychiatrist who enjoys the support of his royal college. But today, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is perhaps time to reveal the Home Office’s true regard for the advice and guidance of the regulatory body responsible for advice on drugs policy, set under statute by this House. That body reports its total expenditure in 2019-20, the last year for which figures are available, as £46,067.34. That is to guide the Government on drugs harms that cost the country an estimated £20 billion a year. It is perhaps unsurprising that proactive advice from the ACMD is somewhat rare.
Surely now the Minister, who has so kindly stood in for his colleague, is appreciating the scale of the hospital pass he has received this afternoon. Add in the modest consideration that the size of the psychedelics market is set to grow to $10 billion by 2027, and the fact that today’s proposition enjoys four to one support with the public and has the potential to revolutionise the lives of millions, and the Minister is invited to defend the Government’s position, which is unethical, immoral and wholly counter to the national interest, however we express it. It will not stand the test of time—change it now.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
It is a rare privilege for me to rise in this place and follow two such magnificent speeches from Members across these Benches, and it is a fact that when we find ourselves with cross-party support on something, we tend to be able to back off and just talk sense about things, and stop trying to score political points off each other.
Then I look at the Government Front Bench, and I understand that the Minister must be asking himself the question, “Why on earth am I here today?” The Government have a history of doing this. When we bring forward debates that are clearly issues for the Home Office, particularly about drugs, they send a Health Minister. When it is clearly something about health, they send a Home Office Minister—this is not new. Sorry, Minister: you are not the first to be put in this position, but you are here today and you will answer the speeches that have been made. I am not going to rehearse everything that has already been said so eloquently today. There is no need: if you have been listening, you have heard the points. You have heard about the number of people who suffer from mental health conditions and can benefit from psilocybin, and the lack of research—I do not have to tell you it again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It would assist me if the hon. Member would say “he” and not “you”, although we will not make a fuss about it.
Ronnie Cowan
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for once again correcting me.
Since announcing that I was taking part in this debate, I have been inundated with briefings from a wide range of individuals and organisations, every one of which was welcome. Not being medically trained, it took me some time to read through and absorb what I was being told. I have my own views on the issue and the path forward, but it is always worth while listening to those who agree and disagree with me—how else can I develop a well-rounded and balanced approach?
That is why it is interesting to note that the motion we are debating states that
“no review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status under UK law has ever been conducted”.
As has been said, it currently has schedule 1 status under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, which—in the view of the UK Government, with no review of the evidence—makes psilocybin, a drug that cannot be overdosed on and has low addictive qualities, more dangerous than heroin or cocaine. We have legislation that is based on preconceptions rather than evidence. That is nonsensical—well, I think it is, but clearly the UK Government do not. They actively support the current situation.
Psilocybin has been pushed to the back of the drugs cabinet and left there, almost—but not quite—forgotten. In the USA, especially in Oregon and Colorado, they are way ahead of us in producing medical research; I also note that Australia has taken a lead in the field. In the UK, a drug being schedule 1 does not completely prevent research, but the researchers themselves have raised the issues of increased administrative and financial costs. We should not be placing barriers in the way of research: we should be supporting and encouraging it, and using it to help us legislate properly. It is not just me saying that. This month, the Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), calling for the same change as this motion. People are suffering from mental health issues that existing evidence tells us would benefit from psilocybin administered by the right people in the right way. We should be pursuing that avenue of research and developing the support and professional skills required.
Before the Minister responds, I hope that he considers that the motion is not about recreational use. It is not about dictating the uses of psilocybin, or those who would benefit. All we are asking in the motion is that the UK Government conduct an urgent review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status as schedule 1 under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. That is it; that is what we are asking for. That would allow better opportunities for the required medical research to be completed. That research would help us to provide appropriate medical support for those suffering from a range of conditions. Why would the UK Government not want that? Why would they continue to obstruct the research? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
May I add my voice to those who have paid tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)? She said she was not asking for sympathy, but she has the sympathy of the House and, I am sure, of anybody who watches that speech on film, which I hope many will do. My heart goes out to her for all that she has been through. I also hope more people see the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), which deserves wide circulation. He is a tremendous campaigner on many issues, not all of which I join him on, but I sympathise with what he is trying to do today. I particularly acknowledge and want to add to my voice to his point about the suffering of our veterans. As a Member with a large military community, I echo that. Too many of our former servicepeople suffer appallingly from PTSD and we need to do more to help them. Psilocybin might be part of the answer.
Both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend cited studies suggesting that the efficacy of psilocybin is similar or superior to that of pharmaceutical interventions, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs in particular. That is significant and we need more research to test that because, if true, it is tremendously positive news. Crucially, the evidence suggests that psilocybin is not dependency-forming and not toxic. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for prescribed drug dependence. Research by colleagues supporting that APPG has laid bare the degree of dependence on prescribed drugs that exists in our country. I am talking not about illegal drugs here, but about drugs administered by doctors, generally in response to mental health conditions, and depression most of all.
A fifth of the adult population is on some sort of dependency-forming drug, such as SSRIs. Many of those are absolutely appropriately prescribed—the hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned that she takes an SSRI—but that is a very high rate. Crucially, and most worryingly, many people who are taking prescribed drugs were only prescribed them, according to the guidance that accompanies them, for a certain number of months. However, because doctors repeat prescriptions and we have such an inadequate system of withdrawal support for people in this country, they are prescribed these drugs for years and years, well beyond the healthy and safe guidance that was given. Of course, if they try to withdraw on their own without the support they need, they suffer terribly. Often they are re-prescribed the drugs because the doctor thinks they are having a relapse, when actually all they are doing is going through the agonies of withdrawal.
We need to do so much more to support people who take these prescribed drugs. There is also a huge amount—at least £500 million a year—spent on prescribed drugs for people where the prescription has gone beyond the period in the guidance. They should not be receiving these drugs, but they are doing so and it is costing the taxpayer half a billion pounds a year. We can think of the knock-on effects in terms of the health costs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate mentioned huge figures there, the welfare costs and the human cost. We need to go beyond these pills. We need to get to an approach to mental health that does not only rely on what he calls the chemical cosh.
I have some concerns about psilocybin being the next big thing or the next SSRI, treated and imagined as if it will be some sort of silver bullet—another pill and another shortcut to what is a profoundly complex set of mental health circumstances, which derive in many cases from trauma and deep-rooted adverse social and emotional conditions that cannot just be wished away by the administration of a new pill.
Danny Kruger
I am happy to give way. I am about to repeat my own argument, but my hon. Friend will do it better than me.
Crispin Blunt
My hon. Friend was kind enough to reference the work that has already gone on. I could cheerfully read into the record the list of 15 separate studies where the evidence is gradually being developed, despite the schedule 1 status, about efficacy. That addresses his proper concern about treating this as another mythical silver bullet that solves the issue. There is only one way for us to fully establish this, but it is already evidentially established sufficiently that we should be doing everything we possibly can to enable this treatment to get under way.
Danny Kruger
I echo that point. The point I am making more generally is that I am concerned that we withdraw from a medicalised model. It is a bigger topic, but the way we approach health in general can often be over-medicalised, and that is particularly so for the mental health field. I echo my hon. Friend’s point that we have sufficient evidence to justify a more official review and I support the call for that. The hon. Member for Warrington North put the point very well. What we understand to be the case with psilocybin is that it creates this therapeutic window where talking therapies can be even more effective, or can be effective, because frankly often they are not effective at the moment.
If the administration of this non-toxic, naturally occurring substance can create an opportunity where talking therapy can be effective, that should be welcomed, and there is sufficient evidence to justify us looking at that. I am open to suggestions, and I am interested to hear what the Minister says—not from his script—about what might be done. It may be that the chief medical officer is the best office to review this. We need to be careful, and I retain my note of caution about leaping for another solution that might not deliver what we hope it will, but I also share the hope and inspiration that Members have mentioned.
I recognise the point—I do not know whether the Minister will make it—that it is possible to conduct research under schedule 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, it is difficult and expensive. In fact, it is usually just done by pharmaceutical companies that see the opportunity for big profit from new drugs. I am concerned that we do not class this research in that guise. In fact, I hope there will not be big profits to be made from this naturally occurring substance. This is another topic, but I am concerned about the MHRA, how it is funded and how it licenses treatments. I am not entirely sure we are doing the right thing by giving it the power to rubber-stamp licences that have been given abroad. I am not sure that speeding up approvals is always right, but in this case we need to conduct the research.
I find myself in the strange position not only of agreeing with my hon. Friend—actually, I do agree with him on many important matters, just not on others—but of taking inspiration from places such as Oregon and Colorado that I regard as unhelpful places, given the other things they are up to; they are the leading jurisdictions promoting assisted suicide, of which I strongly disapprove. I notice that Australia is also in the gang, and presumably Canada, if it is not so already, will be full steam ahead for psilocybin. Liberals do not get everything wrong, I suppose is my conclusion, because these places are paving the way and in this case we should follow them.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is good to see you in the Chair. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate today and to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on a subject about which I have to admit I had no great prior knowledge. I had some knowledge, although not great prior knowledge, so getting my nose into briefings and articles about a most poorly understood topic, at least I think for Members in this House, and hearing the various contributions today has been most enlightening.
I will come on to those contributions in a moment, but I would like to pay tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who is a co-sponsor of today’s debate. He is certainly a fan of the road less travelled, and I find the tenacity and good humour with which he approaches the sometimes unfashionable subject of drug reform—not only in this Chamber, but at home in Scotland—to be a breath of fresh air. As we know, the subject can often be too dominated, especially in this place, by preening truism pedlars who do not challenge either elected Members or the general public, who expect us to be able to have debates of substance on topics that, as the hon. Member for Devizes indicated, have no easy answers, but are none the less valuable.
I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and especially the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for showing that there is cross-party support in this House for a sensible evidence-based approach to drug law reform. To come first to the hon. Member for Warrington North, who talked about the prior debate on access to nature, we live in these islands surrounded by psilocybin. Importantly, the hon. Member brought in the lived experience of their condition and how this research, or rescheduling to schedule 2 would have a profound impact on those suffering from PTSD. I hope not only that the Minister is listening, but that all of us on the Front Benches are listening, as well as those who advise Ministers in Government in Whitehall. I am sure Government Ministers will be taking their advice and I hope they are listening to the lived experience so well and eloquently expressed by the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Reigate exposed something that all politicians, especially those on the Front Benches, need to be very careful about, which is proposing White Papers that talk about an evidence-based policy-making approach. Well, the evidence seems to be self-evident. My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, talked about how the regulation we have is based on a preconception. I am maybe going to call it the “Mary Whitehouse approach”, because it seems to be founded on the Mary Whitehouse approach of the 1950s. I hope that those who advise Ministers—from the medical profession, but notably civil servants in Whitehall—will reflect that we now perhaps need to take our heads out of the sand.
I think it is clear from the contributions in general today that something does need to change with regard to the drug scheduling laws, particularly as they relate to psilocybin. It is a strange time for drug reform in many ways. We in this place seem a good decade, if not even further, behind the attitudes of the wider public—and, actually, other countries—who appreciate that the days of endless and expanding prohibition must surely be behind us and that the so-called war on drugs has been in so many ways not only unwinnable, but actually detrimental to the society it seeks to protect. I think all of us on the Front Benches really need to take our heads out of the sand and look at the opportunities that debates such as this now offer us to change our own views.
My party is one that I hope will always support sensible drug policies that uphold the rule of law and make communities safer. I am afraid that I now need to perhaps challenge the Minister about the UK Government’s continued reticence, for example, to even countenance an evidence-based change to drug laws, which, at least from my perspective, means letting people down. For those of us in Scotland, we have seen this in, for example, the safe consumption rooms. It is a policy with proven efficacy across the western world that enjoyed cross-party support as one possible way to reduce the terrible toll of drug deaths in many of our constituencies, yet I am afraid this was reduced to the level of party politics.
I mention the Government’s attitude to opiates there deliberately, because in many ways psychedelic drugs are more restricted, as we have already heard from various Members, with opiates being licensed for medical and research use, while substances such as psilocybin remain on the schedule 1 list with no medical potential. So this makes it an issue of pretty unique importance. I can understand arguments against, for example, safe consumption rooms, even if I disagree with them, but when it comes to psychedelic compounds, I do not think anyone can have the same arguments regarding addiction and societal breakdown that we would have heard around opiates.
Members who want a crash course in opiate addiction need only pick up the Financial Times today to see the profound consequences of opiate addition in the city of San Francisco in the United States. It is a harrowing article to read, and will have consequences for us all if we do not start to pick up on some of the issues highlighted by the hon. Member for Reigate about accessing new medical treatments. That is not, as the hon. Member for Devizes indicated, a silver bullet, but it is another tool in the armoury for those suffering from various conditions.
This is not just for mental health issues; there are a whole range of usages, and people are using psilocybin, or even micro-dosing with it, for many other issues. There are those who consider using it for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is not a mental health issue but a learning disability. There are those using it who are pre-menopausal, menopausal and post-menopausal, to deal with the menopause. We have to take this out of certain silos and see it as the broadest opportunity. As the hon. Member for Devizes said, this is not a silver bullet but another element in our armour to deal with a whole range of medical conditions. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say, because I am not sure that that approach is yet cutting through, although I might yet get that wrong.
As we have heard from those contributing to the debate, there are certainly enough examples of the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy to merit further research, but the barriers put up by schedule 1 status make any investment in that research prohibitively expensive. SNP Members believe that needs to change. We talk about the shrinking number of industries—again, the hon. Member for Reigate made a fantastic speech to challenge the Government, and they made it very clear that the UK seeks to be a global player. After financial services, the example given is the pharmaceutical industry, yet in that area of relative competitive advantage the Government seem—I might be wrong; perhaps the Minister wants to get to his feet and change that opinion—to be choosing to cede to states, notably in North America and the rest of Europe, that do not share that head-in-the-sand approach.
At a time when it is becoming somewhat fashionable for Members to talk about the mental health crisis, catching up with the lived experience of so many in communities such as mine, and those described by the hon. Member for Warrington North, where people could take advantage of advances in psychiatric pharmacology to improve their lives, those of their families, and be better able to contribute to their community, is something I would recommend to Members across the House, to Ministers, and to those who seem to be advising them to stick their heads in the sand. To overcome such problems, we must rise to the challenge and grasp the opportunity offered by psilocybin and other areas like it, and not curtail what is a reasonable scientific proposal by sticking our political heads in the sand.
Let me conclude with a final appeal to the better judgment of the Minister and those advising him. They can be safe that they would be able to proceed with a solid trifecta of public support, a solid working hypothesis about how research into psilocybin would work, and a depth of industrial and academic capacity to bring this research forward. Let us see whether the Minister has the confidence to do so.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and the hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for their incredibly moving and well-informed speeches, and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting their application. I recognise the work that they have done for many years on this subject. As we know, in this place many Members take up individual causes that often do not get the numbers and publicity that they might warrant, but we are dogged in continuing to do that. I managed to avoid the comments that the Minister had about whether he was the appropriate person or not. I say simply that I am here on behalf of the Labour party. I am pleased to be here, I serve, it is beyond my paygrade as to who or why someone is here, but I am pleased to be here.
Like the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) I too needed to appraise myself of the details of this subject, and that is one advantage of being able to speak from the health team. For more than 50 years we have been investigating these drugs as potential treatments for a number of neurological and psychiatric conditions including, as we have heard, depression. There is now another wave of research into these drugs and the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders such as treatment-resistant depression, anorexia and PTSD, and we have heard about that strongly today. Our priority is to improve treatment and prevention services and, in particular, to support research.
The point has been well made that this subject falls between Departments—Health and the Home Office—as is the case on many subjects. Wherever it falls, it is all of our responsibility, because at the heart of this, as we have heard strongly, is the needs of people—our constituents—for treatment of these conditions. As the motion says, we need evidence-led and data-driven interventions. That is why the last Labour Government established the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to balance care with value for money, to deliver for individuals and society. That involved rigorous and independent assessment of complex evidence. That is why, for the use of psilocybin and other treatments in the NHS, I strongly support an evidence-based approach and those processes.
This discussion highlights the opportunities available to us and to our constituents through a vibrant life sciences industry. Labour is committed to supporting our health sciences industry to improve the health and wealth of our country. That is why I am proud and hugely supportive of our fantastic academic and clinical colleagues in the NHS and UK higher institutions. They are doing world-leading research through the use of both experimental and gold-standard clinical trials to look at whether such treatments, among others, are helpful for those with severe and enduring mental health conditions. That includes interesting work on the use of psilocybin alongside talking therapies.
We hear much from the Government about their commitment to research and development, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about what pragmatic support the Government are giving to the research sector, universities and pharmaceutical companies to enable more research into this area.
It is clear that that work cannot sit in a silo. Following the Adjournment debate on this topic, which was responded to by the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), I would like to know what conversations the Minister has had with counterparts in the Home Office regarding the controlled drugs licensing regime to support research and clinical trials in the UK. Additionally, will he update the House on part 2 of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ advice, which was commissioned in December? That would be helpful. This is a cross-cutting issue, so he may have had conversations with Health colleagues on it, but I understand that it falls under his Department. Members on both sides of the House have come here today with good will to work cross-party—we have seen that in evidence this afternoon—and it is crucial that the Minister echoes that sentiment and outlines how the Departments are working collaboratively on this matter.
We cannot ignore the lack of a wider Government strategy on mental health, particularly in Mental Health Awareness Week. For far too long the Government have been dragging their heels on mental health. Last year they lauded themselves for putting together a 10-year Government mental health plan. However, like so much that comes from them at the moment, after months of consultations, pages of evidence and vital input from the public and experts, again we have more backsliding on those commitments. The Government must stop pushing things into the long grass and get serious about mental health.
The long-awaited reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 is a much-needed step in the right direction on improving people’s experiences with mental health services, but, despite the Joint Committee publishing its report on the draft Bill, there is still little progress. If we want to see patients having greater control over treatment options and accessing care tailored to their needs, the Government must get more serious about mental health services.
More than 7 million people are waiting for NHS treatment, and they are waiting longer than ever before, in pain and discomfort. The NHS went into the pandemic with record waiting lists and 100,000 vacancies, and there are more than 1.6 million people awaiting mental health treatment alone. Adults are waiting 5.4 million hours in A&E while we are experiencing a mental health crisis. We have heard about some of those crises today, and that is not the place for treatment. Without a proper plan for prevention and early intervention, and without a suitable workforce plan, patients will continue to be left behind.
Even where patients do get a referral, the appropriate course of action for their specific treatment needs is often not available. That accessibility to tailored mental health support goes to the core of why we are here. Across the NHS, there are frequently supply issues with antidepressants—medication that is already licensed—that people are dependent upon. Without secure supply chains, how can patients be secure in the knowledge that they will continue to receive their prescribed treatment? The anxiety that disruptions to treatment can cause patients cannot be ignored. That is why it is crucial that Ministers understand the importance of a variety of treatment options and of research and development. If the Minister could give an update on those supply issues and the assessment of stock availability, that will be welcomed by the people watching this debate.
The Government need to get a grip on mental health services. If they do not, we will. We will put prevention and early intervention at the forefront of our approach to mental health. We will place a mental health specialist in every school and an open access hub for young people in every community. We will double the number of district nurses qualifying every year and create additional nursing and midwifery placements in the health service. We will double the number of medical places so that we have the doctors that our NHS needs. We will guarantee mental health treatment within a month by recruiting an extra 8,500 mental health staff. We will reform the NHS to shift its focus to early diagnosis and intervention, as well as preventing ill health in the first place. Working with leading figures from research, life sciences and patient care will be a huge part of that.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
In the years that I have served as a Minister, I do not think I can recall a debate in which expectations were set so low about my response before I even stood up.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for securing the debate. I am grateful to them and to all the other Members who have contributed. This is the first debate that I have participated in on this subject, as colleagues have said. The House has raised the topic of psilocybin and other psychedelic drugs with the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). I appreciate the disappointment felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate that the Minister is unable to be with us today to respond directly to his concerns, but I am afraid he was drawn away on other departmental business. I recognise that this is a topic of substantial interest to Members of the House, who, again, have made the case with passion.
Crispin Blunt
Could the Minister give a bit of detail about the duties that have taken the drugs Minister away from the House?
Robert Jenrick
I am afraid I do not know the precise departmental visit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is on. But knowing him, if he was here, he would certainly wish to be part of this debate and to continue the conversation that he has had with hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. It is only because of other departmental business that he was not able to join us today.
I want to begin by recognising, as others have done, the personal interest that the hon. Member for Warrington North has in this topic. I concur with your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member spoke with great conviction and very deeply. I have heard her speak on other subjects that we have a shared interest in, such as the fight against antisemitism, with the same eloquence and bravery that she showed today.
It may be helpful at the outset to remind the House that medicines policy, including the availability of medicines for prescribing, is led by the Department of Health and Social Care. Medicines are licensed and regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. However, the Home Office is responsible for controlled drugs legislation. Our controlled drugs licensing regime supports research and clinical trials in the UK. The two Departments work together on issues connected to controlled drugs in healthcare. I will endeavour to set out the Government’s position this afternoon.
Controlled drugs legislation seeks to prevent criminality while permitting access for legitimate use, including for medicines development. The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 enable the use of controlled drugs in healthcare. The Home Office’s controlled drugs licensing regime enables the possession, supply, production, import and export of controlled drugs to support industry, pharmaceutical research and healthcare. These controls are subject to review in light of any emerging evidence and in consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has been referenced many times this afternoon.
There is an established process for medicines, including those that contain controlled drugs, to be developed, evaluated in clinical trials and licensed, based on an assessment of their quality, safety and efficacy by the MHRA. The MHRA supports the safe and scientifically sound conduct of clinical trials in this area, and provides regulatory and scientific advice to companies at all stages of developing medicines. Should a company submit an application for a marketing authorisation, otherwise known as product licence, it will ultimately be a decision for the MHRA whether to license a product based on a psychedelic drug as a therapy.
Charlotte Nichols
The Minister refers to marketing authorisation. In this case, psilocybin, as we have discussed, is something that grows in mushrooms across the UK. Is the Minister suggesting that people would be able to access psilocybin only if it were in another substance?
Robert Jenrick
I am by no means an expert in this field, but I think I am suggesting that were this to be a drug that is licensed, it would need to go through the MHRA process in the usual way.
I would like to come to a point made by the hon. Lady earlier around the costs involved in a first-time application for a controlled drug licence of the kind we have been discussing. She quoted a substantial figure, which would be concerning as it would be prohibitively costly for smaller manufacturers or researchers. The figures that I have been quoted are that first-time application for a licence costs £3,700 and a standard renewal costs £326. I will write to the hon. Lady with those figures and if she contests them in any way, then I or the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) will be happy to respond.
Ronnie Cowan
The cost is not just about the licence. Because it is a schedule 1 drug, more dangerous than heroin, the way in which it is stored in a laboratory, so that people cannot get access to it, and the set-up needed around the laboratory has caused a lot of people to say that they simply cannot afford to make such modifications to their laboratories and start the investigation in the first place.
Robert Jenrick
I see that point. In a moment, I will come on to the work that the Government are doing in that regard, and more broadly, to facilitate research and make it more accessible to a broader range of organisations.
To finish the point about the process involved, once granted a medicine licence by the MHRA, medicines can be assessed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which makes recommendations about routine prescribing on the NHS.
I thank the hon. Members who described the promising research emerging on the potential benefit of psilocybin. Studies in the UK include publicly funded research. For example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is funding King’s College London to carry out a trial evaluating the feasibility, safety and efficacy of psilocybin for adults who are unresponsive to or intolerant of treatment for depression.
In January last year, King’s College London published the results of a small-scale study suggesting that psilocybin can be administered safely, under certain circumstances and to healthy individuals. That is clearly encouraging. However, the researchers acknowledge that larger and longer trials, including comparison with existing treatments, would be required to determine the efficacy and safety of psilocybin for this disorder.
Crispin Blunt
I hope by now, as he has read his text, my right hon. Friend is beginning to work out that the administration of drugs policy is suboptimal, shall we say. Can he explain why esketamine is approved in Scotland, but not in England?
Robert Jenrick
I do not know the answer to that question, but I will happily ask officials who are listening to respond. It sounds like a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care rather than the Home Office, but I shall be pleased to give my hon. Friend a full reply as soon as possible.
Robert Jenrick
If my hon. Friend already knew the answer to his question, I wonder why he asked it in the first place.
Crispin Blunt
As my right hon. Friend well knows, one does not ask questions to which one does not know the answer. That is not a very wise thing to do in politics.
A point was raised with me by the public affairs director of a subsidiary of a major pharmaceutical company about the differential between physical and mental health treatments. This illustrates the difficulty of getting mental health treatments to the necessary standard for assessment by NICE, and is a further illustration of the different priorities given to the treatment of mental and physical health conditions.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has made his point very powerfully. Of course the Government’s ambition is to ensure that NICE, the MHRA and all our regulators work in the most research-friendly manner, and that applies to mental health treatments as much as to anything else.
If a manufacturer is successful in being granted a marketing authorisation by the MHRA for a medicine containing psilocybin, the Home Office is committed to swift action to remove psilocybin from schedule 1 and make it available for prescribing, subject to advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the appropriate scheduling and safeguards for the medicine. The same scrutiny should be applied to all potential medicines to ensure patient safety. While it is legally possible to enable prescribing in advance of marketing authorisation, the Government currently have no plans to move to that position.
Charlotte Nichols
The Minister keeps referring to medicines containing psilocybin. He does not seem to understand that psilocybin is the medicine, in and of itself. It does not need to be added to something else to make it work. This is why we are running into the issue. The Government keep telling us about a licensing regime in which there is a requirement to add something to the compound in order to make it some sort of novel substance, rather than looking at the substance that already exists and, as we have said, has been used for thousands of years with demonstrated safety and efficacy. Will the Minister talk about psilocybin, rather than medicines containing psilocybin?
Robert Jenrick
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. As I have said, the Government are funding research into psilocybin and its effect on patients with certain conditions. What we are discussing today is the Home Office’s role in ensuring that that research, as it emerges, can be considered as part of our drugs legalisation framework.
The Government have commissioned the ACMD to consider how better to enable research with respect to all schedule 1 drugs, and that includes the potential to extend schedule 2 status for research purposes to all schedule 1 drugs including psilocybin. This, I believe, is the point that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire made in the Adjournment debate, and he has written to the ACMD asking it to consider, in particular, the potential options available to extend schedule 2 status for research purposes to all schedule 1 drugs. He highlighted psilocybin specifically in his letter. If the hon. Member for Warrington North, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate or, indeed, other interested Members have not seen it, I shall be happy to ensure that they receive a copy and can see the instructions that my right hon. Friend has given to the ACMD. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate asked earlier about the likely timetable for any advice from the ACMD. I have been told that, while the ACMD is independent of Government, it is understood that its consideration is well advanced, and we should expect its advice in the near future.
The approach that we have taken in this regard should deliver much of what my hon. Friend and others are requesting. I should make a distinction: prescribing will remain unavailable outside a clinical trial. It is not for the Home Office to determine medicines policy, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will accept the general principle that medicines should be assessed on the basis of their safety, quality and efficacy before being made available to patients.
The two Departments continue to support the ACMD’s review. The chief scientific adviser to the Home Office recently convened a discussion with her counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Government’s chief medical officer on this precise subject. I understand that they had a very positive discussion and I know that they will be advocating for the best outcome for researchers and, of course, patients. When the ACMD provides its advice, the Government will consider it carefully before deciding how to proceed.
I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and others that the Government have heard what they have to say. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire is fully apprised of what was said in the debate, so that he and others can continue their conversation on this issue.
I reassure the whole House that the Government agree with the intent of much of what has been debated today, but rather than developing a bespoke approach for psilocybin alone, we consider our approach to be more ambitious. We want to tackle this issue across all categories of section 1 drugs to reduce barriers to legitimate research, rather than focusing on individual drugs. Equally, we must keep a firm focus on the need to tackle drug misuse, which causes such harm across our society. Both are vitally important aims, and we will continue working to strike the right balance in the interests of the public.
Charlotte Nichols
I thank all Members who came to support the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt)—he is a friend—I am disappointed in the Government’s response; yet again, we see a real lack of urgency from them on this issue. As we have heard, the ACMD review has been ongoing since 2017. In that time, at least 40,000 people have taken their own lives.
I am grateful for the fact that the Minister said he will take back the content of today’s discussion to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who should have been here today but unfortunately was not, because I am really keen that we should finally progress this issue. I thank all Members who took part in the debate to make the case clearly and cogently to the Government that we cannot accept their inertia any longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the development of treatment options in mental health; further notes there have been no new pharmacological treatments for depression, with the exception of Esketamine, in over 30 years; recognises that psilocybin, a naturally occurring compound, has the potential to revolutionise the treatment of many of the world’s most hard to treat psychiatric conditions such as depression, PTSD, OCD, addiction and anorexia nervosa; recognises that no review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status under UK law has ever been conducted; regrets that psilocybin is currently more controlled than heroin under the most stringent class and schedule under UK law which is significantly stalling research; and calls on the Government to take steps to conduct an urgent review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status as Schedule 1 under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 with a view to rescheduling, initially for research purposes only, in order to facilitate the development of new mental health treatments and enable human brain research for the benefit of researchers, patients and the life sciences sector in the UK, and to deliver His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to be world-leading in its approach, with evidence-led and data-driven interventions, and building the evidence base where necessary.
Health Services: Wantage and Didcot
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I campaign a lot in this House on behalf of young people, having had a career working with them before I got here. I campaign a lot on the environment, which is important to me and to many of my constituents. But the biggest thing I campaign on in this place is infrastructure, because we do not have the infrastructure for the number of houses and the population in the constituency.
I campaign for the reopening of Grove station, which my constituents have wanted for over 50 years. I campaign for better broadband in certain parts of the constituency. I campaign about our roads, because most visitors and most residents, like me, feel that the roads in Oxfordshire are more pothole filled than almost anywhere else we go in the country. We have two important roads in my constituency, the A420 and the A34, both of which have significant safety concerns. Indeed, the last time I had a debate of this kind, it was on the A420 and A34. But the No. 1 infrastructure issue in my constituency is access to health services—in particular, GPs and dentists.
For six weeks or so, I conducted a survey of my constituents, asking them to tell me about their experience of accessing health services. I am grateful to the nearly 3,000 people who completed the survey. More than three quarters of them said that they had found it difficult to get a GP appointment in the past 12 months, which is significantly more than the number who said they had found it difficult to get a dentist appointment, although that figure was also far too high at 44%—the issues for dentistry are slightly different. Only one in 10 people who completed the survey said that they had had no trouble accessing health services, and 5% had not tried to access health services in the past 12 months and so were not able to say whether it had been difficult. Overwhelmingly, I heard over and again that we need more GP surgeries and more dental surgeries. People would like to see other services, such as more mental health provision and more physiotherapy provision, but GPs and dentists had by far the biggest responses.
The situation is most acute in Didcot, where I live. Huge numbers of people have come to live in Didcot in recent years. The Great Western Park estate, with 3,500 homes, was promised a GP surgery, and it is still waiting eight years later, with absolutely no progress having been made. Meanwhile, the new Valley Park development on the border of Didcot will have 4,200 homes, so it will add a lot of pressure. Those two estates alone will add about 18,000 people to the area’s population, which is more than enough to fill a GP surgery, yet we continue to see no progress. After encouraging people not to use NHS services if they could avoid it during covid, we now have a backlog to address, but there was an issue long before covid, too. Infrastructure has not kept pace with population growth.
The politics is that the Liberal Democrats are running every part of local government, including both district councils in the seat I represent, and they run the county council in coalition with the Greens and Labour. Of course, the Liberal Democrats say that this is all the Government’s fault, but they have been in charge of one district council since 2019, and they have been in charge of the other in coalition with the Greens since 2019, so it is not good enough to say it is all the Government’s fault. We have to get to a better system of accountability for both local council leaders and local health leaders.
It is partly about the Government training more doctors, and I very much welcome all the things the Government are continuing to do in this area. We are training 2,200 more doctors than in 2019, and last year a further 4,000-plus took up training places to become doctors. The increase in appointments is welcome, with 2 million more appointments in March 2023 than in March 2022, and there is investment to get 15 million more appointments by 2024.
The recent announcement on tackling the 8 am rush chimes with my inbox. My constituents are constantly writing to explain to me how frustrating it is to ring at 8 am, as they are advised, and not get through. The record goes to the person who told me they had called 117 times, and others have called 89 times. The numbers are huge, with people ringing over and again, getting very frustrated and eventually contacting me to say they do not know what to do. It does not matter how often they ring, because they are not able to get through.
I welcome the fact that the Government are now saying that people who ring will be referred to an appropriate service, such as 111 or a pharmacy, without needing to call back. I also welcome the increased role for pharmacists, because it right that they ought to be able to give out the oral contraceptive pill and medicines for sore throats, earaches and such things. They are well equipped to do that and it will ease some of the pressure on the GP surgeries.
The situation we find ourselves in is not the fault of the existing GP surgeries. Indeed, I asked them to promote my survey and many of them did so, because they are feeling the pressure. Several surgeries have closed their books temporarily because they were simply unable to take on many more patients. Of course, that affects everybody’s quality of life, because people who have lived in the area for a while and used to find it easy to get an appointment no longer can, and people who have moved to a new area and hope to be able to register with a doctor find that they are unable to do so. This is one of the most important services we could be providing for people.
The Minister knows that because I am the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, I am going to swerve housing and planning policy, as I should not be talking about it in that role—I know the rules. However, we do need a couple of things, one of which is a much better accountability mechanism for local councils and local health leaders to plan for population increases and then deliver services as the population increases. The Government can and will train more doctors, but we are making promises to local people about what is going to come with increased numbers of people, and those promises never arrive. People then stop believing in the promises, and those who were not opposed to new houses, because they realise that people need somewhere to live and perhaps their children and grandchildren are struggling to get on the ladder, become resistant to more housing as they have seen so much housing arrive without the services that should go with it.
Let me move on to the other thing that is important to me. It may feel like a side issue, but it is fundamental. In my pre-politics career, I ran charities for disadvantaged young people and promoted social mobility. The medical profession is the most socially exclusive profession in the country—only 6% of doctors come from a working-class background, and someone is 24 times more likely to become a doctor if they have a parent who is a doctor—and it has been that way for some time. To an outsider, the situation seems to get worse. Recently, the British Medical Association’s junior doctors passed a motion to cease apprenticeships into medicine, which are supposed to widen access to it. Almost every other profession has some form of apprenticeship to try to widen access, but the BMA’s junior doctors have passed a motion saying, “We don’t want them.” Given the state of the profession, which in no way reflects the country’s talent, for all sorts of reasons—I used to work on this, so I know that it is about access to work experience, recruitment methods and so on—that is a very retrograde step. That is certainly the case when this is the most socially exclusive profession in the country. We have a shortage of doctors in particular areas, and this is profession where the ratio is at least 10 applicants to one medical school place. I worked with so many disadvantaged young people for whom this was their dream career—it was the most popular career at one charity I ran—so it seems mad that we are not making better use of that talent. I feel sure that it could help ease some of the pressure we are seeing, not just in my constituency, but in others.
In closing, I say to the Minister that I very much want to meet him to discuss how I can bang heads together and make progress to get things delivered. It is a shame that it is not within an MP’s control to be able to deliver new GP surgeries and so on, but I want to work with him to work out how we can do that and possibly have a health hub in my constituency. This is not the first time I have talked about this matter—I have done so more than 20 times—and it will not be the last; I will do so until my constituents get the health services they deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) on securing this important debate. He mentioned in his remarks that there are limits on what he is allowed to say in this Chamber about certain aspects, particularly about how we marry up new housing with new GP surgeries, but none of us in Government are in any way strangers to his very strong views on the subject. The amount of work and campaigning that he has done on this issue is formidable, and I pay tribute to him for that.
I recognise the struggles that my hon. Friend’s constituents have reported in his survey in getting an appointment with their GP or dentist. Despite the efforts of general practice teams, who are now delivering something in the order of 10% more appointments every month than they were pre-pandemic—that is the equivalent of about 20 more appointments per working day, per surgery—demand is rising. We have about 30% more people over the age of 70 than we did in 2010. Those people tend to have about five times more appointments than younger people. Therefore, because of the ageing society and the effects of the pandemic, demand is rising. That is why we have listened and why we have taken action, including just last week publishing our primary care recovery plan to address some of these concerns.
Our plan is ambitious and it will modernise access to general practice—effectively the front door of our NHS. We want to end the 8 am rush for appointments and ensure that patients know how their requests will be handled the first time they contact their practice. To achieve that, we are investing the equivalent of £6,000 per practice to provide new technology, including modern digital phone systems so that people do not get engaged tones, and easier digital access so that many more issues can be dealt with online at a convenient time for the patient, which will free up phone lines for those who do need to call so that they always get through easily.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are expanding the role of community pharmacies in delivering primary care and investing up to £645 million to enable pharmacists to provide treatment for common conditions. Pharmacists will be able to supply prescription-only medicines and start courses of oral contraception for the first time. That will provide more choice for patients and be a convenient way of getting treated. It will also reduce the pressure on general practices, freeing up something in the order of 10 million appointments a year, again making it easier for my hon. Friend’s constituents to get through. We have started consulting the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, with a view to introducing the new service by the end of the year.
We are continuing to cut bureaucracy to reduce the time that GPs have to spend on work that is not work that they need to be doing. The plan frees up approximately £37,000 per practice by cutting back targets and improving communication between GPs and hospitals—something that has been raised with me many times by GPs. Of course, we still need to deliver more appointments and, to do that, we need more staff. I am pleased to say that today, we have managed to deliver, ahead of schedule, our manifesto commitment to recruit 26,000 additional staff into general practice. Those extra staff are helping to deliver the 50 million extra appointments that we promised by March 2024. It is through both the additional staff that we have invested in and the very hard work of general practice teams, to whom I pay tribute, that they are already delivering 10% more appointments compared with 2019.
The recruitment and retention of general practitioners remains a big priority for us, including the retention of our wonderful experienced general practitioners. That is why we are helping to retain senior GPs by reforming pension rules—the No. 1 thing that the profession was asking us for—and lifting about 8,900 GPs out of annual tax charges.
My hon. Friend quite rightly raised some specific concerns about the provision of adequate services to meet the needs of new housing developments—something that is an issue in particularly desirable and fast-growing areas like that of my hon. Friend. I am very seized of this crucial issue, and we are working on it in real time.
Last week we announced that, as part of the GP plan, we would be making a series of reforms through the national planning policy framework and planning guidance changes to ensure that new housing always comes with the GP surgeries that are needed. That means changing the NPPF and planning guidance and, even before that, updating the planning obligations guidance to ensure that local planning authorities address primary care infrastructure, just as they do other infra- structure demands such as education.
On top of that, the Government will update guidance to encourage local planning authorities to engage with the local NHS—the local integrated care boards—on large sites that might create the need for extra primary care capacity. My hope is that a bigger chunk of the £7 billion a year that we are raising from housing developers will flow into new primary care facilities.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, local authorities have an unavoidable and crucial role in enforcing the delivery of the commitments that developers make and in ensuring, as they make and enforce their local plans, that what was promised is delivered. Wherever new development is planned, they must plan for the infrastructure that is needed alongside it. That is something local authorities absolutely must deliver for their constituents, and I am sorry to hear that there seems to be some trouble with that in his constituency.
My hon. Friend also mentioned challenges with dentistry; we are working on that very actively and will be publishing our plan for dentistry shortly. The reforms we made some months ago to enable dentists to do more—about 110% of their contracted work—and to split up the bands so that they are paid more fairly for the NHS work they do have been received well by the profession. About a fifth more people were seen by NHS dentists in the year to March compared with a year earlier, so we are starting to make progress, but we know there is more to do. To answer his question, I want to reassure him that we will be publishing our dentistry plan very shortly.
I thank my hon. Friend not just for his thoughtful speech today, but for all the work he has done to campaign on this issue ever since he was elected. He always makes a powerful case, both in the Chamber and behind the scenes, and he has many thoughtful ideas that are already influencing Government policy. I pay tribute to him for his work and I hope his constituents will soon see positive changes as part of our recovery plan.
Question put and agreed to.
Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 18th May 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 View all Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2023 - (18 May 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements.
Owing to a printing error, Government amendment 9 was missing from the amendment paper issued earlier this morning. That omission was rectified, and the correct version of the amendment paper is available in the room, from the Vote Office and online.
Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Electronic devices should be on silent. Tea and coffee should not be brought into the room. It is getting a bit muggy, so any Member wishing to take off their jacket may do so. We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 313
Transactions funded with the assistance of a public subsidy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
As a matter of housekeeping, I should say that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North, asked me questions on Tuesday regarding the implementation of changes to the company share option plan, and I committed to write to him with those details. That letter has gone to him this morning, with copies deposited in the Libraries of the Houses. Indeed, I have also arranged for it to be sent to the other Committee members, for their convenience.
The clause will amend existing stamp duty land tax rules to ensure that registered providers of social housing are exempt from the tax when purchasing property using funding allocated under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. In December last year, the Government announced an additional £650 million for the Homes for Ukraine support package, which included giving local authorities in England an additional £0.5 billion to reduce homelessness by obtaining housing to reduce pressure on social housing and to help accommodate Ukrainian and Afghan refugees. On 28 March this year, the Government announced a further £250 million of funding, the majority of which will be used to house Afghan families in bridging accommodation. The rest will be used to ease existing homelessness pressures.
The additional funding, as I said, is allocated under section 31 of the Local Government Act, and the existing stamp duty land tax system includes an exemption for social housing purchases. However, not all social housing providers in receipt of the additional funding would benefit from those exemptions, so we are looking to correct that and to enable registered providers of social housing to benefit from the exemption when they use the new funding. It is a sensible clarification and I hope that the Committee will support the clause standing part of the Bill.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve in Committee with you as Chair, Mr Stringer.
The acquisition of certain properties by registered social landlords is exempt from stamp duty, provided that the purchase is funded with the assistance of public subsidy. As the Minister set out, in December last year the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced an additional £500 million in funding for local authorities to secure additional housing stock for those fleeing conflict, including those from Ukraine and Afghanistan. We understand that that additional funding was allocated under section 31 of the Local Government Act, and the clause will add that section to the list of public subsidies that enable a purchase to qualify for the stamp duty exemption. For the purposes of the stamp duty exemption, we understand that local authorities that intend to register with the Regulator of Social Housing are treated as not-for-profit registered providers of social housing.
The explanatory notes state that £500 million was announced for the local authority housing fund in December 2022, and I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the additional £250 million announced since will also be covered by this clause. We will not oppose the clause, as any support it offers to local authorities that buy homes to provide social housing is welcome.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This is not the first time that I have been on a Committee with you in the Chair.
Will the Minister give a view about how many extra homes this change to stamp duty land tax will enable local authorities to fund? Has any analysis been done? There will obviously be a positive effect, but how large will it be? Many Afghans are still in hotels and are unable to put down roots so that they can begin to establish themselves in this country and flourish. For large families living in hotels, this is a difficult time, so I would have thought that Members from both sides of the House are anxious to see this scheme work. Knowing the Treasury, it will have done some analysis of the positive benefit of the proposal, so will the Minister share it with the Committee?
How long does the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expect these extra moneys to last? Will the Minister come back to Parliament to extend this exemption further, or will that happen in a spending review?
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The hon. Member for Wallasey just asked about the length of the funding. As MPs, we all have hard cases to deal with involving refugees from other parts of the world. What funding will be given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that the devolved Administrations can implement their own schemes?
Victoria Atkins
I can answer yes to the question that the hon. Member for Ealing North asked about the £250 million.
On the question that the hon. Member for Wallasey asked about the number of houses, DLUHC has estimated that it will be about 1,300 homes. She will understand—indeed, we discussed this when I was Minister for Afghan Resettlement—that one of the complexities with Afghan families is that their larger family sizes mean that there is not the availability of housing stock that there is for slightly smaller families. That is why it is taking a bit of time.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked about Scotland, and I commit to write to him. This is across the board, so I imagine the scheme will be UK-wide, but I will get that confirmation for him by the end of the sitting.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. According to the Home Office figures that were issued at the end of April, there are 8,000 Afghans currently in UK hotels, half of whom are children. On the point about revisiting this at a future date, does the Minister think the Government have done enough?
Victoria Atkins
I must direct the hon. Lady to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who is now leading on that. He has overall control of the programme of rehousing for Afghan refugees, and the Homes for Ukraine scheme—obviously that is a very separate system. The scheme is one of the tools available to the Government, which is why we are making the stamp duty changes to assist local authorities in their efforts to find homes for refugees. It will not be the only way in which we find accommodation for those families; there are other ways, including the military helping with accommodation for those who formerly served or helped the armed forces when they were in Afghanistan. It is one tool, and we want to make it as easy as possible for local authorities to use. I encourage the hon. Lady to speak to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who is leading on the issue.
Dame Angela Eagle
Another question occurs to me: is the scheme only for Afghans and Ukrainians, or does it accommodate other homeless people who are fleeing conflict? It is clear that those who have fled Afghanistan and Ukraine are in a pretty unique position, with special schemes attached. Could the Minister put it on the record that the exemption may then also help others who are in a similar situation, but not in those categories?
Victoria Atkins
I am very happy to. The scheme is certainly not restricted to Ukrainian and Afghan refugees. It is designed to meet all local authority social housing needs. It is a measure to help alleviate overall social housing pressures on local authorities, precisely because we realise that the enormous generosity of the United Kingdom in helping Ukrainian and Afghan refugees has put increased pressures on local authorities when it comes to social housing. We want to ensure that this is sorted out for local authorities, as part of our humanitarian response to those crises—we are also long enough in the tooth to understand that there may be other humanitarian crises in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 313 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. Before we move on, in relation to the clarification that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked for, stamp duty applies only in England and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales have their own land transaction taxes. Obviously, we are very happy to work with the devolved authorities if there is a point of clarification that they need on that.
Clause 314
Deposit schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 314 makes changes to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Those changes will enable further secondary legislation designed to ensure that businesses only account for VAT on the price actually paid for bottles or drinks containers covered by deposit return schemes. Such schemes are being introduced across the UK to encourage the recycling of containers, and under existing law VAT is due on the full price paid for a drink, including any deposit.
Existing rules do not permit VAT adjustments for deposit scheme refunds. That means that under the current law VAT would be collected on drink deposits, even though they have been refunded. We do not want that to happen, because we want to support the environmental aspirations of such measures. The changes made by clause 314 will address that, by removing the need to account for VAT on the deposit amount when it is charged. The new rules will require VAT to be accounted for only on unreturned deposits.
To avoid complexity for both consumers and businesses, only the business that makes the first sale of the drink with a deposit will be required to account for VAT on unreturned deposits. What that means in practice is that producers and importers will be the ones liable to account for it on their VAT returns. We have tried to protect both consumers and small shops—corner shops, newsagents and the like—from having to deal with any VAT complexity from the measure. When drinks containers are returned, they will be scanned, and the consumers will receive a refund of the deposit. It will not touch them; they will get the money back that they put forward. Information on numbers of returned products will be collected and passed to the business that made the first sale of the product on which a deposit was charged.
James Murray
As we have heard, the clause introduces rules for VAT accounting for deposit return schemes. As the Minister set out, it means that when making sales within the scope of the relevant deposit scheme, no VAT will be charged in relation to the deposit amount. However, VAT on unreturned deposit amounts will be paid by the first seller of a deposit scheme product.
We recognise that, under existing legislation, deposit return schemes may be introduced across the UK, and we recognise that the clause helps to facilitate the operation of such schemes by introducing VAT accounting rules. The clause ensures that no VAT will be charged at any point in the supply chain in relation to the deposit element of the price for a deposit scheme product. There will only be a requirement to account for VAT where suppliers make the first sale of standard-rated deposit scheme products that include a deposit amount.
More widely, we have been disappointed by the delays in the introduction of a deposit return scheme. It was only after multiple consultations that the Government finally announced in January 2023 that they would introduce a deposit return scheme for plastic and cans, but not for glass, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 2025. We will not oppose the clause. Indeed, we want to see a deposit return scheme introduced as soon as possible, so I would be grateful if the Minister could use this opportunity to confirm whether the Government are still committed to introducing one in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by 2025.
Dame Angela Eagle
Obviously, the VAT rules account for some of the most complex parts of the duties and excise that the Minister has to wrestle with on a day-to-day basis. When one talks to businesses of all sizes, often one of the biggest complaints is about the complexity of the VAT rules. Given how much revenue VAT brings in and how all-encompassing it is, perhaps that is not surprising, but I wonder whether the Minister is happy with increased complexity that the changes bring. Perhaps she could give us a flavour of her thoughts and considerations in dealing with the issue of deposit schemes and the complexity of the VAT rules.
Given that VAT will be levied only on the first seller, the Minister has clearly tried to make the rules as simple as possible. But how much complexity does she think the clause will introduce, given that it will be applicable to plastic and cans—presumably aluminium—both of which are easily recyclable, but not to glass? I assume that she is not introducing glass straight away because of the sheer number of glass bottles and the size of the task. Again, perhaps she could give us a flavour of the thinking behind excluding glass, and tell us whether the intention is to include it at a later stage. How complex does she think doing that might be?
I am old enough, as I am sure—I am going to put this politely—you are, Mr Stringer, to remember when we had deposit return schemes for glass, long before anyone thought about digitally scanning anything or any of the computer-based structures that I assume will facilitate the VAT inspectors’ task. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication of that. Again, how much revenue does she think will have to be forgone?
What assumptions have His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the tax inspectors made about the actual cost of schemes such as this in revenue forgone? Clearly, the idea—to incentivise good behaviour that will assist in increasing recycling—is one we would all support. We all want that to work, but if it is not done properly, it could be an enormous fiddling thing that does not really have much effect at all. All of us would applaud the decision not to impact the customer and, clearly, we want to see the containers for recycling brought back.
Can the Minister say a little about whether she has considered how the scheme might interact with the packaging regulations? Again, they are a moveable feast, given that we have left the EU and they have had to be changed as well, but there is clearly a direct connection between the two. We must make certain that the way the packaging regulations work increases, if possible, the incentive for the recycling to work.
There is also the landfill tax, which might have an impact on behaviour. I am sure that the Minister has had a towel on her head thinking all that through to try to make certain that it works as intended. It is currently due to come into effect in 2025. Given the complexity, is she confident that that will happen, given that there have already been delays and the scheme itself is now smaller than most people want it to be, because it excludes glass?
Given the complexity of VAT—when it must be done, when the returns must be made and how difficult that can be for businesses—does the Minister think that moving on without a set timescale, and the uncertainty created by that, give the best background for a successful introduction? The delivery of the scheme in Scotland seems to have run into trouble. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has insights that he can share with us—it is almost as late as a TransPennine Express train.
I am interested in what the Minister has to say about some of my questions. The scheme might seem to be a fiddling little thing, but it fiddles with a very complex tax and interacts with many other things. A bit more insight into the Minister’s thinking and her confidence about whether the scheme can be delivered on time would be really welcome.
Douglas Chapman
I will take the towel off my head before I reply. There have been difficulties in Scotland with the implementation of the deposit return scheme. In general, I am reading that this is a simplification, and it maybe brings a bit of clarity to what is possible in a DMS scheme. The important point is that, as pointed out by the previous speakers, it would be fantastic if we could operate across the whole UK. It is not often I say that, but there are opportunities with such a big environmental project that we could all share in.
Although this is not for debate as part of the Finance Bill, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to listen to some of the comments made and see whether we can work with other Departments—and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—to see what combinations can be brought to bear. I notice that the Nordic Council, for example, had a discussion session not so long ago where it talked about operating almost a Scandi food waste policy, which would cover all the various countries in the Nordic Council. I do not see why we cannot be working in a positive way like that across the whole UK, albeit that we in the SNP have other ambitions to take our country in a slightly different direction.
Samantha Dixon
Clearly, this is a complex piece of work that has taken a great deal of time, but I get the sense that the Government may be kicking the proverbial recyclable can down the road. Taking it piecemeal without a comprehensive view across the whole UK does not seem to be the best approach. Could the Minister speak to that?
Victoria Atkins
On the last point, I gently redirect the hon. Member’s observation about a piecemeal approach. That is probably more for the Scottish Government to answer because we would very much like to be acting in tandem. By the way, I am responsible for only the VAT elements, so questions about the wider design of the scheme, including whether glass is included, must be directed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I have been holding that wet towel over my head at night thinking about this. For example, what happens if somebody buys their bottle of drink just north of the border, pops over to visit Newcastle for the day and wants to get rid of that bottle? There are practical considerations. With some of this—and the Scottish Government are in this position as well—we will have to see how consumers behave. I hope that the scheme will be an enormous success and that the producers will pay the VAT on returned bottles, but it will take us a bit of time to get used to it.
Douglas Chapman
Would it not be a good idea to have a consistent approach that the UK Government could get behind? We have had to push on with our DRS to actually achieve some of our net zero targets and a better environment for our citizens, so the Government could back us up on that and bring in their own scheme.
Victoria Atkins
Again, I am trying to be terribly tactful about how I put this. There has been so much discussion between officials behind the scenes. Scotland has wanted to run ahead with its scheme. Frankly, there were some significant intellectual debates about how VAT is dealt with in this scenario. If the hon. Member—I am not pressing him because I know this is not his portfolio—or others in the Scottish Government want a little breathing space to check that we are all going in the right direction, that is of course a matter for them.
We are committed to implementing the scheme in 2025, but it will need a lot of publicising as to the impacts for consumers. We will all want to encourage our constituents to either use their own drinking vessels wherever possible or to return their bottles and cans when they can, but we have tried to simplify the VAT so that the larger producers will be the target of that first stage of VAT accounting.
On the complications, as I say, we have tried to simplify the scheme. One can imagine the scenario where if we were accounting for VAT at every single stage of the transaction process, that would be a nightmare for the tiny retail shops that we all care so much about. That is a good example of two of the three objectives that I set His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Treasury to ensure taxes are fair and simple so that there is a little tension between them, but we have tried to ensure it is as simple as possible for consumers and smaller businesses.
Just to make it clear, we are not making any money from this scheme. Indeed, we hope that tiny amounts of VAT will be paid to us, because that would mean that the overwhelming majority of people were returning their bottles. I hope we make as little money out of this as possible, which is perhaps unusual for me to say.
We will deal with the plastic packaging tax later in the Bill. The latest figure is just over £200 per tonne. As with the landfill tax, it will sit alongside this scheme and the whole point is to, first, cut down on plastic and secondly, make sure that less of it goes to landfill. I very much hope that people will see this as a holy trinity of environmental measures to try and achieve the ends that we are all so keen to achieve. Unless there are any further takers, I will sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 314 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 315
Dumping, subsidisation and safeguarding remedies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 19 be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 20 be the Twentieth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 316 and 317 stand part.
Victoria Atkins
This grouping can be summarised as further tools to defend UK businesses in international trade disputes or where the rules are not clear or could be interpreted in a variety of ways. The Department for Business and Trade leads on this work, but it is my pleasure to bring these measures into the Finance Bill to help it assist UK businesses in taking full advantage of our Brexit freedoms and ensuring that they continue to flourish in exporting their goods and services around the world.
Clause 315 and schedule 19 deal specifically with existing trade remedies legislation and create new processes for bilateral safeguards. At the moment, we have only two choices when making decisions on trade remedies: we either accept a Trade Remedies Authority recommendation in full or we reject it entirely. That means that we have a limited ability to consider the broader public interest, which the Trade Remedies Authority cannot consider. The changes made in schedule 19 will allow for a greater flow of information between Government and the TRA by requiring the TRA to notify Ministers before initiating new investigations.
The other changes will maintain the TRA’s expert, independent, analytical and investigative role while giving Ministers greater flexibility when making decisions about trade remedies. It will provide Ministers with the power to request that the TRA reassess a recommendation and give them the flexibility to apply a different remedy to that recommended by the TRA and to revoke a measure without a TRA recommendation, provided there is supporting evidence to do so and it is in the public interest. The TRA will have the power to provide alternative options of recommendations to Ministers where justified.
Currently, the TRA can only recommend a measure if it meets the economic interest test, which goes beyond World Trade Organisation requirements. Schedule 19 makes that test advisory, meaning that Ministers can consider the overall economic impact of a measure alongside the broader public interest. It makes technical provisions to allow for the reimbursement of trade remedies duties, the backdating of trade remedies exemptions and the claiming of unpaid duties by HMRC in certain circumstances.
Clause 315 also introduces schedule 20, which concerns bilateral safeguards: another type of trade remedy that may be used when domestic industries are suffering from the adverse effects of increased imports as a result of a free trade agreement. The changes made in the schedule create a new process for the investigation and application of bilateral safeguards, extending the role and responsibility of the TRA and aligning the process to the wider UK trade remedies framework. That will ensure that the UK can adequately protect UK industry and fulfil provisions in our free trade agreements.
Clause 316 introduces customs advance valuation rulings. Those will enable UK traders to apply for legally binding rulings from HMRC on how to calculate how much duty and tax for a specific good is due. That will facilitate trade flows by giving businesses importing to the UK certainty on the amount due before their goods are shipped and will therefore help to support financial planning. We already issue advance rulings in respect of tariff clarification and origin of goods, but we have not provided advance rulings on customs valuations. That is a legacy of such rulings not being provided in the EU, so we are correcting that through the Bill. Indeed, customs authorities worldwide offer them outside the EU. All traders with an economic operator registration and identification number will be able to apply for such a ruling.
Clause 317 updates customs legislation to ensure that decisions by HMRC to require a financial security as a condition of releasing imported goods from customs control are subject to appropriate safeguards. It also brings together all legislation relating to customs guarantees into a single framework. As I say, those are a variety of tools to help Ministers, the TRA and HMRC ensure that we have what we need to protect UK business and to help the flow of goods between the UK and other countries.
James Murray
As we heard from the Minister, clause 316 introduces schedules 19 and 20, which relate to the Trade Remedies Authority. When the UK left the EU, the UK Government established their own UK Trade Remedies Authority to undertake work on trade remedies previously carried out by the EU. The organisation was established in June 2021 to carry out investigations and recommend remedies related to dumping, foreign subsidies and safeguards for internationally traded goods.
The explanatory notes to the Bill explain that schedule 19 is intended to allow the Secretary of State to exercise a great deal of flexibility when making decisions on trade remedy cases. The notes also explain that schedule 20 extends the TRA’s remit to include bilateral safeguards in some of the UK free trade agreements. It also seeks to enable Ministers to request that the TRA open an investigation to determine whether the criteria to apply a measure has been met and what form a potential measure should take. It further provides Ministers with the power to apply a measure to ask the TRA to reassess its determination and recommendation, and to enable Ministers to take a different decision from the TRA’s recommendation.
It seems clear that the schedules represent a significant increase in the power of Ministers over the Trade Remedies Authority, which was established just two years ago. Despite its short life, the Trade Remedies Authority found itself at the heart of a political storm in Downing Street last year. Right hon. and hon. Members might recall that in June 2022 Lord Geidt resigned from his position as the ethics adviser for the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) when he was Prime Minister. In his resignation letter Lord Geidt wrote:
“I was tasked to offer a view about the Government’s intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position.”
In his response, the then Prime Minister confirmed what the dispute concerned. He wrote to Lord Geidt:
“You say that you were put in an impossible position regarding my seeking your advice on potential future decisions related to the Trade Remedies Authority.”
Despite that brush with the former Prime Minister, the Trade Remedies Authority has continued to exist. The measures being introduced by the two schedules that we are discussing will have a significant impact on its relationship with Ministers. This is a fair amount of change for an organisation that has existed for less than two years.
To help members of the Committee put the proposals in context, will the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning behind the initial arrangements for the Trade Remedies Authority two years ago, and how the changes to the arrangements that we are considering today were decided? Will she explain whether there has been any international benchmarking of similar authorities in other countries? What are their levels of independence and their relevant relations with politician?
Clause 316 would allow customers to apply to HMRC for advance valuation ruling decisions. Advance rulings provide traders with a legally binding decision from customs authorities in advance of a shipment, which gives them certainty about how their goods are treated with implications for duty levied. The UK currently issues advance rulings in respect of tariff classification and origin of goods but has not provided advance rulings on customs valuation. That is because customs valuation rulings were not provided for in the EU. However, as the Minister said, they are widely offered by customs authorities worldwide.
We understand that the measures would allow HMRC to provide businesses with more certainty when they are deciding on the most appropriate method of customs valuation for valuing their goods for import. Anything that gives businesses greater certainty is to be welcomed, so we will not be opposing the clause. On a specific point of clarity, however, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the clause’s advanced rulings provision is required as a condition of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
Finally, clause 317 updates legislation to permit HMRC to require financial guarantees to be given for duty amounts payable on imported goods and ensure that decisions to require such guarantees will be subject to review and appeal rights. Since January 2021, section 119 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 has been used to require a financial guarantee from importers as a condition of releasing imported goods from the control of an HMRC officer where the amount of customs duty due for the goods is unclear. However, there has been no statutory right for an importer to request a review of, or an appeal against, such a guarantee requirement. Those appeal and review rights were inadvertently omitted when EU legislation was transposed into domestic legislation, which seems to have been an oversight by the Government. We will not oppose the clause, which seeks to remedy the Government’s mistake, but will the Minister explain what impact that mistake has had? Specifically, how many appeal and review requests by importers have been lodged but denied consideration since January 2021, and what steps are being taken to rectify any individual grievances that have arisen as a result?
Dame Angela Eagle
The clause seems quite mild, but it seems to have many implications for the policing of import duties; the prevention of widespread dumping or misuse of products on our markets, which could destroy establishing domestic industries; and the regulation of free trade agreements that we make around the world. Will the Minister give us some indication of how the Trade Remedies Authority changes that are encompassed in clause 315 and schedules 19 and 20 will impact on its independence? From listening to the Minister, it seemed to me that that was one of the most important aspects of the changes, and the Committee needs to understand it as we continue to scrutinise the Bill.
Clearly, a trade remedies body must be independent of those it oversees, so that it is seen as an appropriate body to make decisions that might have serious economic consequences for one side or the other. It is, effectively, a trade judiciary; if it is to be effective, it has to be seen to be independent and widely respected for its independence. The changes made by the clause seem to eat away at some of that. The Minister was talking about different changes to the way in which the authority can pursue its job, including increases in different kinds of information and having to notify Ministers before initiating reviews. It is a quite a big step to put that in legislation, rather than have it as memorandum of understanding. Reading between the lines, that implies that Ministers are not happy with the way in which the Trade Remedies Authority is behaving. Why have the Government decided to put these changes in legislation, rather than in a memorandum of understanding, and why do they think that the Trade Remedies Authority needs to be constrained by law? Is it because there has been a breakdown in the relationship between Ministers and the people who run the authority? Is because there is a lack of trust, or is it simply because Ministers want more direct control over the way in which the authority behaves? That would have implications for the TRA’s independence, and it would certainly have implications for how its independence would be perceived by those wishing to approach it for a jurisdictional reason or for decision making.
Victoria Atkins
I hope I will be able answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Wallasey asked about why the changes are being made. We announced our decision to reform the trade remedies framework in June 2021, and this is the end of a review process to look at how our framework is working. As I suspect Members across the House, not just this Committee, might expect, we have been talking and listening to industry, asking it for its views on how the trade remedy system could be improved. Consultations on including bilateral safeguard provisions have taken place as part of new free trade negotiations, and those will continue to occur for each negotiation. Importantly, we have asked not only the industry but the TRA, and we will work with it to ensure that the changes are implemented effectively.
The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about international comparators. I confirm that all the changes we are making are in line with our obligations under the WTO. Advance rulings are a key component of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and other key free trade agreements, but they also help business. Those are some reasons for introducing them. On clause 317, no statutory right of appeal for traders has existed since we left the EU, but we continue to offer the trader the right to be heard scheme, which gives a trader a period of 30 days to present additional information before HMRC confirms the decision.
The hon. Member for Wallasey asked some important questions about the TRA and its independence, including why this has to be done through legislation. The TRA very much remains an independent body, and we genuinely value its expertise and advice. Its core objective will be to investigate allegations of unfair trading practices and unforeseen surges in imports, and to make recommendations to Ministers. It will continue to run fair, impartial and evidence-based investigations. The Secretary of State will then decide whether a measure should apply based on the evidence provided.
The Bill injects another element of transparency, because the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will have to make a statement to Parliament if Ministers decide to apply an alternative remedy to that recommended by the TRA—I imagine that the Treasury Committee would take a great interest in that—and the statement would set out the reasons for their decision. The TRA will continue to maintain a public file of the evidence and publish its conclusions as well. I hope colleagues will be reassured by the transparency that we seek to bring in.
On the TRA itself, it started to investigate cases in 2021. To date, its completed cases include one new investigation and 11 measures transitioned from the EU. It investigates, for example, allegations of dumping, subsidy and unforeseen surges in imports, and it provides objective, independent and evidence-based advice to Ministers, which we will very much continue to value.
As to why we have to make the changes through legislation, the TRA is a statutory body, it can therefore only act within its statutory powers. That is why we have to bring forward the legislation. Furthermore, it will give certainty to parliamentarians should it be needed in future—though I hope that will not be the case.
James Murray
I thank the Minister for her response, although she might have misunderstood my question on international comparators. Her response, I believe, was that what the UK Government are doing is in line with WTO requirements, but my question was whether there had been any international benchmarking of the TRA, its role, its powers and its relationship with politicians—its level of independence and so on—against similar authorities in other countries. Perhaps she will address that question.
Victoria Atkins
I do not have that information to hand, but I will endeavour to get it as quickly as possible and furnish the Committee with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 315 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clauses 316 and 317 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 318
Excepted machines etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I am afraid you’ve got me, Mr Stringer. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Clause 318 makes technical amendments to the legislation that restricts the entitlement to use rebated fuels to a number of qualifying uses from 1 April 2022 to adjust the restrictions and ensure the legislation operates as intended. It makes minor amendments to changes that were introduced in April 2022 to restrict the entitlement to use rebated fuels.
At Budget 2020, the Government announced that we would remove the entitlement to use rebated diesel and biofuels, including marked oils, from most sectors to help meet our climate change and air quality targets. The changes were legislated for in the Finance Act 2021 and amended by the Finance Act 2022. The changes ensure that most users of rebated fuels prior to April 2022 are now required to use fully duty-paid fuel, like motorists. That more fairly reflects the harmful impact of the emissions that they produce.
Following the implementation of the changes, the Government were made aware of a small number of unintended impacts on fuel users. This measure will make minor amendments in relation to them and will correct a technical issue in section 14B of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.
The changes in the clause will adjust restrictions on the entitlement to use rebated fuels to a number of qualifying uses, will qualify how the changes to the new rules work, and will allow the legislation to operate as intended. They will allow machines or appliances used to generate electricity or provide heating primarily for non-commercial premises to use rebated fuels even if they also provide some of the electricity or heat to commercial premises. They will also add arboriculture to the list of activities for which machines and appliances, other than vehicles, can use rebated fuels. That clarification will allow those working in the sector to use rebated fuels in the same machines and appliances as they did before April 2022.
The changes allow the use of rebated fuels in tractors and gear owned by lifeboat charities used to launch and recover their lifeboats. Finally, they make minor technical corrections to remove an anomaly of section 14B of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.
These changes reflect feedback received from stakeholders since the Finance Act 2022 received Royal Assent. The technical changes in the clause will ensure that the Government’s reforms to the tax treatment of rebated fuels made in April 2022 work as intended. I commend the clause to the Committee.
James Murray
As we know, at Budget 2020, the Government announced that they would remove the entitlement to use rebated diesel and biofuels from those sectors. As we heard, these changes took effect from April 2022, and they ensure that most users of rebated diesel prior to April 2022 are now required to use fully duty-paid diesel, as motorists do.
As the Minister set out, the Government have been made aware of unintended impacts of the legislation on fuel uses, so further amendments to it have been needed by way of the clause. As we heard, the clause amends the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 to adjust restrictions on the entitlement to use rebated diesel and biofuels.
We understand from explanatory notes that the changes will affect businesses and individuals who use rebated fuels to provide electricity or heating to premises that are used for both commercial, and non-commercial purposes, businesses and individuals using machines or appliances other than vehicles for purposes relating to arboriculture, and charities operating lifeboats. I ask the Minister for further information on that last category. Can he help us better understand what issue the measures in the clause are seeking to address specifically in relation to charities operating lifeboats? Can he explain what impact the law, as it currently exists, has been having on those charities operating lifeboats?
Gareth Davies
Essentially, as the hon. Gentleman points out, the measure is to correct some unintended consequences. One of those does relate to lifeboats. The initial provision was to include lifeboats and their ability to use rebated fuel. It did not include tractors and geared machines, which enable lifeboats to get in and out of the water. It is not something that was raised as part of the consultation process initially, but it was raised after the legislation went through. We are now amending that to ensure that not only lifeboats but tractors and geared machines can use rebated fuel.
James Murray
I thank the Minister for his clear response on that point. Obviously, charities operating lifeboats are ones that we all seek to support and to ensure are not disadvantaged inadvertently by any laws. Has the Minister had any discussions with those charities about whether they have lost out because of the unintended consequences, and whether there will be any redress?
Gareth Davies
I personally have not had that engagement. I will look into what discussions have taken place, and I would be happy to report that back to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 318 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 319
Rates of tobacco products duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gareth Davies
Clause 319 implements changes announced at the spring Budget 2023 concerning tobacco duty rates. The duty charge on all tobacco products will rise in line with the tobacco duty escalator, with additional increases being made for hand-rolling tobacco and to the minimum excise tax on cigarettes. Smoking rates in the UK are falling, but they are still too high. Around 13% of adults are smokers. Smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable illness and premature deaths in the UK, killing around 100,000 people a year, and about half of all long-term users.
We have plans to reduce smoking rates further, towards our Smokefree 2030 ambition. To realise that ambition, the Minister for Primary Care and Public Health recently announced the next steps to help people quit smoking. Our policy of maintaining high duty rates for tobacco products will support the Government’s plan to reduce smoking to improve public health. According to the charity Action on Smoking and Health, smoking costs society £21 billion a year in England, as a result of sickness, disability and premature death, including £2.2 billion in costs to the NHS for treating disease caused by smoking.
At the spring Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government will increase tobacco duty in line with the escalator. Clause 319 thus specifies that the duty charged on all tobacco products will rise by 2% above the retail prices index level of inflation. In addition, duty on hand-rolling tobacco increases by a further 6% above RPI inflation. The clause also increases the minimum excise tax—the minimum amount of duty to be paid on a pack of cigarettes—by an additional 1% to 3% above RPI inflation. The new tobacco rates will be treated as having taken effect from 6 pm on the day they were announced, which was 5 March 2023.
Recognising the potential interactions between tobacco duty rates and the illicit market, the Government intend to introduce tougher sanctions later this year to punish those involved in the illegal tobacco market. The Government also recently announced that HMRC and Border Force will publish an updated strategy to tackle illicit tobacco later this year.
This clause will continue our tried and tested policy of using high duty rates on tobacco products to make tobacco less affordable, and will continue the reduction in smoking prevalence towards a smoke-free 2030, as well as reducing the burden of smoking on our public services.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
On the Government’s ambition to reduce smoking, I briefly want to mention heating tobacco, in preference, I might say, to vaping.
The only problem with vaping, of course, is that there is absolutely no evidence of any health benefits or health risks. However, with heating tobacco, there is a huge amount of evidence, particularly from Japan, about its health benefits, in helping people to reduce and stop smoking. I just wondered whether the Minister has had any indication that heating tobacco has been looked at as an alternative to vaping. Of course, adding extra duties to it is an inhibitor to people reducing or stopping smoking.
Dame Angela Eagle
We are obviously dealing with a product that kills and, as the Minister said, cost the public purse £21 billion a year. That is why there is cross-party support for the tobacco duty escalator, which the Minister just outlined, explaining how it applies to current costs. It will increase the average price of a packet of cigarettes by 95p and the average price of a 30-gram packet of hand-rolling tobacco by £1.75. I have to say that hand-rolling tobacco is the tobacco product that is smuggled most, so we have to be particularly aware of that. The Minister will know that, if he has been to see Border Force. A 10-gram packet of cigars will go up by 48p, a 30-gram packet of pipe tobacco—again, that is a tobacco product that is often smuggled—by 63p and a typical 6-gram pack of tobacco for heating by 24p.
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that these increases will raise the amount of revenue taken by tobacco from £10 billion last year to £10.4 billion next year, which will actually return it to where it was the year before. Clearly, that is just an OBR estimate, but I presume that it is based on the work of and information given by Border Force and HMRC. If we are trying to get to a tobacco-free place by 2030, surely we need more progress than this kind of stasis on receipts. I wonder whether the Minister might wish to comment on that.
Clearly, the innovation of vaping is helping many people to give up smoking, but there are unknown health risks to vaping. In particular, would he comment on the way that vapes are being marketed at the moment in our society, with sweer flavours like bubble gum and melon, in a way that is clearly aimed at children. I do not think we should tolerate that. Will he give us a view rather than just saying that vaping is better than smoking cigarettes, which is clearly true?
What that does not include is the alarming rise in vaping among children, which is addicting them to nicotine in a way that might have difficult implications for public expenditure, health and their wellbeing if we allow it to continue. Will the Minister give us at least an early indication of his Department’s thinking on this juxtaposition?
Some organisations that do not think we are going far enough fast enough to eliminate tobacco as a habit to get to a smoke-free 2030 are proposing capping net profit margins on UK tobacco sales to no more than 10%—currently it is 50%—in line with the average for UK manufacturing. That could directly raise £700 million, which could fund the Khan review proposals, which contained a more radical way of trying to get us to the smoke-free target. Is the Department considering something more radical on revenue raising from tobacco products, given that progress has stalled?
As the Minister mentioned, and it is no surprise that he did, as soon as the tax goes up on tobacco products, the financial incentives to smuggle get greater. He mentioned there would be another smuggling strategy, which presumably will try to prevent the complete loss of revenue and lack of any capacity to prove whether the products being smuggled are even vaguely acceptable, because they are adulterated by all sorts, including brick dust. Will the Minister give us more information about what effect that will have on smuggling, because it is a constant problem?
Gareth Davies
There was quite a bit in there, but a lot of it was related, so I will do my best to address those points. First, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, I will need to educate myself a little better on heated tobacco, but if he would like to write to me, I will provide a more detailed response. I will address his comments on vaping, together with those of the hon. Member for Wallasey, in a moment.
The hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned hand-rolling tobacco and the connection to illicit trade. I want to clarify for the Committee that the fact we are raising the rate so significantly—6% plus RPI—is to help hand-rolling tobacco prices catch up with cigarettes to help us towards our Smokefree 2030 ambition. I wanted to provide that clarity because I did not in my opening remarks. The hon. Lady alluded to various calls to do more and to raise prices even more, and she referenced the OBR’s estimates for that. I will take that, together with the point she raised about the Khan review recommendations. We have to get the balance right with this taxation, as the hon. Lady said. If it is too high, it is likely to push people into the illicit trade. That is a known fact. That is one of the reasons why we have not proceeded with the 30% suggestion from the Khan review. At every review, we are trying to get that balance while also seeking to improve our enforcement action on illicit trade.
I referred to the updated review from HMRC and Border Force that is coming out later this year. I do not want to pre-empt what it is going to say or what it may achieve, but I certainly await it with eager anticipation. I would also add that the Finance Act 2022 included new sanctions, such as enhanced penalties, to strengthen the agencies’ enforcement abilities. That is a key focus of the Government right now.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 21 be the Twenty-first schedule to the Bill.
Gareth Davies
Clause 320 and schedule 21 legislate to amend part 2 of the Finance Act 2017 to bring into scope the soft drinks industry levy on liquid flavour concentrates used in fountains, also known as dispensing machines, which combine added sugar with the concentrate when the soft drink is dispensed to produce a soft drink with at least 5 grams of sugar per 100 ml. The change takes effect from 1 April 2023.
The Government launched a consultation on the design and implementation of the soft drinks industry levy in August 2016 and set out a response confirming the broad policy approach. The soft drinks industry levy came into effect in April 2018 and supports the Government’s strategy to tackle obesity by encouraging reformulation at manufacturer level. The soft drinks industry levy applies to packaged soft drinks containing at least 5 grams per 100 ml of added sugar. Producers, manufacturers and importers of liable soft drinks must register a report and pay the soft drinks industrial levy on the volume of liable soft drinks packaged in and imported into the UK.
The soft drinks industry levy has driven substantial reformulation, resulting in a sugar reduction in soft drinks of 46% between 2015 and 2020 and the reformulation of more than 50% of sugary soft drinks in response to the levy. The changes made by clause 320 and schedule 21 will close a minor technical loophole within the soft drinks industry industrial levy, improving the consistency of its application. The changes are in line with the intent of the original legislation. The measures extend the definition of a soft drink liable to the soft drink industry levy to include packaged concentrates that are mixed with sugar when dispensed from a soft drink fountain machine. Other fountain machines used in the restaurant, retail and leisure industry that use a packaged syrup or concentrate containing added sugar are already in scope of the soft drinks industry levy.
The change will bring consistency across the soft drinks industry by ensuring that all packaged concentrates used in fountain machines, regardless of the stage when the sugar is added, are captured by the soft drinks industry levy. Existing soft drinks industry levy rules, including registration, rates, accounting and payment will apply to manufacturers and importers of flavour concentrates manufactured to be mixed with sugar in a dispensing machine. The change takes effect from 1 April 2023 and will bring consistency across the soft drinks industry by ensuring that all packaged concentrates used in fountain machines, regardless of the stage at which sugar is added, are captured by the soft drinks industry levy.
James Murray
I will speak briefly to clause 320 and schedule 21, which relate to the scope of the soft drinks industry levy. As the Exchequer Secretary set out, the result of these measures is that the levy will now apply to liquid flavour concentrates that are manufactured in, or imported into, the UK. The concentrates are products that are mixed with added sugar in a dispensing machine to dispense a soft drink for the final consumer.
The soft drinks industry levy was announced at Budget 2016 and came into force in April 2018. It has been targeted at producers, manufacturers and importers of soft drinks containing added sugar by encouraging the reformulation of drinks to reduce levels of added sugar and portion sizes, and the marketing of low-sugar alternatives and so on. We recognise that this technical change will bring liquid flavour concentrates within scope of the levy, and we will not oppose the clause.
Victoria Atkins
Out of an abundance of caution, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my ministerial interests. I am recused from this subject matter in a ministerial capacity.
Dame Angela Eagle
I wonder which sugary drinks the Minister is addicted to—perhaps she will tell us when we are not sitting in public.
We are dealing here with a technical change to the successful sugar tax, if we can call it that. Again, when we are dealing with Ministers whose job is to get money into the Exchequer, it is strange to have to congratulate them for the declining level of soft drinks industry levy receipts. The tax has successfully delivered on the intention behind the policy, and receipts are down by £21 million for April 2022 to March 2023. That is an awful lot of ruined teeth and extra weight avoided, often for children, whose life chances can be negatively impacted by becoming addicted to sugar.
The consensus among public health officials is that the sugar tax has caused a decline in sugary drink sales, and the total amount of sugar in soft drinks sold by retailers and manufacturers decreased by 35.4% between 2015 and 2019, from 135,500 tonnes to a mere 87,600. That is a success as far as things go, but perhaps the Minister might assure the Committee that the Government will take credit for the success and that they intend to continue to push for lowering even further the 87,600 tonnes of sugar that are currently put in drinks, because there is uncertainty about the Government’s direction.
Two previous Prime Ministers have challenged the existence of sugar taxes. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said that, on the current evidence, it is ambiguous whether they work, but I have just raised some evidence that shows unambiguously that they do. Similarly, the Prime Minister’s immediate and very short-lived predecessor, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), said that
“taxes on treats hit those on the lowest incomes.”
If I may say so, they might also account for the development of a trend that is quite shocking when one thinks about it. There is now a positive correlation being between poor and being obese. As a society, we ought to tackle that, partially by using such methods, so that we can ensure that the correlation does not survive. We could bring to bear a range of other measures to ensure that happy outcome, but they would be completely outwith the scope of the Bill, so I will not talk about them.
We must, however, congratulate the Government on their introduction of sugar taxes. Since the current Prime Minister’s position is unclear, because he has both supported and rejected furthering a sugar tax, will the Exchequer Secretary tell us what the Government’s position is? Is he willing to stand up and take unambiguous credit for the success of the sugar tax and confirm to us that the Government’s intention is to continue making progress in this area in an appropriate way, with more than just technical changes for drinks fountains?
Gareth Davies
I am always grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments. I can answer her quickly. We are committed to the SDIL—the soft drinks industry levy—and we share her positive recognition of the sugar decline. With any tax considerations, however, we have to achieve a balance; we have to balance tax against cost of living concerns, as she pointed out, so all taxes remain under review.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 320 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 21 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Andrew Stephenson.)
Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 18th May 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 View all Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2023 - (18 May 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
Clause 321 introduces a new domestic air passenger duty band for flights within the UK to bolster connectivity within the Union and a new ultra-long-haul band to further align the tax with the Government’s environmental objectives. The clause also sets the 2023-24 rates for both the new bands and the two existing bands that are operated by the retail price index.
Clause 322 enables the Northern Ireland Assembly to set the rate for the new ultra-long-haul band for direct flights departing Northern Ireland. The primary purpose of air passenger duties is to ensure that the aviation sector contributes to public finances, since tickets are VAT-free and aviation fuel incurs no duty.
Following a consultation on aviation tax reform in 2021, the Government announced a package of APD reforms at the autumn Budget 2021. First, the reforms will bolster air connectivity within the Union through a 50% cut in domestic APD. Some of the nations and regions of the UK are separated by sea so aviation has a critical role to play in facilitating the necessary links across our Union.
Secondly, by adding a new ultra-long-haul distance band, the reforms further align APD with the Government’s environmental objectives, recognising that aviation is responsible for 8% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, emissions from international aviation have more than doubled since 1990, and we were responsible for 96% of the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019.
The new ultra-long-haul band, which covers flights that are greater than 5,500 miles from London, will ensure that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty. The annual uprating for APD rates in line with RPI to the nearest pound is routine and has occurred every year since 2012. To give airlines sufficient notice, the Government announce the rates at least one year in advance.
The changes made by clause 321 implement the APD reforms and the 2023-24 rates announced at autumn Budget 2021. APD for domestic flights, except private jets, will be reduced by 50%, from £13 to £6.50 for passengers flying economy class. Overall, the Government expect that more than 10 million passengers will benefit from the reform.
The new ultra-long-haul band will be set at £91 for passengers flying in economy—a £4 increase compared with the existing long-haul band. That is expected to affect less than 5% of passengers. For the remaining 2023-24 rates where the standard uprating applies, the clause increases the long-haul rate by a nominal increase of just £3 for economy class. The rounding of APD rates to the nearest pound means that short-haul rates will remain frozen in normal terms for the 10th year in a row. That benefits more than 70% of passengers.
Clause 322 enables the Northern Ireland Assembly to set the rates for the new ultra-long-haul band for direct flights departing Northern Ireland. The rates for direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland are already devolved. The reforms to air passenger duty will bolster Union connectivity and further align the tax with our environmental objectives. These are a routine uprating of existing rates, which represents a real-terms freeze and ensures that airlines continue to make a fair contribution to our public finances. I therefore move that the clauses stand part of the Bill.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
As we heard from the Minister, clause 321 will introduce a new domestic band for flights within the UK and a new ultra-long-haul band covering destinations with capitals located more than 5,500 miles from London. Until the end of March 2023, there were two destination rate bands for air passenger duty: band A included those countries whose capital city is less than 2,000 miles from London, with band B covering all other destinations. From 1 April, there have been four destination bands: the domestic band for flights within the UK; band A for non-domestic destinations whose capital is up to 2,000 miles from London; band B for destinations whose capital is between 2,001 and 5,500 miles from London; and band C for all other destinations.
As the Minister explained, clause 322 makes consequential amendments to the provisions that devolve to the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set the direct long-haul rates of APD. I understand that the changes in the clause do not impinge on the devolved powers, and the devolved rates are not affected. Rather, it updates the provisions to reflect the introduction of clause 321 and the ultra-long-haul band.
Before I address our concerns about this measure, I would be grateful if the Minister could help the Committee to understand what the situation would be if the clause passed by confirming what rates of air passenger duty would apply in a few specific instances. First, if someone were to travel by helicopter around the UK—for instance, from London to Southampton—would that be subject to air passenger duty? Secondly, if someone travelled on a private jet around the UK—say, from London to Blackpool—that was, for argument’s sake, a Dassault Falcon 900LX, what rate of air passenger duty would apply? Finally, if someone lives in the UK but was travelling to another home of theirs—say, in Santa Monica, California—what rate of air passenger duty would apply? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those three questions.
I turn to our concerns about the clause. As the Minister might know, when this measure was first announced at autumn Budget 2021, we raised our concerns about it during the debates on the subsequent Finance Bill. We pointed out then—it is even truer today—that it could not be right for the Government to prioritise a tax cut that would be of greatest benefit to people who are able to be frequent flyers in the UK at a time when working people across the country have been hit again and again by tax rises.
As well as being the wrong priority for public money, the Chancellor announced the cut in air passenger duty just days before COP26. What is more, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out at the time, the cut in air passenger duty would in fact flow through the UK emissions trading scheme and push up electricity prices for people at home. The Government have pointed out that the introduction of a reduced domestic rate of air passenger duty has been accompanied by the introduction of an ultra-long-haul rate. However, when taken together, all the changes in the clause are still set to cost the taxpayer an additional £35 million a year. We cannot support this as a priority for spending public money, so we will oppose the clause.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us how clause 322(4), which devolves these issues to the Northern Ireland Assembly, will work, given that the Assembly is not sitting at the moment? Does it mean that this will be decided centrally at Westminster? What arrangements are made for that, since, if there was no change in these areas, in the absence of the Assembly sitting, there would be a divergence between air passenger duty in one place and the other? How has the Treasury modelled that divergence, given that air passenger duty is a devolved issue, even though the devolution settlement is not working at the moment because the Assembly is not sitting?
Will the Minister update the Committee on where we are with the aviation treaties that zero-rate aviation fuel? It is an ongoing issue, given the nature of the environmental damage that is done—particularly by aviation fuel—in the higher atmosphere when airplanes fly at higher levels, which they normally do on long-haul flights. How will private jets be treated and affected, if at all, by the reduction in domestic air passenger duty, since we have a Prime Minister who seems to think that public transport is chartering a private jet for short-haul flights?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
May I declare a loose interest?
I have an elderly mother who lives in Australia. As she is elderly, I am spending more and more time going down there. That aside, has the Minister done any evaluation of air passenger duty and the economic competitiveness of the UK versus our European partners?
I ask that because I know from previous years travelling down to Australia that it has been much more viable for me to catch a flight to Amsterdam, Oslo or wherever and pick up a flight from there, because the cost of flights from the UK has been phenomenally more expensive than those from our European partners. From speaking to people, I know that more and more people are doing that. APD has the adverse effect of making us uneconomical and perhaps at some future point even taking a reduced rate because more and more people will be doing that. Has the Minister or anybody in the Treasury done any evaluation of our air passenger duty versus those of our European counterparts?
Gareth Davies
Let me try to answer those questions in order. Just to clarify for the Committee, there is no APD other than on fixed-wing aircraft. Private jets pay a higher rate than any other flight domestically, and they are not, to answer the hon. Member for Wallasey, subject to the 50% cut that we are talking about here. Any ultra-long-haul flights will face a new band, as I described in my opening remarks.
To answer the excellent and reasonable question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), I understand there was a review in 2021 of the economic impact of APD. As I said in my opening remarks, all factors are considered as part of that process, but I am happy to provide more detail in due course if that is warranted.
The point on Northern Ireland that the hon. Member for Wallasey raised is a good one. It is a devolved matter, as she points out, and Northern Ireland has the ability to set the rate for ultra-long-haul flights. Let me look into the matter of the arrangements we are putting in place, given the specific circumstances that we find ourselves in with the Executive. It is a fair question, and it deserves a fair answer, so I will come back to her.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the Minister for undertaking to let us have that information, given the particular circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland. Can he say a little bit about whether there is any progress with the aviation treaties? I know how difficult it is, but it is a complete anomaly that there is no taxation of aviation fuel simply because most flights pass through an international area, given the worse damage that use of aviation fuel does when aeroplanes are travelling at high altitude. Something that we aspired to do when I was in the Treasury was to get some kind of agreement in international treaties to bring that matter into tax. Has any progress been made in the ever-elongated period between when I was in the Treasury and the present day?
Gareth Davies
First, let me apologise to the hon. Lady. I had that in my notes to address, and I did not. She is referring to the Chicago convention, which basically is an international agreement whereby we have agreed not to tax aviation fuel. That was, as I understand, enacted in the 1940s. I was told in a briefing yesterday that it may have been updated some eight times since then, but she raises an interesting point. We are committed to all current international agreements, but it is certainly something that I will look into. I still regard myself as fairly new in this job, but I commit to look into it in due course.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause 324 stand part.
Government amendment 10.
That schedule 22 be the Twenty-second schedule to the Bill.
Clause 325 stand part.
Gareth Davies
Clauses 323 to 325 and schedule 22 provide for the 2023-24 vehicle excise duty rates and the new, reformed heavy good vehicle levy from August 2023.
The clause sets the 2023-24 vehicle excise duty rate. Since 2010, rates of VED have changed only in line with inflation, which means that drivers have not seen a real-terms increase. The clause will result in nine in 10 car drivers seeing a change to their VED liability of £20 or less next year. The Government continue to support drivers who will benefit from the extended cut and will freeze fuel duty in 2023-24, worth £100 to the average driver.
Clause 324 and schedule 22 introduce the new, reformed HGV levy from August 2023, following the end of the levy suspension period. The reforms are a further step towards reflecting the environmental performance of heavy goods vehicles. Given that the HGV levy suspension period is coming to an end, HGV VED will remain frozen for 2023 to 2024 to support the haulage sector. Finally, clause 325 removes certain circumstances in which the levy suspension period for a given HGV is extended longer than intended.
I will now go through the measures in detail. A long-standing feature of VED is that it is uprated in line with inflation, using a measure based on the retail price index. Since 2010, rates for cars, vans and motorcycles have increased only in line with inflation. The standard annual rate of VED for cars first registered since April 2017—the most common annual rate—will increase by £15, from £165 to £180. Drivers will continue to benefit from the extended cut and freeze to fuel duty in 2023-24, which taken together represent a saving of £100 per average motorist.
As for the HGV levy, which applies to all HGVs of 12 tonnes or more, it was introduced in 2014 to ensure that all hauliers, both UK and non-UK, make a contribution when they drive on UK roads. The levy was suspended in August 2020 to support the haulage sector and aid the covid-19 pandemic recovery efforts. The suspension is due to end in August 2023.
In June 2022, the Government consulted on HGV levy reform options. The consultation sought views on proposals to align a reformed HGV levy with the environmental performance of the vehicle, ensuring that levy liability is as closely aligned as possible to when a foreign vehicle is used on a major road. Having considered views on the subject, the Government decided to take forward the proposals, as announced at the Budget.
Clause 323 will result in changes to some drivers’ vehicle excise duty liabilities. That includes changes to first-year rates of VED for cars. The most polluting vehicles will pay up to £2,605, while those with lower emissions will pay nothing. Rates for vans, motorcycles and motorcycle trade licences will also change in line with RPI.
Clause 324 and schedule 22 will increase the new reformed HGV levy. That is effective from August 2023. On average, UK HGVs will pay around 20% less than under the previous HGV levy, with both UK and non-UK hauliers benefiting from a much simplified levy structure based on weight proxying CO2. The number of rates will reduce from 22 to 6, which will make administration easier. For non-UK hauliers, the reforms also ensure that the levy is focused on road usage and is more clearly aligned with the Government’s international obligations. The most common type of HGV hauliers will pay £576 per year. The second most common type will pay £150—less than the cost of a tank of fuel. For many types of HGVs, operating costs are more than £100,000 a year; the HGV levy represents a small fraction of that.
Clause 325 is a technical anti-avoidance change. In the final year of the three-year levy suspension period, each vehicle should benefit from only up to 12 months of levy-free period. The clause ensures that by providing for a transitional payment where a vehicle has benefited from additional months of levy-free period.
The Government have tabled amendments 9 and 10 to those clauses, which address minor legislative errors to ensure that vehicle excise duty for rigid HGVs pulling trailers continues to apply as intended following the introduction of the new reformed levy. Where VED was partly set according to the vehicle weight bands of the previous HGV levy, the amendments specify the same weight bands independently of the new reformed levy. As a result, the VED due for HGVs pulling trailers does not change, in line with the Government’s policy intention.
In conclusion, a new reformed HGV levy will ensure that all hauliers continue to make a contribution when they use UK roads after the levy suspension period ends. VED has been frozen for HGVs, and for other vehicles it is rising in line with RPI only, so drivers will not see a real-terms increase in their VED liabilities. I therefore commend the clauses, the schedule and amendments 9 and 10 to the Committee.
James Murray
As we have heard from the Minister, clause 323 provides for changes to certain rates of vehicle excise duty by amending schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. As we know from announcements in the spring Budget, vehicle excise duty rates for light passenger and light goods vehicles and motorcycles will increase in line with inflation, based on RPI. We understand that the changes to rates will take effect for vehicle licences taken out on or after 1 April this year.
Clause 324 and associated schedule 22 change the HGV road user levy; they amend, as the Minister said, how it is calculated and the rates. They also remove the requirement to provide a register of HGV levy paid. The HGV levy was introduced in 2014, and is payable by both UK and non-UK HGVs when using UK roads. The Government suspended the levy in August 2020, and it will return in August this year. The Department for Transport consulted on changes to the HGV levy in June 2022. The reforms implemented by the clause and the accompanying schedule move the levy towards better reflecting the environmental performance of vehicles.
On a minor point of clarification, the explanatory note to the clause states:
“For non-UK HGVs, the reforms also ensure that the levy is…more clearly aligned with the government’s international obligations.”
Could the Minister explain what international obligations the note refers to, and how the reforms better align the UK with them? Finally, clause 325 operates alongside clause 324. It deals with circumstances where the levy’s suspension period for a given HGV is extended longer than the Government intended. As the explanatory notes on the clause make clear, in the final year of the three-year levy suspension period, which ends in August this year, each vehicle should benefit from only another 12 months of levy-free period. I understand that the clause ensures that that is the case by providing for a transitional payment where a vehicle has benefited from additional months of levy-free period, so Labour will not oppose the clause.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful to the Opposition for not opposing clause 325. The hon. Member rightly asked about the international aspect of the provisions on international hauliers. Perhaps I can offer additional clarification. The measures will apply only to A roads and motorways, which is in line with what happens in many other countries. On the specific international obligations that he asked about, I do not have the exact detail to hand, but I am happy to follow up on that. However, what we propose is in line with what is done by many other countries around the world. Revenue weight of vehicle 2 axle vehicle 3 axle vehicle 4 or more axle vehicle Exceeding Not exceeding kgs kgs Band Band Band 11,999 15,000 B(T) B(T) B(T) 15,000 21,000 D(T) B(T) B(T) 21,000 23,000 E(T) C(T) B(T) 23,000 25,000 E(T) D(T) C(T) 25,000 27,000 E(T) D(T) D(T) 27,000 44,000 E(T) E(T) E(T)”.
We are often asked why the levy is restricted to certain roads. It has been assessed that rerouting to avoid the levy would not be cost-effective for hauliers. We have every confidence that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the police and our extensive automatic number plate recognition technology will enable us to enforce this measure. On the question about international obligations, I understand that the obligations may be those under the trade and co-operation agreement. I will confirm that to him later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 323 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 324
Reform of HGV road user levy
Amendment made: 9, in clause 324, page 245, line 34, after “provision” insert “(including consequential provision)”.—(Gareth Davies.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Clause 324, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 22
Reforms of HGV road user levy
Amendment made: 10, in schedule 22, page 449, line 25, at end insert—
‘10A “(1) In consequence of the amendments made by paragraph 10, in Part 8 of Schedule 1 to VERA 1994 (annual rates of duty: goods vehicles), paragraph 10 (relevant rigid goods vehicles) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) In this paragraph, references to “the tables” are to the tables mentioned in sub-paragraph (6).”
(3) In sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) in the opening words omit “following”;
(b) in paragraph (c), for “appropriate HGV road user levy band” substitute “vehicle excise duty band”.
(4) For sub-paragraph (5) substitute—
“(5A) The “vehicle excise duty band” in relation to a vehicle is determined in accordance with the following table—
(5) In each of the tables after sub-paragraph (6), in the headings to column 1, for “Appropriate HGV road user levy band” substitute “Vehicle excise duty band”.’—(Gareth Davies.)
This amendment and Amendment 9 would make consequential amendments to ensure that vehicle excise duty remains chargeable on certain HGVs on the same basis, and in the same amounts, as it is chargeable before the amendments to the HGV road user levy in the Bill have effect.
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 325 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 326
Rates of landfill tax
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 327 to 329 stand part.
New clause 5—Assessment of impact of the Act on compliance with the climate change target—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within one year of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on the Government’s ability to meet—
(a) the duty under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (the target for 2050), and
(b) its obligations and commitments under the Paris Agreement of 2015.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on the UK Government’s ability to meet its duty to achieve Net Zero by 2050 and its obligations under the Paris Agreement.
Gareth Davies
Clauses 326 to 328 make changes to the rates of several taxes to support our environmental and climate change objectives. Clause 329 makes technical changes to ensure that the aggregate levy is fairer and simpler for businesses. I will talk through the clauses in turn.
Landfill tax aims to encourage the diversion of waste away from landfill and towards more environmentally friendly waste-management options, such as recycling. Clause 326 maintains the real-terms value of the price incentive to divert waste away from landfill by increasing the lower and standard rates of landfill tax in line with the RPI. The clause increases the lower rate from £3.15 per tonne to £3.25 per tonne and increases the standard rate from £98.60 per tonne to £102.10 per tonne, with effect from 1 April 2023.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
Again, out of an abundance of caution, I refer hon. Members to my entry in the ministerial register of interests. I am recused from any consideration, in a ministerial capacity, of this levy.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 326 increases both rates of the landfill tax in line with inflation, rounded to the nearest 5p. The increased rates apply to any disposal of relevant materials made, or treated as being made, at a landfill site in England or Northern Ireland on or after 1 April.
The landfill tax was introduced in 1996. It increased the cost of waste disposal at landfill to encourage waste producers and the waste management industry to switch to a more sustainable way of disposing of waste material. The tax was originally UK-wide, but it was devolved in Scotland from April 2015 and in Wales from April 2018. We will not oppose the clause, but I ask the Minister to fill us in on the wider context of the landfill tax, and specifically landfill tax fraud. In a Backbench Business Committee debate on landfill tax fraud in January, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said:
“Landfill tax fraud is a blight on communities across the country. It causes lasting damage to the environment and, of course, deprives the Exchequer of revenue.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 793.]
As Members discussed during that debate, according to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ most recent annual estimate of the tax gap, the gap between landfill tax due and revenue collected in 2021 is £125 million. That is a gap of 17.1%—much higher than the overall tax gap for that year. According to HMRC’s report, the uncertainty rating for the landfill tax gap estimate is high. The then Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), conceded in the debate that “non-compliance is high.” In responding to the debate, he set out some details of the operational resource dedicated to landfill tax non-compliance; however, I do not think that he directly answered a question that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, put to him: how much of the £125 million tax gap identified in 2021 has been recovered by HMRC? I would be grateful if the current Exchequer Secretary could address that point.
Clause 327 amends the main rates of the climate change levy on gas and other taxable commodities, and the reduced rate percentages on those commodities paid by participants in the climate change agreement scheme from 1 April next year. The climate change levy is a tax on the non-domestic use of gas, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuels. Energy-intensive businesses that participate in the climate change agreement scheme run by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero pay reduced rates expressed as a percentage of the four main rates of the climate change levy on the taxable commodities supplied to them.
We understand that the changes introduced by the clause were announced in the 2022 autumn statement, which froze the electricity rate, and in which it was confirmed that the climate change levy rate for LPG will continue to be frozen until 31 March 2025. It was further announced that the reduced rates of the levy for 2024-25 on gas and other taxable commodities paid by qualifying businesses in the climate change agreement scheme would be amended, so that participants will not pay more under the levy than they would have if the rates had increased in line with the retail price index.
Clause 328 increases the plastic packaging tax in line with the CPI. The plastic packaging tax was introduced in April 2022 to provide an economic incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic in the manufacture of plastic packaging. That was expected to create greater demand for the material, which would in turn stimulate increased recycling and collection of plastic waste, diverting it from landfill or incineration. I understand that the new rate maintains the real-terms value of the incentive to include 30% or more recycled plastic and plastic packaging components in a product by increasing the rate of tax in line with the CPI. As that tax has now been in place for a year, what evaluation have the Government made of it? In particular, can the Minister tell us what impact the tax had in 2022-23, in terms of fulfilling its stated aim of stimulating increased recycling and collection of plastic waste?
Clause 329 makes changes to the aggregates levy exemptions for some types of aggregate from construction sites. We understand that it replaces four exemptions for by-product aggregate arising from certain types of construction with a broader and more general one. The explanatory notes state:
“Following a review of the levy in 2019, some concerns about the operation of the levy were raised by different stakeholder groups.”
I understand that the changes were consulted on in 2021. Draft legislation was published in July 2022 for technical consultation, which has now concluded. On that basis, we will not oppose the clause.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I will confine my remarks to clause 326. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing North for raising landfill tax fraud and the debate on 12 January, which I contributed to at some length. As Members may know, I have the worst landfill in the country in Walleys Quarry in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Blaydon, also has some experience in this area, because her constituents have suffered at Blaydon Quarry. She contributed to that debate, too.
The hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned that the tax was introduced in 1996. The differential between the rates for regular waste and inert waste has grown immensely. Now, they are £3.25 and £102.10 respectively; back in 1996, they were £2 and £7. Just as the hon. Member for Wallasey said earlier in relation to tobacco, that has increased the incentive for people to break the rules, and unfortunately, many people in the waste industry are breaking the rules. What goes on at Walleys Quarry causes misery for my constituents, as fly-tipping and everything else that goes on in the waste industry does for people around the country.
The responsibility falls primarily on the Environment Agency, which I continue to press to do more about Walleys Quarry, as well as about Staffordshire Waste Recycling Centre, which is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who mentioned it just yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions. Will the Minister focus on the role of HMRC in helping the EA to do its work, because prosecutions for fraud may ultimately have more effect than prosecutions under environmental regulations?
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. As the Opposition Treasury Whip, talking about landfill tax is becoming an annual ritual for me.
Landfills are a blight on our society. It is not pleasant to live near one—even a well-regulated one—and it is good that we are considering how to pursue landfill taxes. My particular concern is, as it was previously, about the effectiveness and enforcement of the rates and the recovery of the taxes. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North, there is still a considerable gap in collection rates, and that must be addressed if we are to treat people properly and minimise the impact of landfill sites.
The Minister may know about Operation Nosedive, which HMRC pursued with great fanfare in my constituency only to drop it quietly six years later. Earlier this year, on 12 January, we had a debate to consider that operation and the wider implications of landfill tax fraud. The joint unit for waste crime was established following the failure of Operation Nosedive, which, incidentally, cost HMRC £3.5 million in public money. There are huge tax implications here. Will the Minister comment on what is being done to close that tax gap?
As I said, landfill sites are not good, and it is good that we do all we can to reduce their environmental impact, but there is also the matter of reducing the gap between what is collected and the expectation, by ensuring that those moneys are recovered. Will the Minister comment on that and on how many enforcement actions and prosecutions have resulted from the work of the joint unit for waste crime on landfill tax?
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
New clause 5 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on the Government’s ability to meet their duties under the Climate Change Act 2008 and commitments under the 2015 Paris agreement. The UK Government need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk on climate change. We had an extremely successful conference of the parties in Glasgow in 2021. The UK Government COP President secured the historic inclusion of coal in the climate pact, even if that commitment was not quite as explicit as he originally wished.
Scotland is taking that very seriously. We have ambitious climate change targets to become a net zero greenhouse gas-emitting nation by 2045, with interim targets of 75% by 2030 and 90% by 2040. We are taking positive action to realise those goals. The UK Government’s action has stalled, however, and has not been helped by the series of changes of Prime Minister, each of whom has had a wholly different attitude to the urgency of climate change.
In reality, the UK Government talk about climate change when they are forced to do so, but they do not take the action required to meet their obligations. Is the Minister confident that the measures in the Bill will get targets back on track? In every single policy that comes from the UK Government and every piece of legislation enacted by this Parliament, the climate change impact should be evaluated, and this Bill is no exception. We should be leading from the front and considering the impact of each policy on the targets that have been set.
Dame Angela Eagle
This is a group of clauses on environmental taxes, and the Minister has taken us through some of the technical changes and some of the upratings that are required by law. There is a gap on the landfill tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North pointed out from the Front Bench, which implies that people are avoiding it rather than paying it. What comfort can the Minister give us that HMRC and the tax authorities are on to that issue? We have heard from both sides of the House, particularly on landfill tax, about the fraud that is perpetrated. I suspect that all of us in this room regularly spend our time as constituency MPs phoning various authorities to try to get the evil effects of fly-tipping in our constituencies dealt with.
The Minister has not said anything about enforcement of the tax and anti-fraud measures. He has said a little about how some of the taxes will be redesigned to try to design out some fraud, and I suspect he has done that particularly with the aggregates levy and his attention on so-called borrow pits. Perhaps he will correct me if I have got that wrong, but, having listened to what he had to say on that, I suspect it is about avoidance issues, focusing the aggregates levy on taking away the incentives to use virgin aggregate rather than recycling existing aggregates, and filling in other loopholes.
We all know from our constituencies that the landfill tax is not working as well as it should. Many of us have closed and managed landfill sites in or close to our constituencies. Not all of us have quarries, with the difficulties that occur there, but we all see the baleful effects of fly-tipping and people who save money by dumping rubbish, and sometimes far worse things, into the environment.
Clearly, HMRC and those who collect taxes have a role to play in dealing with fraud, but so has the Environment Agency. Perhaps the Minister will give us some comfort on this, but the weakening of enforcement authorities over the past few years is a real problem. We could have the perfect law, with the perfect text, designed perfectly so that incentives are fantastic, but if it is not enforced properly, it fails. We are certainly seeing that happen with the landfill tax.
Can the Minister give us some comfort that he is on to the issue and that the Treasury knows that it has to spend to save? The Treasury has to enforce the taxes that it levies, but it also has to empower other regulators and agencies that have a policing role, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, to ensure that enforcement on these very important issues, which have a huge bearing on quality of life in all our constituencies, is properly resourced. Will the Minister give us some guarantees on that? At the moment, particularly with respect to the landfill tax, it is failing.
Gareth Davies
First, let me acknowledge that the landfill tax has been an overarching success, with local authority waste into landfill down by some 90% since 1990. I think we can all agree that that is a very good thing for England. I want to emphasise that, because it is a great success story.
A number of questions have been asked about waste crime. I completely agree that any type of waste crime is a blight on all our communities. As constituency MPs, we see the damage that it does, whether it is fly-tipping or other waste crime. That is why we have the joint unit for waste crime.
There have been questions about the effectiveness of the unit and the actions it has taken. I can tell the Committee that the unit is actively engaged in seeking to tackle waste crime. In particular, a special operation was undertaken from April 2020 to November 2022, in which some 100 partner agencies were engaged with the JUWC, and some 2,500 illegal waste sites were closed and a number of criminals engaged. But this is an ongoing problem and something we take very seriously. Of course, the Environment Agency has a role to play. The Government are engaged with all the agencies, not least the joint unit for waste crime, and we will continue to be so for some time to come.
There was a series of questions about the tax gap. For clarity, that is the difference between the amount that should be paid in theory and the amount that is collected by the Exchequer. The overall tax gap was 7.5% in 2005. It reduced to 5.1% in 2020-21. Any percentage of tax gap is too much, so it is important that we keep pressing HMRC to do everything that it can. I am confident that HMRC is tackling businesses that it suspects of waste crime that are not registered with it but could be liable for tax. The Government have given powers to HMRC to compulsorily register those businesses and, if necessary, issue penalties.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am fascinated by the work of the joint unit for waste crime. I am slightly horrified that 2,500 illegal waste sites were closed. It is good that they are closed, but it is horrifying that there were so many of them to begin with. I wonder what estimates there are for how many remain. Could the Minister give us some information about what fines were levied and what prosecutions have been successfully undertaken by the joint unit for waste crime?
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for the question. I can tell the hon. Lady that in the period I referenced with the 2,500 waste units, 51 arrests were made as a result of that action. I apologise that I do not have further details to hand, but I am happy to provide them later.
As I was saying—this goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme talked about—HMRC does have powers to intervene and issue penalties if necessary.
Liz Twist
I have two points for the Minister. First, my specific question was whether any prosecutions had taken place as a result of the work of the joint unit for waste crime. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, I am pleased to hear that a number of sites have been shut down, although it is worrying that there were so many.
Secondly, will the Minister comment on the landfill tax gap? The issue was discussed in the Public Bill Committee on what became the Finance Act 2022. The then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), wrote to me following the Committee with an estimate of £200 million—22.7%—for the landfill tax gap for England and Northern Ireland in 2019-20. That was a decrease from the previous year.
If I heard him correctly, the Minister—
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be brief and to the point. The hon. Lady and other members of the Committee will not have any difficulty catching my eye if they want to make another contribution.
Gareth Davies
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s passion. I know that she is a long-standing campaigner in this area, so it is no surprise that she wants to discuss the issue; I completely understand why that is. I can tell her that the tax gap has fallen, I believe, in the period that I talked about by £125 million, from £200 million in 2019-20. To reiterate, in 2005 the tax gap stood at 7.5% and in 2020-21 it stood at 5.1%. As I say, we are not complacent. We must tackle the issue, and we continue to make great efforts to do so. I put on the record my thanks to HMRC for all the work that it does to get the number down, but it is a live issue.
Let me mop up the question asked by the hon. Member for Ealing North about a review of the plastic packaging tax. He is right to raise that. We will be conducting a review very soon, but we are clear that we would like a decent period in which to conduct it so that we can see a clearer picture of the impact the tax is having. I can assure him that a review will be conducted very soon.
Liz Twist
I apologise for my previous lengthy intervention, Mr Stringer. May I return to the issue of the tax gap? As the Minister himself said, it was £200 million in 2019-20, a 22.7% gap. I am interested to hear the Minister say that it has reduced so much. If it has, I am hugely pleased, as it means that enforcement action is being taken. [Interruption.] Would he care to comment on the huge gap in the figures and how it might have reduced?
Gareth Davies
I apologise, but will the hon. Lady make that last point again? I did not hear her because of the noise in the background.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for that clarification. As I mentioned, HMRC is actively targeting businesses and is able to tackle businesses that are not registered but that it believes are liable. In addition, HMRC has powers of compulsory registration.
I should clarify that those figures give the overall tax picture. The most recent figures for the landfill tax gap for England and Northern Ireland are estimated at 17.1% for 2020-21. I was giving figures for the overall tax picture, but the hon. Lady makes a very good point of inquiry. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
James Murray
I thank the Minister for his commitment to a review of the effectiveness of the plastic packaging tax and for his clarification of some of the statistics around the tax gap. Comparing the figures that he cited with the figure of 17.1% for landfill tax fraud shows just how big the tax gap is for landfill tax fraud, and how important it is that specific action be taken. Will he explain what specific action, rather than just talk about generalities, is being taken on landfill tax fraud, which we all agree is a problem that must be tackled?
May I also remind the Minister about a question I asked earlier? I am sorry if I missed it, but I do not think he responded to my question about the £125 million tax gap identified in 2020-21 and what has been done to recover that money.
Gareth Davies
As I have laid out, the Joint Unit for Waste Crime is a very effective organisation. It works with more than 100 agency partners to tackle all types of waste crime, including the type that we are talking about. HMRC is targeting businesses and has the powers to compulsorily register and to issue penalties. That action is being taken by not just HMRC, but by the JUWC.
I will get back to the hon. Member on his last point; I do not have the information in front of me right now.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 326 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 327 to 329 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 330
Designation of sites
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 331 stand part.
That schedule 23 be the Twenty-third schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clauses 330 and 331 will make changes to ensure that tax sites in investment zones can benefit from an optional single five-year offer of tax reliefs, identical to those available in freeports. That will mean that businesses within the tax sites can benefit from tax and national insurance reliefs to incentivise investment and reduce the cost of hiring employees.
The Government have set out an ambitious plan for growth and prosperity, rooted in boosting the UK’s potential as an innovation nation, growing strengths in key industries to support national priorities and levelling up communities across the country. At the spring Budget, the Chancellor confirmed that the investment zones programme will catalyse 12 high-potential, knowledge-intensive growth clusters around the UK, including four across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each investment zone will bring together local partners to drive the growth of our key future sectors, bringing investment into areas that have traditionally underperformed economically. Each English investment zone will be able to benefit from access to interventions of £80 million over five years, which can be used flexibly between spending and a single, optional five-year tax offer. The changes made by clauses 330 and 331 will enable special tax sites in English investment zones to have access to that single, optional five-year tax offer.
Clause 330 will amend existing legislation to allow investment zone tax sites to be designated via secondary legislation in the same way as freeport tax sites. Clause 331 will allow the sunset date for the investment zones, tax reliefs and special tax sites to be set in that secondary legislation. Businesses investing or hiring new employees in investment zone tax sites will have access to the following tax reliefs: first, a full stamp duty land tax relief for land and buildings bought for commercial use or development for commercial purposes; secondly, a 100% relief from business rates on newly occupied business premises, and certain existing businesses where they expand in investment zone tax sites; and thirdly an enhanced capital allowance, a 100% first-year allowance for companies’ qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery assets for use in tax sites.
Furthermore, there is an enhanced structures and buildings allowance, which provides accelerated relief to allow businesses to reduce their taxable profits by 10% of the cost of qualifying non-residential investment per year, relieving 100% of their cost of investment over 10 years. [Interruption.] It is always delightful to hear from the Speaker.
Finally, there is employer national insurance contributions relief—zero-rate employer national insurance contributions on salaries of any new employee working in the tax site for at least 60% of their time, on earnings up to £25,000 per year, with employer NICs being charged at the usual rate above that level. The relief applies for 36 months per employee. The precise costs of tax sites will vary by site; however, the estimated value of 600 hectares of tax reliefs is £45 million, to be deducted from the overall £80 million funding envelope available to an investment zone.
These clauses will help to enable the investment zones tax offer to operate in special tax sites in England. That will drive private sector activity in investment zone tax sites, which will be key to catalysing the agglomeration of businesses in high-potential, knowledge-based sectors in investment zones across England.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 330 and its associated schedule, schedule 23, will extend the power to designate special tax sites to allow designation of such sites in or connected with investment zones located in Great Britain, while clause 331 makes provision related to the sunset date for tax reliefs available in special tax sites.
We know that these provisions are being introduced effectively to extend the tax reliefs available in freeport tax sites to such sites in or connected with investment zones. We know that those tax reliefs include an enhanced capital allowance for qualifying expenditure and plant machinery; enhanced structures and buildings allowance for qualifying expenditure on non-residential buildings and structures; and a stamp duty land tax relief for certain acquisitions of land. Furthermore, a secondary class 1 national insurance contributions relief for eligible employers on the earnings of eligible employees up to £25,000 per annum, which is available in freeport tax sites, is also being extended to special tax sites in or connected with investment zones.
It is worth being clear that the investment zones with which the Government are currently proceeding are different from the investment zones that the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) announced when she was Prime Minister. A significant number of councils put in bids for investment zones when they were announced under her premiership. According to the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives, councils had to spend an average of £20,000 to £30,000 on each bid, and may well have lost staff hours to work on preparing the submissions. Since then, investment zones have been relaunched, but it seems clear that the process for proceeding with the relaunched investment zones is entirely separate from the bidding process in operation for their former incarnation.
I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed how much money is estimated to have been wasted by councils, and indeed by central Government civil servants, on the now-abandoned bidding process for the original incarnation of investment zones. I assume that councils will be left out of pocket with respect to any money that they have spent on bids, and that the Government will not be considering refunding any of those costs, but I would be grateful if the Minister at the very least apologised to taxpayers for the money wasted as a result of this aborted policy.
I know that apologies can be hard to come by. Just last night, in fact, we heard the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), brazenly denying the harm that the mini-Budget last autumn caused to family finances. He refused to take responsibility for the impact of soaring rates on mortgage payers across the country and on renters, who are seeing higher costs passed on to them. However, I urge the Minister to do the right thing and take this opportunity to apologise more generally for the harm caused by the mini-Budget last autumn, and indeed by Conservative failures over the past decade.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to clarify whether it is Labour party policy to intervene in Bank of England decisions?
The Chair
Order. I did not realise that that was an intervention; I thought the hon. Gentleman wished to make a speech. The shadow Minister had sat down. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a contribution, I will be happy to call him, but otherwise I will call Angela Eagle.
Dame Angela Eagle
There is an ongoing issue in this country, and in our economy, with investment and with the ability to ensure that we can remake our prosperity as a country and make our way in the 21st century as we did in previous centuries, thereby maintaining our position in the G7, perhaps, as the rise of other economic powers in other parts of the globe puts that under pressure. [Interruption.] Everybody cheers for that, Mr Stringer. Everybody on this Committee wants to see positive progress in this area.
This Bill is enacting some of the Budget—that is why we are in Committee, considering this legislation—but the OBR report on it had a pretty grim picture to show us of how investment has stalled in our country. On page 48, at chart E, it states that
“business investment stalled…after the EU referendum”.
By the time this document was published, investment was at fully 16.2% below the OBR’s pre-referendum expectations. Those who have sat in the main hot seat in No. 10, and those who have been progressing all too rapidly through the Chancellor’s hot seat, have been aware of that and have tried to do something about it. Most notably, there was the current Prime Minister’s super deduction, which paid people to invest in plant and machinery. It not only deducted the entire cost, but gave even greater tax incentives for them to invest. Effectively, it failed: it made no difference whatever to the stalling levels of investment in plant and machinery in our economy. That has now been replaced.
Craig Whittaker
It is interesting to hear what the hon. Lady says about levels of investment in plant and machinery. From the point of view of my patch, Calder Valley, where we have 19.2% of people working in manufacturing, the super deduction has been a huge boost to manufacturing. Will the hon. Lady acknowledge the huge investment of £17.7 billion that has been achieved only this week by the Prime Minister’s trip to Japan? That is an amazing boost to our economy.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am glad that there are positive examples of investment, but what I am talking about is the macroeconomic levels, which demonstrate that we are not where we should be. Essentially, investment has “stalled”—that is the OBR’s word, not mine. That stalling is not disproved by individual examples of investment in particular places. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and all the people who have been involved in doing whatever has happened in Calder Valley—no problem—but I am talking about the macroeconomic effects. The investment zone policy that we are discussing is presumably designed to kick-start investment in particular areas where the zones are marked out, which hopefully will create local prosperity. That is my understanding of what the Minister said.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
To illustrate to the Minister why I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North for an apology from the Government, I draw attention to my borough of Cheshire West and Chester, which made a bid for an investment zone last year. That zone would have been a real game changer for our region. It was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and the business case specifically referred to a company called Stellantis—hon. Members may have heard of it. Unfortunately, that investment zone bid, into which council officers put a considerable amount of time and energy, has vanished like Scotch mist.
The right hon. Member for Calder Valley is fortunate that his investment zone was taken forward, but in my borough, the fact that the bid was not successful may have prompted some difficult decisions for the companies that were going to be located in the proposed investment zone. The leader of the council, Councillor Louise Gittins, wrote to the Chancellor asking for an explanation of why the investment zone was not taken forward. I am not aware that she has received a response.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I will keep my comments incredibly brief. There is a running theme to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because my area of the west midlands and the fantastic advocate that we have in Mayor Andy Street secured significant investment as part of the Budget. I put on record my thanks for the £22.5 million investment in Tipton town centre that the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement.
I appreciate what the hon. Member for Wallasey said about the broader parts of this discussion, and I defer to her much more considerable knowledge of the issue. But in terms of the more regional aspects of investment, it is a really important part of the investment package and strategy that we put confidence into our communities and that we say to those who want to bring inward investment into our areas—particularly post-industrial areas such as mine—that there is a case to do so. That £22.5 million, combined with the £60 million transport investment that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced in the Budget as part of his broader package of resources, shows the confidence we need to see. Let us not forget that the west midlands has had a tough time, particularly post pandemic, and our productivity is still 3% down on pre-pandemic levels, so what this investment means for bringing in the inward investment that secures support for industry will be key to addressing the challenges that we face.
The efficacy and efficiency of this investment is key. We need to make sure that we set out tangible metrics of success so that not only the public, but industry can measure the effect of this important investment. As we go forward, particularly on the regional investment front, I ask the Minister and her officials to make sure that dialogue continues so we can make sure that areas such as the west midlands can see the money’s true benefit. It is all well and good talking about abstract figures of billions and millions of pounds, but we need to get across the real-life, tangible results for our constituents. We see that in the increased productivity, increased employment opportunities and upskilling in our areas.
We are very grateful for the investment that we have seen in our region, and I agree somewhat with the broader points raised by the hon. Member for Wallasey, but the key point in this broader debate is tangible, real results on the ground. We can have all the economic debates we want, but it is about delivery for real people.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, with which I agree. I will not pretend that the Labour party is in politics for different reasons from us. I genuinely believe that most Members of Parliament are in politics to do good for their local residents and for the country as a whole. The point of contention is on how we achieve that.
I am interested in the contrast between the submission of the hon. Member for Ealing North and the submission of the hon. Member for Wallasey. She represents part of Liverpool, and I grew up in the north-west, so I know Liverpool and Manchester very well. I think we would all agree that Liverpool and Manchester have seen a revitalisation over many decades. It takes a village to raise a child, as the old saying goes, and I fully accept that the previous Labour Administration may have done a great deal to help those areas. Going back a long way—a little before my time, perhaps—Lord Heseltine played his part in helping both Liverpool and Canary Wharf. We are trying to revitalise areas in the same way that Liverpool, Manchester and Canary Wharf, and indeed many other areas, have been revitalised.
Dame Angela Eagle
The Minister would be very, very unpopular in my constituency if she referred to it as Liverpool. I represent the Wirral, which is over the river, where the Mersey ferry goes when it ferries across the Mersey. People can still listen to Gerry singing “Ferry Cross the Mersey” on the ferry as it goes from Liverpool to the Wirral. I appreciate her comments, but the people of the Wirral regard themselves as a bit different from those in Liverpool.
Victoria Atkins
I apologise to the hon. Lady. I meant to refer to the wider area. I thoroughly respect the independence of the good people of the Wirral.
We saw the regeneration and revitalisation of the great city of Liverpool in the wonderful displays at last weekend’s Eurovision celebrations. The regeneration of that great city has, of course, had a much wider ripple effect.
We want to channel the focus and private sector investment to which the hon. Lady rightly refers in revitalising these areas. We want to do that in a way that takes notice and full advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. The Chancellor set out the sectors that we will concentrate on, because we want to build that investment for the future. There is some extraordinarily good news in our economy in terms of innovative technologies, life sciences and advanced manufacturing. Indeed, I saw in a WhatsApp group only this morning that Rolls-Royce has just unleashed its latest aircraft engine, to great acclaim, here in the UK. That is an extraordinary achievement, which we want replicate across the country. That is the thinking behind investment zones.
When the shadow Minister talked about these exciting proposals, he said nothing about the principles of the investment or the enormous opportunities for communities outside London. I know that he is a Member of Parliament for London, so perhaps he does not have the natural affinity with constituencies outside London that Conservative MPs have, and which I certainly have as a proud Lincolnshire MP. We really want to focus on the excitement for what we can achieve around the rest of the country. The shadow Minister, however, just focuses on process.
Samantha Dixon
The point I want to make to you—[Interruption] Sorry, the point I want to make to the Minister is that the areas that have been referenced have mayoral combined authorities. My borough sits in a sub-region of Cheshire and Warrington, which, despite strenuous efforts, has not managed to get those powers devolved to it. Under this Government, it appears to have lost out on an investment zone. Upper-tier authorities were encouraged to submit bids. They did so, but none of them were successful and they have not been given an explanation of why.
Victoria Atkins
The work on the new investment zones is ongoing. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has begun discussions on hosting investment zones with local partners and the Treasury. That is because we want those areas to operate at a regional level, as has happened in the past with other examples. We want them to be regional examples, as I said. We are looking forward to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having their investment areas. From that, many other measures will flow. Investment zones will also sit alongside freeports. Some investment zones may include freeports, but some freeports may stand independently of them. We want to ensure that we spread innovation and a drive for growth across the country.
Shaun Bailey
I want to add to the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for City of Chester. I do not necessarily disagree with some of the hon. Member’s frustrations. However, as a Member who sits within a combined authority area, I know that even when the combined authority is involved in those bids, the upper-tier authority does not just vanish from the picture; it is very much involved. The investment we had came from upper-tier authority submissions that went into the Government. I appreciate what the hon. Member said about the assistance that a combined authority might give, but it is still very much on the upper-tier authority to be in the game with some of this stuff. It does not just vanish with the creation of a combined authority area.
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. This is about teamwork across the various authorities, and working with local businesses. We are very open to the idea that different investment zones will focus on different sectors and specialisms. We want them to be driven at a local level by people who know their areas best. For example, they know what their local university specialises in, what local manufacturing there may be and so on. This must be driven from local areas.
Samantha Dixon
At the risk of repeating myself, the bid put in by my local authority, in partnership with two other upper-tier authorities, was fully cognisant of both the business interests in the sub-region and the HE factor. It was an excellent bid. It vanished, and no explanation has been given. It is extremely frustrating.
Victoria Atkins
I will commit to our trying to get an answer to the hon. Lady’s local authority about that. She will appreciate that other bids are run by other Departments. I am not intimately involved in what happens after a bid has been announced, but I will certainly try to get some answers for her. For the future, that is how we can ensure that the investment zones and other investment opportunities best work for local people. I am happy to commit to trying to get her an answer, although it will probably come from another Department.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 330 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 331 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 23 agreed to.
Clause 332
Right to repayment of income tax to be inalienable
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
I hope that clause 332 will be of real interest to hon. Members and their constituents. In recent years, there has been a growth in what are commonly called repayment agents. Hon. Members may have received a great deal of correspondence from their constituents about such agents. They are paid tax agents who specialise solely in making claims for income tax relief on behalf of their clients.
Repayment agents can provide a useful service to taxpayers by helping them to claim reliefs or allowances to which they are entitled from HMRC, but last year HMRC received around 2,800 complaints about repayment agents from taxpayers who were unclear about the terms or conditions to which they had signed up. Those taxpayers were unaware that they were claiming through a third party and that they would be charged a fee of up to 50% of the repayment, and they were unaware of the use of assignments. Clause 332 prohibits the assignment of income tax repayments and, where such rights have been assigned, renders the assignment void. It is a consumer protection measure that is aimed at ensuring that taxpayers have better control over their income tax repayments, and I hope that hon. Members will advertise the measure to their constituents.
I turn to clauses 333 to 335. New late payment penalty and interest legislation was approved by Parliament in 2021. The new system is built on fairness and proportionality. In implementing penalty reform and interest harmonisation for VAT, we have identified some minor defects in the legislation that the clauses seek to correct. Clause 333 ensures that, for customers who use the VAT annual accounting scheme, late payment interest will not be charged on interim instalments of VAT that are paid late. Clause 334 ensures that late payment penalties do not apply to instalments payable under the VAT annual accounting scheme, and clause 335 makes a minor technical change to repayment interest on VAT to ensure that the rules operate as intended.
Clause 336 gives HMRC a power to move insurance premium tax administration forms out of secondary legislation and into a public notice. Currently, whenever administration forms need to be updated, a statutory instrument needs to be passed. Moving administration forms out of that regime will enable them to be updated without the need to pass legislation each time an update is required. That will simplify the administration of tax and support HMRC in keeping pace with developments in tax policy and insurance industry practices.
Finally, clause 337 relates to the plastic packaging tax. Currently, late payments in respect of plastic packaging tax by liable businesses and businesses that are held secondarily liable or joint and severally liable incur the same penalties. In contrast, late payments of assessments made by HMRC where a business has failed to submit a return incur different penalties. Clause 337 addresses that anomaly and amends schedule 56 to the Finance Act 2009, so that all late payments of plastic packaging tax incur the same penalties.
James Murray
As we heard, clause 332 introduces a new provision that renders void assignments of income tax repayments. We understand that the clause removes the ability of a taxpayer to legally transfer their entitlement to an income tax repayment to a third party such as an agent. It enables HMRC to disregard assignments when issuing income tax repayments, although we understand that it does not remove a taxpayer’s ability to use a non-legally binding nomination where they wish their repayment to be made to a third party. The decision to prohibit assignments seems to have been driven largely by the practices of Tax Credits Ltd, which ultimately led to HMRC having to issue tax refunds directly to 60,000 affected taxpayers.
The changes in the clause have been broadly welcomed by groups including the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which pointed out that they mean that taxpayers will no longer be able to assign their rights to an income tax repayment to a third party repayment agent, and that includes taxpayers who have been tricked or misled into doing so by an unscrupulous agent. However, LITRG highlights that issues remain around the nomination process—the alternative way that I mentioned of enabling an agent to receive a payment. It is concerned that the provisions in the clause will not stop taxpayers being tricked or misled into nominating an unscrupulous agent to receive an income tax repayment. LITRG also raised its concern that responsible repayment agents, who were not misusing assignments, may exit the market, given the risk of non-payment for their work. LITRG therefore suggests that HMRC carefully monitors the impact of the provision on taxpayers and their ability to obtain refunds.
I am sure that the Minister will try to assure us that HMRC carefully monitors all its operations, but I would press her to give a more specific commitment in response to LITRG’s concerns. In particular, will she commit to publishing certain metrics proposed by LITRG, such as the total number of refund claims made and the total number made by third party companies?
Clauses 333 to 335 amend legislation governing a new penalty regime and rules on interest for VAT, which the Government announced at spring Budget 2021. As we heard, clause 333 makes two technical changes to the late payment interest rules. The first change ensures that late payment interest does not apply to instalments payable under the VAT annual accounting scheme. The second change means that when HMRC is recovering a VAT payment, the late payment interest start date is the date from which HMRC paid that amount. Clause 334 amends the Finance Act 2021 to ensure that late payment penalties do not apply to instalments payable under the VAT annual accounting scheme. Clause 335 amends the Finance Act 2009 to remove a restriction on the accrual of repayment interest on VAT paid by HMRC to the taxpayer. We will not oppose these clauses.
We understand that clause 336 will broaden existing powers, thereby enabling HMRC to move insurance premium tax forms from secondary legislation and into a public notice by way of a statutory instrument. As the Minister outlined, these technical changes are intended to reduce the administrative burden and make it easier to make administrative updates to the forms without the need for legislation. We also understand that this provides a necessary step for future legislation allowing HMRC to further digitise the insurance premium tax forms. We will not oppose the measure.
Finally, clause 337 amends schedule 56 to the Finance Act 2009, to align inconsistent late payment penalty provisions and ensure that all businesses liable for a late payment penalty in respect of the plastic packaging tax are charged the same penalty, however that liability arises. As we discussed earlier, the plastic packaging tax was introduced from 1 April last year to provide an economic incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic in the manufacture of plastic packaging, which was intended in turn to create greater demand for that material. The clause introduces a technical, administrative change and we will not oppose it.
Victoria Atkins
We are pleased that LITRG is one of the many groups that we work closely with. We listen to them very carefully. Indeed, I met the head of the group only last week, I think, to listen to their concerns or thoughts about the tax system.
Just to reassure hon. Members, some people want to nominate tax agents to reclaim their taxes, and we do not want to shut down that route if people want to use it and do so in a fully informed and consenting manner. That is why we are moving from the assignment process through to nominations, and taxpayers will be able to withdraw easily from nominations. The point is that nominations are not permanent; they can be changed if taxpayers should wish to do so.
That is a really critical consumer protection. It is why we have put it in the Bill. It took immediate effect, because we wanted to apply it as soon as possible to prevent taxpayers from being tied into agreements that they could not rescind. Repayment agents were made aware of the Government’s intentions to legislate in January and we would say that they will have had time to adjust to the new forms, if you like, by the time that this Bill receives Royal Assent.
In relation to the other matters, I understand that the Opposition are not challenging them, so I will stop there.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 332 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 333 to 337 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 338
Approval of aerodromes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
These clauses make changes to strengthen HMRC’s framework for approving aerodromes and excise businesses. Clauses 338 and 339 deal with aircraft carrying passengers or goods into and out of the United Kingdom. These aircraft are required to land at or depart from a designated customs and excise airport, unless permitted by HMRC to use an aerodrome.
There are approximately 540 aerodromes in the UK, which may handle small private jets with passengers and goods under a duty allowance, with very limited movements of freight. The typical requirements placed upon customs and excise airports are not appropriate for these smaller locations.
The Government currently agree the certificate of agreement with aerodrome operators and that provides the permission required to land at these locations. The changes made by these clauses will strengthen the legal basis for the aerodrome approval process. First, clause 338 will allow HMRC to issue approvals to aerodromes for customs purposes, to attach conditions and restrictions to these approvals and to vary or revoke approvals where necessary. Secondly, this clause provides a power to allow HMRC to make regulations about approval conditions for aerodromes and civil penalties for non-compliance with approval conditions and restrictions. Finally, the clause will require operators of unapproved aerodromes to take reasonable steps to ensure that pilots and importers do not depart from or arrive at their aerodrome in contravention of legal requirements on aircraft movements into and out of the United Kingdom.
Clause 339 makes minor and consequential amendments.
Clause 340 concerns excise regimes. Colleagues may be aware that businesses in a several excise regimes operated by HMRC require approval to conduct certain controlled activities. Those include the alcohol wholesaler registration scheme and the raw tobacco approval scheme. Approval is dependent on a business continuing to satisfy certain fit and proper criteria. Where evidence shows that the business is no longer fulfilling that criteria, HMRC may as a last resort revoke its approval. The business may request an internal review of the decision by an independent officer and ultimately has the right to appeal to tribunal and higher courts, in which case a temporary approval may be given so that the business can carry on trading until the matter is finally determined.
James Murray
As we heard from the Minister, clauses 338 and 339 relate to regulated aerodrome approvals. Clause 338 introduces a power for HMRC to grant approvals to aerodromes for the purposes of the customs and excise Acts and to amend and revoke those approvals. The clause also introduces a requirement that operators of aerodromes take reasonable steps to ensure that no aircraft lands or departs in contravention of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
Clause 339 introduces consequential amendments following the provisions of clause 338. The clauses together aim to strengthen aerodrome operator accountability by establishing an approval regime for aerodromes, which handle movements of people and goods and are not designated as customs and excise airports. We will not oppose the clauses.
Moving on to clause 340, excise businesses must be approved by HMRC to conduct certain controlled activities. HMRC can revoke a business’s approval where it fails to meet HMRC’s fit and proper criteria. Current legislation allows a temporary approval to be granted pending a review or appeal, and the temporary approval automatically ends once that review or appeal has finally been determined. We recognise, however, that that may cause hardship to an affected business as, after the final determination, there is at present no time for such a business to wind down its operations without incurring a penalty.
The measure has a new discretionary power to allow HMRC to extend a temporary approval following a final determination of a decision to revoke an approval, or a temporary approval granted during the review or appeals process. That will enable a business to wind down its operations without incurring a penalty, so we will not oppose this clause, either.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 338 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 339 and 340 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 341
Licensing authorities: requirements to give or obtain tax information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 341 makes the renewal of certain licences to trade conditional on licence applicants completing tax checks in Scotland and Northern Ireland from 2 October 2023. Clause 342 makes amendments to licensing legislation in Scotland, which are consequential on clause 341
This is an extension of existing principles of conditionality that already apply to renewal applications in England and Wales for taxis and scrap metal dealer licences. The checks will confirm applicants are registered for tax and have notified HMRC of their income tax or corporation tax liability. This will make it harder for traders to operate in the hidden economy. It will also help licence holders get their tax affairs right and give honest businesses confidence that their competitors are playing by the same rules. New licence applicants will be supported and directed to HMRC’s guidance on tax obligations.
James Murray
We know that the Finance Act 2021 made provision for tax conditionality connected to the application for certain licences issued in England and Wales, namely licences to drive taxis, licences to drive and operate private-hire vehicles and licences to deal in scrap metal. We understand that clauses 341 and 342 extend the existing tax conditionality legislation to similar licences issued in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, this applies to licences to drive taxis and private-hire cars, operate a booking office, and be a metal dealer, while in Northern Ireland it applies to licences to drive taxis.
We will not be opposing these clauses, but I would be grateful to the Minister if she can explain what, if any, additional resources will be made available to HMRC to effectively implement this extension of tax conditionality legislation.
Victoria Atkins
I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to set out the amounts and estimates that HMRC has given in its annual report and accounts about the collection protection in compliance yield, and this includes the compliance officers that would be put forward to help reduce the tax gap. They are changes to existing tax exemptions, reliefs and policies that HMRC is already resourced to administer, and it undertakes compliance interventions based on risk, with investigations normally covering multiple taxes and duties, as opposed to narrowly focusing on a single area of taxation. For example, we do not have a compliance team solely dedicated to investigating cases relating to the HGV levy, but if HMRC opened a tax inquiry into an HGV business, this would be one of many areas of taxation that it would look into to ensure that the business is compliant with its total tax obligations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 341 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 342 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 343
Definition of “charity” restricted to UK charities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gareth Davies
Clauses 343 and 344 will restrict UK tax reliefs to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs. Having left the EU, it is right that UK taxpayer money should support UK charities and community amateur sports clubs.
The UK is a world leader in the charitable sector. This reflects many factors, including our geography, our connectivity and our recognised legal and regulatory expertise, but also because our tax regime for charities is among the most generous of anywhere in the world. As a result, there is a thriving UK charity sector, which includes numerous charities working across the globe, comprising both UK-based charities and UK branches of international charities.
Charitable tax reliefs in the UK are given in the following areas: income tax; capital gains tax, corporation tax, VAT, inheritance tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax, stamp duty reserve tax, annual tax on enveloped dwellings, and diverted profits tax. Additionally, charities and CASCs can also claim gift aid of 25p for every £1 of eligible donations made by UK taxpayers. In 2021-22, UK charitable reliefs were worth £5.5 billion to the sector, up from £4 billion in 2013-14. That has remained strong despite covid-19, with the value of reliefs remaining at about £5.5 billion from 2019-20 until 2021-22.
Before the introduction of that measure, charities based in the EU or European economic area could qualify for UK tax reliefs. Now it is time to take advantage of the UK’s exit from the European Union and to restrict UK tax reliefs so that they are available only to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs. That will protect the integrity of the tax system, as UK charities and community amateur sports clubs that are located outside the UK are harder for HMRC to police.
Clauses 343 and 344 will restrict UK tax reliefs to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs. Importantly, they do not discriminate between UK charities undertaking charitable activity here in the UK or abroad. The key factor is that the charity must be governed by a UK court. The measure took effect from Budget day, but the Government have allowed a short transition period until April 2024 for those charities that HMRC has recognised will be affected by the change. That provides a window for them to register in the UK if they are eligible or, if not, to reformulate their affairs.
The measure will ensure that UK taxpayer money will be used to support UK charities and community amateur sports clubs, and the effective policing of charitable reliefs through HMRC compliance activities. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
James Murray
As the Minister set out, clauses 343 and 344 introduce a restriction on the availability of tax reliefs so that only UK charities and UK community amateur sports clubs can gain access to UK charity tax reliefs. UK charitable tax reliefs were extended to organisations equivalent to charities and community amateur sports clubs in the EU and in the EEA countries of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein following a judgment of the European Court of Justice in January 2009. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, however, the Government are progressing to restrict UK tax relief to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs. We will not oppose the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 343 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 344 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 345
Exemptions from tax
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 24 be the Twenty-fourth schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
The clause and schedule 24 confirm that income tax and corporation tax exemptions will apply to “thank you” payments made to sponsors under the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme. They also introduce legislation for temporary reliefs from the 15% rate of stamp duty land tax and the annual tax on enveloped dwellings for dwellings owned by companies when they are made available to Ukrainian refugees under the sponsorship scheme.
In March last year, we announced the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme, which supports those who generously open their homes to Ukrainians arriving in the UK. As part of that scheme, sponsors receive a monthly “thank you” payment for housing an individual or family. Without specific legislation, those payments could be subject to tax. Likewise, ATED and the 15% may also have presented barriers to those who wish to provide homes for Ukrainian refugees. We therefore committed to legislate to exempt “thank you” payments from income tax and corporation tax, and to provide temporary reliefs from ATED and the 15% rate of stamp duty. We thank those public-spirited people and I commend the clause to the Committee.
James Murray
As we heard, the clause and schedule introduce income tax and corporation tax exemptions for thank-you payments made by local authorities to sponsors under the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme. They also introduce temporary reliefs on the annual tax on enveloped dwellings and on the stamp duty land tax in connection with the provision of accommodation under the scheme.
The reliefs and exemptions were announced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a written ministerial statement on 31 March 2022. In that statement, she explained that
“those companies that currently qualify for the existing reliefs available from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) and the 15% rate of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) for dwellings used in a property development or property trading business or let on a commercial basis will continue to be able to claim the relief while the dwellings are being used under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme.”
Since March 2022, many people across the country have volunteered to sponsor Ukrainians fleeing the war in their home country, and have warmly opened their homes and hosted them accordingly, and it is right that the Government support them.
Samantha Dixon
I welcome this measure, and it is really important that these provisions be extended, but will the Minister consider extending them to the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy? This morning, we talked about the number of Afghan refugees who have come to the country under those schemes and are currently accommodated in hotels. The Minister may be aware that charitable organisations, such as Refugees at Home, put sponsors in touch with refugees. Will she ask her officials to consider whether there are opportunities for similarly public-spirited people who are willing to use their accommodation to assist Afghan families in this country?
Victoria Atkins
On the case cited by the hon. Member for Ealing North, clearly we would like banks to enter into the public-spirited nature of the Help for Ukraine scheme and other refugee schemes. I will take that issue away and reflect on it with my ministerial compadre in the Treasury, the Economic Secretary, to see what we can do. Of course, the first port of call for anyone in that situation is their constituency MP. We are, I hope, good constituency MPs, and we can draw these matters to banks’ attention and can often get answers that our constituents sadly cannot, but I will take this matter away and mull it over.
The hon. Member for City of Chester mentioned other refugee schemes. I am not aware that the Afghan scheme has quite the same system of payments as the Ukrainian scheme, but I am happy to reflect on that issue. It is probably not a matter for this Bill, but I will think that one over.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 345 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 24 agreed to.
Clause 346
Abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification
Douglas Chapman
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 346, page 264, line 31, at end insert—
“(9) This section shall not come into force until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published—
(a) a response to the letter from the Chair of the House of Commons Treasury Committee, dated 2 March 2023, on the closure of the Office of Tax Simplification, and
(b) a statement of his assessment of the costs and benefits of abolishing it.”
This amendment would prevent the Office of Tax Simplification from being abolished until the Chancellor has replied to outstanding correspondence from the Treasury Committee on the subject, and published a cost/benefit analysis of the policy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 1—Reports to Treasury Committee on measures to simplify tax system—
(1) The Treasury must report to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons on steps taken by the Treasury and HMRC to simplify the tax system in the absence of the Office of Tax Simplification.
(2) Reports under this section must include information on steps to—
(a) simplify existing taxes, tax reliefs and allowances,
(b) simplify new taxes, tax reliefs and allowances,
(c) engage with stakeholders to understand needs for tax simplification,
(d) develop metrics to measure performance on tax simplification, and performance against those metrics.
(3) A report under this section must be sent to the Committee before the end of each calendar year after the year in which section 346 (abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification) comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to report annually to the Treasury Committee on tax simplification if the Office of Tax Simplification is abolished.
Douglas Chapman
I am sure that Members gathered here agree on the importance of data gathering, impartial analysis and evidence-based decision making. We can make informed decisions only if the facts are laid out in front of us in black and white. It would seem wise, then, that data be gathered on the costs and benefits of doing away with the Office of Tax Simplification before a final decision is made.
I will also be so bold as to point out that the recommendation to abolish the OTS came from a rather short-lived and now infamous Chancellor in his ironically named growth plan Budget of September 2022. Suffice it to say that the growth plan went down like a lead balloon after weeks of market turbulence, with unprecedented condemnation from the International Monetary Fund. That is not to mention the important—indeed, massive—£60 billion fiscal hole left in its wake. The then Chancellor and his Prime Minister swiftly exited stage left before more damage was done to the economy, our global reputation and citizens’ livelihoods.
Interestingly, of the many gung-ho announcements made in that growth plan, abolition of the OTS is one of the few that has not been reversed. When it comes to gathering evidence and data for making evidence-led decisions, and listening to experts and a broad group of stakeholders on tax simplification, we still have a long way to go, if this still seems to the Government to be a wise decision. One such expert is George Crozier, head of external relations at the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. He has argued that the OTS achieved a significant amount during its 12 years of existence and, with greater ministerial support for its proposals, could have achieved much more. Mr Crozier and the CIOT argue that among the OTS’s achievements since it was established in 2010 are the abolition of more than 40 unnecessary tax reliefs that were “clogging up” the tax system, as well as
“useful reforms to employee expenses and inheritance tax reporting,”
which have all had a positive impact. In fact, the CIOT informs us that
“every Finance Act of the last decade has had measures in it which owe their genesis to the OTS, and which have made navigating the tax system easier for one group or another.”
Does the Minister not believe that is a good thing?
Importantly, the ATT believes that there are many benefits to maintaining independent advice to the Government on tax simplification; for example, the OTS drew directly and effectively on the skills and expertise of tax professionals, professional bodies and taxpayers when making its recommendations for simplification. The ATT believes that the OTS maintained that level of engagement only due to the trust and belief that the OTS would treat its comments and views impartially and fairly. The ATT’s concern is that without the perceived independence of the OTS, taxpayers and professionals will be more reluctant to come forward with relevant evidence and experience. Does the Minister not believe that relevant evidence and experience are good things?
If analysis leans in the direction of abolishing the OTS, it seems fair to back up calls from Mr Crozier and his colleagues to question the UK Government on how they will deliver the promise to embed tax simplification in the institutions of government. Will the Minister confirm that he will at least give the OTS a stay of execution until further evaluation is carried out, or will the OTS baby be thrown out with the bath water? In the run-up to an election, it may be popular with the public if the Government of the day were seen to be taking the thoughtful and sensible decision to retain the services of the OTS.
Dame Angela Eagle
New clause 1 is also part of this group. As a member of the Treasury Committee, which fairly collectively signed new clause 1, I will speak to the new clause, as well as to the Scottish National party amendment to clause 346.
It came out of the blue that the Office of Tax Simplification was to be abolished as part of the mini-Budget—the catastrophic event last September that created the worst of all events in the Treasury. Interesting times. As an ex-Treasury Minister, I can assure you, Mr Stringer, that boring times are the best; interesting times, when bond markets soar and pension funds teeter, are not the best. We were thrown into that situation with the mini-Budget, out of which came the sudden announcement that the Office of Tax Simplification would be abolished. The reason given for that abolition was that we would boost economic growth and simplify the tax system by having tax simplification in house. That is one of the more Orwellian reasons for abolishing something that I have heard. It was set up by a previous Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne; I can use his name because he is no longer a Member of this House and has gone on to other—I will not say better—things.
When the OTS was set up, the idea was to identify areas where complexities in the tax system for business and taxpayers could be reduced. We need only look at the thickness of this modest Bill to realise how complex financial legislation can be. This is the Finance (No. 2) Bill, and others will be along soon, I am sure. Yesterday, we had a hearing of the Treasury Committee on tax reliefs and cliff edges, and we were told that there were 1,180 tax reliefs in the system. Of them, 841 are structural, and 339 are non-structural, which apparently means that they are aimed at behaviour. That is a lot of tax reliefs. Every relief, whether for a good or a bad reason, creates a complexity. I am not arguing at all that tax systems should be completely simple—complexity is sometimes important and inherent to the way that a tax works—but as with all these things, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. It tends to go beyond complexity for a good reason and become complexity for complexity’s sake.
I do not know why—perhaps the Minister could enlighten us—it was suddenly decided that the Office of Tax Simplification was such a thorn in the side of the Treasury that it could be abolished forthwith without much notice, and that a job that has not really been done routinely in the Treasury could suddenly be done in house without any kind of preparation. When the Treasury Committee had staff from the Office of Tax Simplification give evidence in a hearing, they did not really know why it had been abolished, either. Nobody likes to be abolished. I cannot think that they were enamoured of the idea, but they were very diplomatic. They did not really have any confidence that the more systematic look at how taxes could be simplified over time would continue once the office had been abolished.
Could the Minister give us some insight as to why the abolition was announced? Why was it reconfirmed by the new Administration—one of the four that we have had in the last year—when they came into office that they would go ahead with the abolition? It is one of the few things that the previous Prime Minister and her Administration inaugurated that has survived the shake-up of the system.
The Institute for Government argues that the Office of Tax Simplification should not be abolished, but that if it is, it should be replaced with a body with a wider remit that can make extensive recommendations on tax administration beyond just simplification. It points to the utility of having an independent body that provides options for tax reform.
Our political structures are littered with huge, all-encompassing reviews, such as the Mirrlees review of the entire taxation system. They are always so controversial, but it is rare that their recommendations are implemented. Having a body that could undertake some of this work in smaller bites may help us to reduce the complexity of our system while not compromising on fairness.
James Murray
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who spoke to new clause 1. I will address some of the points she raised, as well as amendment 2 and clause 346.
As several Members have said, the Office of Tax Simplification was set up in July 2010. It was an independent office in the Treasury before being placed on a statutory footing by the Finance Act 2016. As we have heard, on 23 September last year, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) announced that it would be abolished. He said:
“Instead of having a separate arms-length body oversee simplification, the government will embed tax simplification into the institutions of government.”
I will return to that quote in a moment.
As hon. and right hon. Members have said, the policy was announced during the tenure of the previous Prime Minister and is being continued under the current leadership. That makes the abolition of the OTS one of the few elements of the so-called growth plan of that premiership to survive. In an earlier sitting of this Bill Committee, I commented:
“There is at the very least something ironic about a Government who use one clause of a Finance Bill to implement a recommendation of the Office of Tax Simplification and another clause of the same Bill to abolish that institution.”––[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 16 May 2023; c. 47.]
As was mentioned, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out that almost every Finance Act of the last decade has included measures that owe their genesis to the OTS.
To return to the reason originally cited for abolishing the OTS, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne said that the Government wanted to
“embed tax simplification into the institutions of government.”
We therefore have great sympathy with amendment 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and has been spoken to. It would at least require the Chancellor to publish an analysis of the cost and benefit of the policy. That has been entirely lacking so far.
If the Government press ahead with abolishing the OTS, it is important that they make clear how they will deliver on their commitment to tax simplification. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, the Chartered Institute of Taxation sent a joint letter with the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, the Association of Taxation Technicians, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 5 April. The letter covered identifying the characteristics of tax simplification; ensuring that someone is accountable for the delivery of tax simplification; including simplification declarations in tax information and impact notes; gaining external input on policy design and implementation; seeking feedback from a broad range of stakeholders; ensuring that HMRC and Treasury engagement groups have tax simplification as a standing objective; increasing awareness and improving guidance; allowing time for the development and integration of systems; and adopting a consistent approach across tax regimes.
I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on her response to the specific points set out by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I also ask her again to set out clearly what costs and benefits, including the cost impact of any proposed new operational arrangements, she believes the abolition of the OTS will have, so that members of the Committee can consider this matter with all the relevant information to hand.
Victoria Atkins
For ease and convenience, I will speak to all the amendments and new clauses as well as clause 346. First, I thank the OTS—
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Mr Stringer
I thank the members of the Office for Tax Simplification for their contribution to the tax debate over the years. I had the pleasure of meeting some of them just after I was appointed. As I said to them at the time, although the OTS will longer exist once the Bill has passed, their expertise will none the less not be lost to the Government, and I very much look forward to working with its members in different ways over the coming months and years.
The closure of the OTS does not mean that simplifying tax is no longer a priority. In fact, I have set three criteria for tax policy across the Treasury and HMRC: for any document or proposal that I am given, officials must tell me, first, how it meets the expectation that it will make tax fairer; secondly, how it meets the expectation that it will make tax simpler; and, thirdly, how it meets the expectation that it will help to support growth. Having that in the document—I have said this many times, because it was a very early commitment that I put down—has really helped our discussion of those principles when forming tax policy.
As I have mentioned in Budget debates and so on, one of the tensions between those first two criteria is that to make a tax fairer, sometimes we end up making it more complicated—for example, when we talk about tapering schemes, as we are doing in the Bill more widely. We have a scheme whereby we are tapering the rise in corporation tax for businesses that have smaller profits. That makes it more complicated but also fairer, so there is sometimes a trade-off between the interests and wishes of those involved in administering tax or helping taxpayers. With the best will in the world, the OTS, as an arm’s length body set up to comment on simplification alone, could not help with those sorts of balancing acts, which is why the Chancellor has set a clear mandate for officials in the Treasury and HMRC to focus on simplicity in tax policy design as part of our decision-making process.
Dame Angela Eagle
There is clearly a difference between the accrued complexity across a particular tax from end to end, which can gather barnacles over time, and a ministerial decision on whether to opt explicitly for a bit more complexity to achieve fairness, which is not a design issue but a political choice. Surely the Office for Tax Simplification was good at looking at the former, while leaving decisions on the latter to those who ought to be making them: the Ministers in charge at the time.
Victoria Atkins
Of course, pretty much every decision that comes across my desk is political in nature. Officials have very much taken on board their responsibilities in this regard.
The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about a letter sent to me in April from important tax specialists and organisations. In fact, I met them last week to discuss that very letter. I wanted to meet the organisations to discuss, for example, how to make tax simpler for the lowest paid in society and how we can try to help tax agents to navigate their way around the tax system, because that will help not just taxpayers but also, importantly, HMRC. We really have begun to embed this in our decision-making process.
The reason we want to make this change is that people were concerned that there was a tendency to rely on the OTS to look at simplification because that was its job, and we wanted to bring it very much into the Treasury. Of course, that does not mean that there is never going to be any commentary or analysis or observations about simplicity. My goodness me, I do not think anyone could claim that the world of tax lacks analysis, commentary and often criticism—hopefully constructive—of the tax system. I do not perhaps have quite the same concerns about us being accountable for the political decisions we make.
Victoria Atkins
If I may, I will make some progress, because I want to deal with new clause 1 and amendment 2, which are important.
On new clause 1, the Chancellor committed to Select Committee colleagues that he is asking officials about tax simplification ahead of every Budget and fiscal event. That will mean that hon. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s progress. In the last Budget, we were able to bring forward measures such as the cash basis for business, which will help enormously by helping more than 4 million sole traders to calculate and pay their income tax. We also introduced the permanent £1 million limit to the annual investment allowance, which will simplify the tax treatment of capital expenditure for 99% of businesses. There are also other measures.
In relation to the point about measuring and metrics in simplification, the Government are genuinely considering how to develop a suite of metrics to measure progress on simplification, working with businesses and representative bodies to ensure that measures reflect the real-world experience of taxpayers.
On amendment 2, it is right that the Chancellor has responded to the Committee, having written on 20 March to explain the rationale for the decision. I hope that helps to answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife may have had. I refer again to the point that simplification is a vital principle to bear in mind when looking at the tax system, but it is not the only one. As the hon. Member for Wallasey rightly says, I have to make political decisions on a host of matters.
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree about that and I am glad to hear that the Minister is making decisions on a host of issues, although politically we may not always have the same approach to them. She was talking about there being plenty of commentary on tax issues. There always is, but the point about the Office of Tax Simplification was that it was not doing it from a set stance. For example, one will get plenty of commentary from accountants about particular things, and it will tend to be mainly about the interests of the people who use accountants—their clients. That comes from a particular space, as a user of the tax system, or someone that helps comment or advise on the tax system. The Office of Tax Simplification could look at a tax from its start all the way through its process—look at what it was intended to do and whether it would be possible to administer it in a different way, for simplification purposes, without coming from a particular viewpoint. If the OTS goes, I do not think there is anybody out there now that will do that in a neutral way. As such, a lot of the commentary that one gets on the tax system comes from a very particular, interested place, which often gives a bigger voice to small groups of taxpayers than to larger numbers of taxpayers. Is the Minister not worried that by making this decision, she is going to lose objective oversight of a system that is not coming from a biased place, but is looking purely at the criterion of simplicity?
Victoria Atkins
That is a fair challenge. It is one that we will meet through the meetings that we are already having, and that I am personally having, with organisations to discuss simplification. Of course we will discuss other matters in the future as well, but that is the No. 1 issue I am raising with those organisations. Also, I am very lucky to be able to work in the Treasury with incredibly talented officials. They do not hold back from giving Ministers of any Government proper advice on the tax system and other parts of the economy, so through all of this—as well as mulling over how we are ourselves able to check the progress we are making, as I say—I am confident that we will be able to make real progress in this area.
Douglas Chapman
On that point, I think the Labour party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wallasey, was also alluding to the fact that it was that element of independence that really made the Office of Tax Simplification stand out from anything that can be provided in-house. That is the real danger of Government Departments, and Governments in general, marking their own homework. That is what it sounds very much like, and that is how it will be seen outside the bubble we inhabit here in Westminster. I sincerely ask the Minister to reconsider her stance and have a really long think about not making that decision just now, but instead doing a full evaluation of the benefits and value of the Office of Tax Simplification to see how it might be either enhanced or supported in future.
The Chair
Order. I remind Committee members of the point I made to the hon. Member for Blaydon earlier: interventions should be short. They are getting longer.
Victoria Atkins
I do not feel there is anything I can add to what I have already said, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The Chair
In which case, I call the hon. Gentleman to respond to the debate, and ask him to tell me whether he wishes to push the amendment to a Division.
Douglas Chapman
I think that the overall message we have heard today—certainly from Opposition Members—is that the Office of Tax Simplification should be retained, as it provides a very important independent view of the very complicated and complex system of tax takes and tax reliefs throughout the United Kingdom. I am hoping that that position will win support, and I am prepared to push it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 347 makes changes to support the expansion of the dormant assets scheme to a wider range of assets, including insurance assets, pension assets, investment assets, client money assets and security assets such as shares. The Government estimate that up to a further £880 million will be made available for good causes across the UK thanks to the expansion of the scheme to the new sectors.
James Murray
As we know, under the UK’s dormant assets scheme, dormant asset funds are transferred to an authorised reclaim fund, Reclaim Fund Ltd. People can reclaim from that fund what they otherwise would have owned if their asset had never been transferred into the scheme. In some cases, it will be the monetary value of the dormant asset that will be transferred into the RFL rather than the original asset.
We understand that clause 347 ensures that the payments from an authorised reclaim fund are treated, for the purposes of income tax, as if they were from a pension asset that was initially transferred. We understand that it also seeks to ensure that, where an asset has been transferred from an authorised reclaim fund and its owner was alive at the time but subsequently dies before the asset has been reclaimed, the owner will be treated for inheritance tax purposes as still owning the original asset. We do not oppose the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 347 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 348
International arrangements for exchanging information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 348 introduces technical and administrative changes to four powers used to implement international tax arrangements relating to the exchange of information. Clause 349 introduces a 13-year time limit on funds paid into the Court Funds Office as civil claims that remain unclaimed, after which the right to claim will be extinguished.
Clause 350 clarifies HMRC’s functions regarding payment obligations in relation to individuals and organisations subject to UK financial sanctions. The measure clearly sets out which payments HMRC is prohibited from making in accordance with financial sanctions, namely all payments, repayments and set-offs to or for the benefit of designated persons subject to financial sanctions. Clauses 351 and 352 simply set out the Bill’s legal interpretation and short title in the usual way.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 348 consolidates existing automatic exchange of information powers that allow the Treasury to implement the domestic requirements of certain international instruments, relating to, among other things, the automatic exchange of information between tax authorities. We recognise that the purpose of the consolidation is to create a general power to allow the Treasury to give effect to existing and future international exchange of information instruments. We understand that once the Bill is enacted, the previous powers will be repealed. We do not oppose the clause.
We understand that clause 349 will allow the transfer of moneys that have remained unclaimed in the Courts Fund Office account for many years, despite attempts to trace the beneficiaries and the account titles being available to the public via the unclaimed balances database on gov.uk. We recognise that at present such moneys are being held in perpetuity unless claimed. I also noted that some moneys have apparently been held since 1726. Does the Minister know what rate of interest those moneys have been earning for the last 300 years, and how much money is expected to be earned from that interest at the point of transfer?
Clause 350 defines how HMRC’s payment functions across the taxes, duties and benefits it administers interact with financial sanctions regulations and seeks to ensure that relevant changes to UK financial sanctions regulations are automatically reflected in HMRC’s functions. I understand that subsection (1) prohibits the making of a payment, whether directly or indirectly,
“to or for the benefit of a person who is, at that time, a designated person for the purposes of financial sanctions regulations.”
We will not oppose the clause. However, the fact that subsection (1) is necessary could be seen to imply that payments have in fact been made to, or the benefit of, a person who was at the time
“a designated person for the purposes of financial sanctions regulations.”
Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case, and tell us how many payments have been made to such people, what the total value of such payments was in each of the last 10 years and under which financial sanctions regulations the people involved have been designated? Clauses 351 and 352 relate to the interpretation and short title, and we will not oppose them.
Very briefly, Mr Stringer, may I take this opportunity to thank people? I thank all Ministers and Committee members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey, for City of Chester, for West Lancashire, for Ilford South, for Erith and Thamesmead, and for Blaydon. I thank the Clerks, parliamentary authorities and third parties, including the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I also thank you, Mr Stringer, and of course Ms McVey, who chaired the sitting on Tuesday.
Victoria Atkins
The shadow Minister asked about the amount of money that is expected to be paid into the consolidated fund in 2024-25. It is some £50 million. I am afraid that I do not know the interest rate charged in 1726; I obviously have room to improve on that—apologies. I suppose that in an idle moment we may put our minds to it and see whether we can come up with something, but I do not commit to that. I regret that I did not hear the detail of his questions on financial sanctions.
James Murray
I thank the Minister for giving way. The fact that clause 350(1) is necessary could be seen to imply that payments have in fact been made
“to or for the benefit of a person who is, at that time, a designated person for the purposes of financial sanctions regulations.”
My question was, if that is the case, will the Minister tell us how many payments have been made to such people, the total value of such payments in each of the last 10 years and which financial sanctions regulations the people involved were designated under?
Victoria Atkins
I am in the situation that I find myself in from time to time, which is that, although I am extremely conscious of the desire for transparency, there is still the principle of taxpayer confidentiality. Given the sensitivities of the subject matter, and given that, I suspect, a small group of individuals would be subject to the measure, I regret that I am unable to give those details. I have to give that answer from time to time, and I know that it is frustrating for hon. Members, because I can understand why they want answers. I regret that I cannot assist the hon. Member for Ealing North on this occasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 348 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 349 to 352 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Reports to Treasury Committee on measures to simplify tax system
“(1) The Treasury must report to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons on steps taken by the Treasury and HMRC to simplify the tax system in the absence of the Office of Tax Simplification.
(2) Reports under this section must include information on steps to—
(a) simplify existing taxes, tax reliefs and allowances,
(b) simplify new taxes, tax reliefs and allowances,
(c) engage with stakeholders to understand needs for tax simplification,
(d) develop metrics to measure performance on tax simplification, and performance against those metrics.
(3) A report under this section must be sent to the Committee before the end of each calendar year after the year in which section 346 (abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification) comes into force.”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)
This new clause would require the Treasury to report annually to the Treasury Committee on tax simplification if the Office of Tax Simplification is abolished.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Douglas Chapman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hopefully we can all get off to lunch quite soon. The UK Government may still be driving the big red Brexit blunder-bus towards the sunny uplands, merrily in denial of the catastrophic damage that leaving the EU has wrought on the country, but British citizens and businesses are in no doubt about the serious lack of any tangible benefits from Brexit. In reality, the UK Government may have got Brexit done, but unfortunately we all got done at the same time. Not a week goes past without a Brexit myth-busting news headline. This week, we discovered that one of the world’s largest car manufacturers believes that Brexit is a threat to our export business, and the sustainability of UK manufacturing options. Stellantis, which owns Vauxhall and Fiat, warned the Government to reverse Brexit, or it will have to close down its factories. Just today, Jaguar Land Rover described the Brexit deal as “unrealistic and counterproductive” for electric vehicle manufacturing.
The Minister mentioned all the fantastic innovation-based opportunities that she could see in the future, but those two companies join a chorus of other manufacturers in the UK that have advised the Government to look again at the Brexit trade deal. Brexit was sold to us as a chance to reduce red tape, to free us up from the so-called constraints of EU bureaucracy, and to negotiate bigger and better trade deals across the globe. Instead, it has freed us from success, growth, productivity and competitiveness—so quite the opposite. Brexit has meant that we are fighting a war on all fronts, with not a unicorn or rainbow in sight, and no sign of the much-promised £350 million a week for the NHS, or an end to stagnant wage growth, the crippling cost of living and the energy crisis in the UK.
That brings me to this important new clause on exiting the European Union—an attempt to pin down the UK Government, shine some light on the well-hidden Brexit benefits, and require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide us with proper information and analysis to back up the Government’s claims. We are asking the Chancellor to publish a report on which of the policies included in the Bill could not have been introduced while the UK was a member of the EU. We are also asking for that report to include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of each provision.
Here is the thing: the Government might believe in Brexit. They might be convinced of the benefits of it, alongside their Opposition colleagues on the Labour Benches, but no matter what myths are busted every week in the real world, it is people in the UK who are bearing the brunt. That is the thin end of the wedge for our constituents, who want to know whether the Brexit-induced or Brexit-exacerbated hardships they face day to day—the astronomical levels of food inflation, the difficulties with European travel, and the closure of their exporting businesses due to jams and chaos at Dover—has all been worth it. Really, has it all been worth it?
Gareth Davies
I am happy to respond to new clause 4. The Government are committed to taking full advantage of the opportunities arising from the UK’s exit from the European Union, and we will make the most of our Brexit freedoms. Indeed, we have already set in motion a number of measures that capture those freedoms, whether it is the VAT relief on women’s sanitary products, cutting VAT on the supply of energy-saving materials or, as we have heard, measures in this Bill to reform our alcohol duty system. None of that could have been implemented had we remained in the European Union, and we will go further over the course of the months and years ahead.
As those reforms develop, we will routinely publish the impacts that they have, in exactly the same way as we do now and always have. An additional report is not necessary. Information on all changes is available in the Budget documents and the tax information and impact notes, outlining those impacts. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the new clause.
Douglas Chapman
I thank the Minister for his response. I have no intention of pursuing this new clause any further, but I hope the Government have taken these views on board and, if those broad and sunlit uplands are still there in their heads, let us make them a reality. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Victoria Atkins
I thank you, Mr Stringer, for your superb chairmanship of this Committee and Ms McVey for hers. I thank my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, who did very well on his first Bill Committee; it has been a pleasure. I thank all Back-Benchers for lively debates and their attention to these important matters, and those on the shadow Front Bench for their important contributions.
I thank the Doorkeepers—Monty—the Clerks and of course our Hansard reporters, who help to make our words look more polished than perhaps they are in real life. Of course I must also thank the Whips, who have an incredibly difficult job arranging such a huge piece of legislation and have done so with great skill—and I thank them for the wine gums.
Finally, I thank the massive team of officials, primarily in the Treasury, but also in other Government Departments. There is so much work that goes into preparing a Bill for Committee. This is such an important stage of its scrutiny, and we take it very seriously. I offer my sincere thanks to each and every one of the officials who have been kind enough to brief me and my hon. Friend.
The Chair
That is quite out of order, but thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 18th May 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2023 - (18 May 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 105, in clause 25, page 44, line 6, leave out “must consult the Commissioner” and insert
“must apply to the Commissioner for authorisation of the designation notice on the grounds that it satisfies subsection (1)(b).”
This amendment seeks to increase independent oversight of designation notices by replacing the requirement to consult the Commissioner with a requirement to seek the approval of the Commissioner.
Clauses 25 and 26 stand part.
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
When the Committee last adjourned, I had already spoken to clauses 24 to 26 and was responding to amendment 105, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Barnsley East. However, let me give a quick recap.
Clauses 24 to 26 are essentially designed to enable better joined-up working between the intelligence services and law enforcement. To that end, they will allow qualifying authorities to use part 4 of the data protection regime, but the Secretary of State will be required to issue a designation notice. We believe that enabling qualifying competent authorities to jointly process data under one regime in authorised, specific circumstances will allow better control over data in a way that is not possible under two different data protection regimes.
Amendment 105 seeks to increase the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office by requiring it to judge whether the designation notice is required for the purposes of safeguarding national security. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult the ICO as part of the Secretary of State’s decision whether to grant a notice, but it is not the function of the ICO in its capacity as a regulator to assess national security requirements. The ICO’s expertise is in data protection, not in national security, and it would be inappropriate for it to decide on the latter; that decision should be reserved to the Secretary of State. We believe that clause 25 provides significant safeguards through proposed new sections 82B and 82E, which provide respectively for legal challenge and annual review of a notice. In addition, should the notice no longer be required, the Secretary of State can withdraw it. For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I spoke to amendment 105 in our last sitting. In summary, the Bill contains a requirement to consult the commissioner. The amendment seeks to formalise some of the independent oversight of the designation notice process so that the power does not lie solely in the Secretary of State’s hands. The matter of the Secretary of State’s power is obviously something with which we take issue throughout the Bill. The amendment would not stop any designation notice being issued where it is genuinely necessary; it would simply add a safeguard for its approval where it is not. For that reason, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Joint processing by intelligence services and competent authorities
Amendment proposed: 105, in clause 25, page 44, line 6, leave out “must consult the Commissioner” and insert
“must apply to the Commissioner for authorisation of the designation notice on the grounds that it satisfies subsection (1)(b).”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment seeks to increase independent oversight of designation notices by replacing the requirement to consult the Commissioner with a requirement to seek the approval of the Commissioner.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sir John Whittingdale
We now come to the provisions in the Bill relating to the powers of the Information Commissioner. Clause 27 will introduce a new strategic framework for the Information Commissioner when carrying out his functions under data protection legislation. The framework contains a principal data protection objective and a number of general duties.
The legislation does not currently provide the commissioner with a framework of strategic objectives to help to prioritise activities and resources, evaluate performance and be held accountable by stakeholders. Instead, the commissioner is obliged to fulfil a long list of tasks and functions without a clear strategic framework to guide his work.
The clause introduces a principal objective for the commissioner, first to secure an appropriate level of protection for personal data, taking into account the interests of data subjects, controllers and others along with matters of general public interest, and secondly to promote public trust and confidence in the processing of personal data. This principal objective will replace section 2(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
How does the Minister think the words
“an appropriate level of protection for personal data”
should be understood by the Information Commissioner? Is it in the light of the duties that follow, or what?
Sir John Whittingdale
Obviously that is a matter for the Information Commissioner, but that is the overriding principal objective. I am about to set out some of the other objectives that the clause will introduce, but it is made very clear that the principal objective is to ensure the appropriate level of protection. Precisely how the Information Commissioner interprets “appropriate level of protection” is a matter for him, but I think it is fairly clear what that should entail, as he himself set out in his evidence.
As I have said, clause 27 introduces new duties that the commissioner must consider where they are relevant to his work in carrying out data protection functions: the desirability of promoting innovation and competition; the importance of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences; the need to safeguard public security and national security; and, where necessary, the need to consult other regulators when considering how the ICO’s work may affect economic growth, innovation and competition. There is also the statement of strategic priorities, which is introduced by clause 28. However, as I have indicated to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, the commissioner will be clear that his primary focus should be to achieve the principal objective.
Clause 27 also introduces new reporting requirements for the commissioner in relation to the strategic framework. The commissioner will be required to publish a forward-looking strategy outlining how he intends to meet the new principal objective and duties, as well as pre-existing duties in the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.
Finally, the commissioner will be required to publish a review of what he has done to comply with the principal objective, and with the new and existing duties, in his annual report.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I wonder whether part of the strategy might include a list of fees that could potentially be charged for accessing data. This idea of fees seems to be quite vague in terms of amounts and levels, so it would be useful to have some more information on that.
Sir John Whittingdale
I think we will come on to some of the questions around the fees that are potentially payable, particularly by those organisations that may be required to provide more evidence, and the costs that that could entail. I will return to that subject shortly.
The new strategic framework acknowledges the breadth of the ICO’s remit and its impact on other areas. We believe that it will provide clarity for the commissioner, businesses and the general public on the commissioner’s objectives and duties. I therefore commend clause 27 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
The importance to any data protection regime of an independent, well-functioning regulator cannot be overstated. The ICO, which is soon to be the Information Commission as a result of this Bill, is no exception to that rule. It is a crucial piece of the puzzle in our regime to uphold the information rights set out in regulation. Importantly, it works in the interests of the general public. The significance of an independent regulator is also recognised by the European Commission, which deems it essential to any adequacy agreement. The general duties of our regulator, such as those set out in this clause, are therefore vital because they form the foundations on which it operates and the principles to which it must be accountable.
Although the duties are more an indicator of overarching direction than a prescriptive list of duties, they should still aim to reflect the wide range of tasks that the regulator carries out and the values with which they do so. On the whole, the clause does this well. Indeed, the principal objective for the commissioner set out in this clause, which is
“to secure an appropriate level of protection for personal data, having regard to the interests of data subjects, controllers and others and matters of general public interest, and…to promote public trust and confidence in the processing of personal data”
is a good overarching starting point. It simply outlines the basic functions of the regulator that we should all be able to get behind, even if the Bill itself does disappointingly little to encourage the promotion of public trust in data processing.
It is particularly welcome that the principal objective includes specific regard to
“matters of general public interest.”
This should cover things like the need to consider sustainability and societal impact. However, it is a shame that that is not made explicit among the sub-objectives, which require the commissioner to have regard to the likes of promoting innovation and safeguarding national security. That would have ingrained in our culture a desire to unlock data for the wider good, not just for the benefit of big tech. Overall, however, the responsibilities set out in the clause, and the need to report on fulfilling them, seem to reflect the task and value of the regulator fairly and accurately.
Sir John Whittingdale
I think that was slightly qualified support for the clause. Nevertheless, we welcome the support of the Opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Strategic priorities
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 28 provides a power for the Secretary of State to prepare a statement of strategic priorities relating to data protection as part of the new strategic framework for the Information Commissioner. The statement will contain only the Government’s data protection priorities, and the Secretary of State may choose to include both domestic and international priorities. That will enable the Government to provide a transparent statement of how their data protection priorities fit in with their wider agenda, giving the commissioner, we hope, helpful context.
Although the commissioner must take the statement into account when carrying out his functions, he is not required to act in accordance with it. That means that the statement will not be used in a way to direct what the commissioner may and may not do. Once the statement is drafted, the Secretary of State will be required to lay it before Parliament, where it will be subject to the negative resolution procedure before it can be designated. The commissioner will need to consider the statement when carrying out functions under the data protection legislation, except functions relating to a particular person, case or investigation.
Once designated, the commissioner will be required to respond to the statement, outlining how he intends to consider it in future data protection work. The commissioner will also be required to report on how he has considered the statement in his annual report. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 28 requires that every three years the Secretary of State publish a statement of strategic priorities for the commissioner to consider, respond to, and have regard to. The statement would be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament, and the commissioner would be obliged to report on what they have done to comply with it annually. Taken in good faith, I see what the clause was intended to achieve. It is, of course, important that the Government’s data priorities are understood by the commissioner. It is also vital that we ensure that the regulator functions in line with the most relevant issues of the day, given the rapidly evolving landscape of technology.
A statement of strategic priorities could, in theory, allow the Government to set out their priorities on data policy in a transparent way, allowing both Ministers and the ICO to be held accountable for their relationship. However, there is and must be a line drawn between the ICO understanding the modern regulatory regime that it will be expected to uphold and political interference in the activities and priorities of the ICO. The Open Rights Group, among others, has expressed concern that the introduction of a statement of strategic priorities could cross that line, exposing the ICO to political direction, making it subject to culture wars and leaving it vulnerable to corporate capture or even corruption.
Although the degree to which those consequences would become a reality given the current strength of our regulator might be up for debate, the very concept of the Government setting out a statement of strategic priorities that must be adhered to by the commissioner at the very least sets out a need for the ICO to follow some sort of politically led direction, something that seems counterintuitive with respect to independence. As I have already argued, an independent ICO is vital not only directly, for data subjects to be sure that their rights will be implemented and for controllers to be sure of their obligations, but indirectly, as a crucial component of our EU adequacy agreement.
Even though the clause may not be intended to threaten independence, we must be extremely careful not to unintentionally embark on a slippery slope, particularly as there are other mechanisms for ensuring that the ICO keeps up with the times and has a transparent relationship with Government. In 2022, the ICO published its new strategic plan, ICO25, which sets out why its work is important, what it wants to be known for and by whom, and how it intends to achieve that by 2025. It describes the ICO’s purpose, objectives and values and the shift in approach that it aims to achieve through the life of the plan, acknowledging that its work is
“complex, fast moving and ever changing.”
The plan was informed by extensive stakeholder consultation and by the responsibilities that the ICO has been given by Parliament. There are therefore ways for the ICO to communicate openly with Government, Parliament and other relevant stakeholders to ensure that its direction is in keeping with the most relevant challenges and with updates to legislation and Government activity. Ministers might have been better off encouraging transparent reviews, consultations and strategies of that kind, rather than prompting any sort of interference from politicians with the ICO’s priorities.
Sir John Whittingdale
We agree about the importance of the independence of the Information Commissioner, but I do not think that the statement, as we have set out, is an attempt to interfere with that. I remind the hon. Lady that in relation to the statement of strategic priorities, she asked the Information Commissioner himself:
“Do you perceive that having any impact on your organisation’s ability to act independently of political direction?”,
and he replied:
“No, I do not believe it will undermine our independence at all.”––[Official Report, Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2023; c. 6, Q3.]
Stephanie Peacock
The Minister is right to quote the evidence session, but he will perhaps also remember that in a later session Ms Irvine from the Law Society of Scotland said that she was surprised by the answer given by the Information Commissioner.
Sir John Whittingdale
Ms Irvine may have been surprised. I have to say that we were not. What the Information Commissioner said absolutely chimed with our view of the statement, so I am afraid on this occasion I will disagree with the Law Society of Scotland.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clause 30 stand part.
Amendment 111, in clause 31, page 56, line 30, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
“(6) If the Commissioner submits a revised code under subsection (5)(b), the Secretary of State must approve the code.”
This amendment seeks to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to require the Commissioner to provide a revised code to only one occasion, after which the Secretary of State must approve the revised code.
Clause 31 stand part.
Sir John Whittingdale
Given the significant number of ways in which personal data can be used, we believe that it is important that the regulator provides guidance for data controllers, particularly on complex and technical areas of the law, and that the guidance should be accessible and enable compliance with the legislation efficiently and easily. We are therefore making a number of reforms to the process by which the Information Commissioner produces statutory codes of practice.
Clause 29 is a technical measure that ensures that all statutory codes of practice issued under the Data Protection Act 2018 follow the same parliamentary procedures, have the same legal effect, and are published and kept under review by the Information Commissioner. Under sections 121 to 124 of the Data Protection Act, the commissioner is obliged to publish four statutory codes of practice: the data sharing code, the direct marketing code, the age-appropriate design code, and the data protection and journalism code. The DPA includes provisions concerning the parliamentary approval process, requirements for publication and review by the commissioner, and details of the legal effect of each of the codes. So far, the commissioner has completed the data sharing code and the age-appropriate design code.
Section 128 of the Act permits the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the Information Commissioner to prepare other codes that give guidance as to good practice in the processing of personal data. Those powers have not yet been used, but may be useful in the future. However, due to the current drafting of the provisions, any codes required by regulations made by the Secretary of State and issued by the commissioner would not be subject to the same formal parliamentary approval process or review requirements as the codes issued under sections 121 to 124. In addition, they do not have the same legal effect, and courts and tribunals would not be required to take a relevant provision of the code into account when determining a relevant question. Clearly, it is not appropriate to have two different standards of statutory codes of practice. To address that, clause 29 replaces the original section 128 with new section 124A, so that codes required in regulations made by the Secretary of State follow a similar procedure to codes issued under sections 121 to 124.
New section 124A provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations requiring the commissioner to produce codes of practice giving guidance as to good practice in the processing of personal data. Before preparing any code, the commissioner must consult the Secretary of State and other interested parties such as trade associations, data subjects and groups representing data subjects. That is similar to the consultation requirements for the existing codes. The parliamentary approval processes and requirements for the ICO to keep existing codes under review are also extended to any new codes required by the Secretary of State. The amendment also ensures that those codes requested by the Secretary of State have the same legal effect as those set out on the face of the DPA.
Clauses 30 and 31 introduce reforms to the process by which the commissioner develops statutory codes of practice for data protection. They require the commissioner to undertake and publish impact assessments, consult with a panel of experts during the development of a code, and submit the final version of a code to the Secretary of State for approval. Those processes will apply to the four statutory codes that the commissioner is already required to produce and to any new statutory codes on the processing of personal data that the commissioner is required to prepare under regulation made by the Secretary of State.
The commissioner will be required to set up and consult a panel of experts when drafting a statutory code. That panel will be made up of relevant stakeholders and, although the commissioner will have discretion over its membership, he or she will be required to explain how the panel was chosen. The panel will consider a draft of a statutory code and submit a report of its recommendations to the commissioner. The commissioner will be required to publish the panel’s response to the code and, if he chooses not to follow a recommendation, the reasons must also be published.
Clause 30 also requires the commissioner to publish impact assessments setting out who will be affected by the new or amended code and the impact it will have on them. While the commissioner currently carries out impact assessments when developing codes of practice, we believe that there are advantages to formalising an approach on the face of the legislation to ensure consistency.
Given the importance of the statutory codes, we believe it is important that there is a further degree of democratic accountability within the process. Therefore, clause 31 requires the commissioner to submit the final version of a statutory code to the Secretary of State for approval.
On that basis, I commend the relevant clauses to the Committee, but I am aware that the hon. Member for Barnsley East wishes to propose an amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I turn first to clauses 29 and 30. Codes of practice will become increasingly important as the remit of the ICO expands and modernises. As such, it is important that the codes are developed in a way that is conducive to the product being as effective and useful as possible.
Although the ICO already carries out impact assessments for new codes of practice, that is only done as best practice and currently does not have any statutory underpinning. It is therefore pleasing to see clauses that will require consistency and high standards when developing new codes, ensuring that the resulting products are as comprehensive and helpful as possible. It is welcome, for example, to see that experts will be consulted in the process of developing these codes, including Government officials, trade associations and data subjects. It is also good to see that the commissioner will be required to publish a statement relating to the establishment of the expert panel, including how and why members were selected.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome the support of the Opposition for many of the principles contained in the clauses. I turn to amendment 111, tabled by the hon. Lady. As the clause originally sets out, once the commissioner is issued the final version of the code, the Secretary of State decides whether to approve it. If they do approve the code, it will be laid before Parliament for final approval. If they do not, they are required to publish their reasons.
The amendment would place a limit on that, so that the Secretary of State would be able to reject the final version of the code only once. If the code is revised by the commissioner in the light of the comments of the Secretary of State and resubmitted, under the amendment the Secretary of State would have to lay the code in Parliament for final approval. Although I understand the concern behind the amendment, we do not believe it to be justified. I understand that the hon. Lady does not want a code to be rejected multiple times, but we regard this as a final safeguard and it will be fully transparent. We are absolutely committed to maintaining the commissioner’s independence, but we think it also important that the Government have the opportunity to give a view before the code is laid before Parliament and for Parliament to give final approval. The amendment would unduly limit the Government’s ability to provide as necessary that further degree of democratic accountability.
The hon. Lady referred to the importance of maintaining adequacy, which we have already touched on. I fully share her view on its importance to the wider functioning of the economy, but when she raised the matter with the Information Commissioner he did not believe that it posed any risk. Indeed, he went on to point out:
“A failure of the Secretary of State to table and issue a proposed code would not affect the way in which the commissioner discharges his or her enforcement functions. We would still be able to investigate matters and find them in breach, regardless of whether that finding was consistent with the Secretary of State’s view of the law.”––[Official Report, Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2023; c. 6-7, Q4.]
On that basis, we think that there should be the ongoing ability for the Secretary of State—and, through the Secretary of State, Parliament—to approve the final version of the code, but we do not feel that this interferes with the Information Commissioner’s ability to carry out his functions, nor does it represent any view as to our adequacy agreement.
Stephanie Peacock
The problem is that the Government are operating on the basis that everyone is acting in good faith, and although I am sure that the Minister and the current Secretary of State are doing so, we do not know what the future holds. It was incredibly encouraging that throughout the evidence sessions a number of witnesses said they did not feel that adequacy was at threat. That is welcome and reassuring, but only the EU Commission can give us adequacy. I am afraid the Minister simply has not done enough to alleviate my concerns about the independence of the ICO. I understand that the Minister disagrees with the Law Society of Scotland, but the full quote was:
“The ICO is tasked with producing statutory codes of conduct, which are incredibly useful for my clients and for anyone working in this sector. The fact that the Secretary of State can, in effect, overrule these is concerning, and it must be seen as a limit on the Information Commissioner’s independence.”––[Official Report, Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2023; c. 74, Q156.]
As such, I will push my amendment to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Codes of practice: approval by the Secretary of State
Amendment proposed: 111, in clause 31, page 56, line 30, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
“(6) If the Commissioner submits a revised code under subsection (5)(b), the Secretary of State must approve the code.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment seeks to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to require the Commissioner to provide a revised code to only one occasion, after which the Secretary of State must approve the revised code.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sir John Whittingdale
Taking advantage of your invitation, Mr Hollobone, I shall speak only briefly. The UK’s data protection framework allows a data subject or data protection officer to make a request to the Information Commissioner for information concerning the exercise of their data protection rights. The commissioner is expected to respond to a data subject or data protection officer and make no charge in the majority of cases, but the commissioner can refuse to respond or charge a reasonable fee for a response to a request when it is “manifestly unfounded or excessive”. Clause 7 changes the “manifestly unfounded or excessive” threshold for all requests from data subjects across the UK data protection framework to “vexatious or excessive”. Clause 32 replicates that language, inserting the same new threshold into section 135 of the Data Protection Act 2018, to ensure that the Information Commissioner’s exemption is consistent across the legislation. I urge the Committee to agree to the clause.
Stephanie Peacock
The new threshold contained in the clause has been discussed in debates under clause 7, and I refer hon. Members to my remarks in those debates, as many of the same concerns apply. The guidance that will be needed to interpret the terms “vexatious” and “excessive” should be no less applicable to the Information Commissioner, whose co-operation with data subjects and transparency should be exemplary, not least because the functioning of the regulator inherently sets an example for other organisations on how the rules should be followed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Analysis of performance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 33 introduces the requirement for the Information Commissioner to prepare and publish an analysis of their performance, using key performance indicators. The regulator will be required to publish that analysis at least annually. The commissioner will have the discretion to decide which factors effectively measure their performance.
Improving the commissioner’s monitoring and reporting mechanisms will strengthen their accountability to Parliament, organisations and the public, who have an interest in the commissioner’s effectiveness. Performance measurement will also have benefits for the commissioner, including by supporting their work of measuring progress towards their objectives and ensuring that resources are prioritised in the right areas. I urge that clause 33 stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
I welcome the clause, as did the majority of respondents who supported the proposal in the “Data: a new direction” consultation. As recognised by the Government’s response to their consultation, respondents felt the proposal would allow for the performance of the ICO to be assessed publicly and provide evidence of how the ICO is meeting its statutory obligations. We should do all we can to promote accountability, transparency and public awareness of the obligations and performance of the ICO. The clause allows for just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Power of the Commissioner to require documents
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 35 to 38 stand part.
Government amendment 47.
Clause 42 stand part.
Sir John Whittingdale
This is a slightly chunkier set of clauses and amendments, so I will not be as brief as in the last two debates.
Clause 34 is a clarificatory amendment to the Information Commissioner’s powers in section 142 of the Data Protection Act to require information. Its purpose is to clarify the commissioner’s existing powers to put it beyond doubt that the commissioner can require specific documents as well as information when using the information notice power. Subsections (3) to (7) of the clause make consequential amendments to references to information notices elsewhere in the Data Protection Act.
Clause 35 makes provision for the Information Commissioner to require a data controller or processor to commission a report from an approved person on a specified matter when exercising the power under section 146 of the Data Protection Act to issue an assessment notice. The aim of the power is to ensure that the regulator can access information necessary to its investigations.
In the event of a data breach, the commissioner is heavily dependent on the information that the organisation provides. If it fails to share information—for example, because it lacks the capability to provide it—that can limit the commissioner’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation. Of course, if the organisation is able to provide the necessary information, it is not expected that the power would be used. The commissioner is required to act proportionately, so we expect that the power would be used only in a small minority of investigations, likely to be those that are particularly complex and technical in nature.
Clause 36 grants the Information Commissioner the power to require a person to attend an interview and answer questions when investigating a suspected failure to comply with data protection legislation. At the moment, the Information Commissioner can only interview people who attend voluntarily, which means there is a heavy reliance on documentary evidence. Sometimes that is ambiguous or incomplete and can lead to uncertainty. The ability to require a person to attend an interview will help to explain an organisation’s practices or evidence submitted, and circumvent a protracted and potentially fruitless series of back-and-forth communication via information notices. The power is based on existing comparable powers for the Financial Conduct Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority.
Clause 37 amends the provisions for the Information Commissioner to impose penalties set out in the Data Protection Act. It will allow the commissioner more time, where needed, to issue a final penalty notice after issuing a notice of intent. At the moment the Act requires the commissioner to issue a notice of intent to issue a penalty notice; the commissioner then has up to six months to issue the penalty notice unless an extension is agreed. That can prove difficult in some cases—for instance, if the organisation under investigation submits new evidence that affects the case at a late stage, or when the legal representations are particularly complex. The clause allows the regulator more time to issue a final penalty notice after issuing a notice of intent, where that is needed. That will benefit business, as it means the commissioner can give organisations more time to prepare their representations, and will result in better outcomes by ensuring that the commissioner has sufficient time to assess representations and draw his conclusions.
Clause 38 introduces the requirement for the Information Commissioner to produce and publish an annual report on regulatory activity. The report will include the commissioner’s investigatory activity and how the regulator has exercised its enforcement powers. That will lead to greater transparency of the commissioner’s regulatory activity.
Clauses 34 to 37, as I said, make changes to the Data Protection Act 2018 in respect of the Information Commissioner’s enforcement powers. Consequential on clauses 35 and 36, clause 42 makes changes to the Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions Regulations 2016, known as the EITSET regulations. The EITSET regulations extend and modify the Information Commissioner’s enforcement powers to apply to its role as the supervisory body for trust service providers under the UK regulations on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions, known as the UK eIDAS. Clause 42 amends the EITSET regulations to ensure that the new enforcement powers introduced by clauses 34 to 37 are available to the Information Commissioner for the purposes of regulating trust service providers.
The new powers will help to ensure that the Information Commissioner is able to access the evidence needed to inform investigations. The powers will result in more informed investigations and, we believe, better outcomes. Clause 42 ensures that the Information Commissioner will continue to be able to act as an effective supervisory body for trust service providers established in the UK.
Government amendment 47 amends schedule 2 to the EITSET regulations. The amendment 2 is consequential to the amendment of section 155(3)(c) of the Data Protection Act made by schedule 4 to the Bill. The amendment to schedule 2 will remove the reference to consultation under section 65 of the Data Protection Act when section 155 is applied. It is necessary to remove reference to section 65 of the Data Protection Act when section 155 is applied with modification under schedule 2, as consultation requirements under that section are not relevant to the regulation of trust service providers under the UK eIDAS.
I hope that that is helpful to Members in explaining the merits of our approach to ensuring that the Information Commissioner has the right enforcement tools at its disposal and continues to be an effective and transparent regulator. I commend the clauses and Government amendment 47 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak to each of the relevant clauses in turn. On clause 34, I am satisfied that the clarification that the Information Commissioner can require documents as well as information is necessary and will be of use to the regulator. I am pleased therefore pleased to accept the clause as drafted and to move on to the other clauses in this part.
Clause 35 provides for the commissioner to require an approved person to prepare a report on a specified matter, as well as to provide statutory guidance on, first, the factors it considers when deciding to require such a report and, secondly, the factors it considers when determining whom the approved person might be. That power to commission technical reports is one that the vast majority of respondents to the “Data: a new direction” consultation supported, as they felt it would lead to better informed ICO investigations. Any measures that help the ICO to carry out its duties rigorously and to better effect, while ensuring that relevant safeguards apply, are measures that I believe Members across the Committee will want to support.
In the consultation, however, the power was originally framed to commission a “technical report”, implying that it would be limited to particularly complex and technical investigations where there is significant risk of harm or detriment to data subjects. Although the commissioner is required to produce guidance on the circumstances in which a report might be required, I would still like clarification from the Minister of why such a limit was not included in the Bill as drafted. Does he expect it to be covered by the guidance produced by the ICO? Such a clarification is necessary not because we are against clause 35 in principle, just in acknowledgement that ICO’s powers—indeed, enforcement powers generally—must always be proportionate to the task at hand.
Furthermore, some stakeholders have said that it is unclear whether privilege will attach to reports required by the ICO and whether they may be disclosable to third parties who request copies of them. Greater clarity about how the power will operate in practice would therefore be appreciated.
Turning to clause 36, it is a core function of the ICO to monitor and enforce the UK’s data protection legislation and rules, providing accountability against the activities of all controllers, processors and individuals. To fulfil that function, the ICO may have to conduct an investigation to establish a body of evidence and determine whether someone has failed to comply with the legislation. The Government’s consultation document said that the ICO sometimes faces problems engaging organisations in those investigations, despite their having a duty to co-operate fully, especially in relation to interviews, as many people are nervous of negative consequences in their life or career if they participate in one. However, interviews are a crucial tool for investigations, as not all the relevant evidence will be available in written form. Indeed, that may become even more the case after the passing of this Bill, due to the reduced requirements to keep records, conduct data protection impact assessments and assign data protection officers—all of which contribute to a larger pool of documentation tracking data processing.
Clause 36, which will explicitly allow the ICO to compel witnesses to comply with interviews as part of an investigation, will, where necessary, ensure that as much relevant evidence as possible is obtained to inform the ICO’s judgment. That is something that we absolutely welcome. It is also welcome to see the safeguards that will be put in place under this clause, including the right not to self-incriminate and exemptions from giving answers that would infringe legal professional privilege or parliamentary privilege. That will ensure that the investigatory powers of the ICO stay proportionate to the issues at hand. In short, clause 36 is one that I am happy to support. After all, what is the purpose of us ensuring that data protection legislation is fit for purpose here today if the ICO is unable to actually determine whether anyone is complying?
On clause 37, it seems entirely reasonable that the ICO may require more than the standard six months to issue a penalty notice in particularly complex investigations. Of course, it remains important that the operations of the ICO are not allowed to slow unduly in cases where a penalty can be issued in the usual timeframe, but where the subject matter is particularly complicated, it makes sense to allow the ICO an extension to enable the investigation to be concluded in the proper, typically comprehensive manner. Indeed, complex investigations may be more common as we adjust to the new data legislation and a rapidly evolving technological landscape. By conducting the investigations properly and paying due attention to particularly technical issues, new precedents can be set that will speed up the regulator’s processes on the whole. Clause 37 is therefore welcomed by us, as it was by the majority of respondents to the Government’s consultation.
Turning to clause 38, as we have said multiple times throughout the progress of this Bill and in Committee, transparency and data protection should go hand in hand. Requiring the ICO to publish information each year on the investigations it has undertaken and the powers it has used will embed a further level of transparency into the regulatory system. Transparency breeds accountability, and requiring the regulator to publish information on the powers it is using will encourage such powers to be used proportionately and appropriately. Publishing an annual report with that information should also give us a better idea of how effectively the new regulatory regime is working. For example, a high volume of cases on a recurring issue could indicate a problem within the framework that needs addressing. Overall, it is welcome that Parliament and the public should be privy to information about how the ICO is discharging its regulatory functions. As a result, I am pleased to support clause 38.
Finally, the amendments to clause 42 are of a consequential nature, and I am happy to proceed without asking any further questions about them.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for welcoming the vast majority of the provisions within these clauses. She did express some concern about the breadth of the powers available to the Information Commissioner, but I point out that they are subject to a number of safeguards defining how they can be used. The commissioner is required to publish how he will exercise his powers, and that will provide organisations with clarity on the circumstances in which they are to be used.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, like other regulators, the Information Commissioner is subject to the duty under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act to exercise their functions
“in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent”,
and,
“targeted only at cases in which action is needed.”
There will also be a right of appeal, which is consistent with the commissioner’s existing powers. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured.
Question put agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 35 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Complaints to controllers
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 40 and 41 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
These three clauses, together with schedule 8, streamline and clarify complaint routes for data subjects by making the respective rights and responsibilities of data controllers and data subjects clear in legislation. The measures will reduce the volume of premature complaints to the Information Commissioner, and give an opportunity to controllers to resolve complaints before they are escalated to the regulator.
Clause 39 enables data subjects to complain to a data controller if they believe that there has been an infringement of their data protection rights, and creates a duty for data controllers to facilitate the making of complaints by taking appropriate steps, such as providing a complaints form. The requirement will encourage better conversations and more dialogue between data subjects and data controllers. It will formalise best practice, and align with the standard procedures of other ombudsman services, which require complainants to seek to resolve an issue with the relevant organisation before escalation. The clause also introduces a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to require controllers to notify the Information Commissioner of the number of complaints made to them in circumstances specified in the regulations.
Clause 40 provides the Information Commissioner with a new power to refuse to act on certain data protection complaints if certain conditions are met, specifically if the complaint has not been made to the relevant controller; the controller has not finished handling the complaint and less than 45 days have elapsed since it was made; or the complaint is considered vexatious or excessive, as defined in the Bill. For example, that could be the case with a complaint that repeats a previous complaint made by the data subject to the commissioner. The power is in addition to the discretion that the commissioner can already exercise to “take appropriate steps” to respond to a complaint and investigate it “to the extent appropriate.” The clause requires the Information Commissioner to publish guidance about how it will respond to complaints and exercise its power to refuse to act on complaints. Finally, the clause also outlines the process for appeals if the commissioner refuses to act on a data protection complaint.
Clause 41 introduces schedule 8, which contains miscellaneous minor and consequential amendments to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act relating to complaints by data subjects.
Schedule 8 makes consequential amendments to the UK GDPR and the DPA relating to complaints by data subjects, which will ensure consistency across data protection legislation in relation to the changes to the complaints framework under clauses 39 and 40.
Stephanie Peacock
I will focus most of my remarks on the group on clauses 39 and 40, as clause 41 and schedule 8 contain mostly consequential provisions, as the Minister outlined.
There are two major sections to the clauses. First, they require a complainant to issue their complaint to the controller directly, through allowing the commissioner to refuse to process their complaint otherwise. Secondly, they require the commissioner to refuse any complaint that is vexatious or excessive. I will speak to both in turn.
As the ICO grows and its remit expands, given the rapidly growing use of data in our society, it makes sense that its resources should be focused where they are most needed. Indeed, when giving evidence to the Committee, the Information Commissioner and Paul Arnold of the ICO stated that their current duty to investigate all complaints is creating a burden on their resources. Therefore, the proposal to require that complainants reach out to their data controller first, before contacting the ICO, seems to make sense, as it will allow the regulator to move away from handling low-level complaints, or complaints that are under way but not yet resolved. Instead, it would be able to refocus resources into handling complaints that have been mishandled or that offer a serious threat to data rights and public trust in data use.
Though that may be seen by some businesses and controllers as shifting an extra requirement on to them, the move should be viewed overall as a positive one, as it will require controllers to have clear processes in place for handling complaints and hopefully incentivise against conducting the kind of unlawful processing that prompts complaints in the first place. Indeed, the ICO already encourages that type of best practice, with complainants often encouraged to speak directly with the relevant data controller first before seeking help from the regulator. The clause would therefore simply formalise the arrangement, providing clarity on three levels. First, it would ensure that data subjects are clear on their right to complain directly to the controller. Secondly, it would ensure that controllers are clear on their duty to respond to such complaints. Finally, the ICO would be certain of its ability to refuse a request if the complainant refuses to comply with that model.
Although it is vital that the ICO is able to modernise and direct efforts where they are most needed, it is also vital that a healthy relationship is kept between the public—as data and decision subjects—and the ICO. The public must feel that the commissioner is there to support them in exercising their rights or seeking redress where necessary, not least because lodging a complaint can already be a difficult and distressing process. Indeed, even the commissioner himself said, when he first assumed his role, that he wanted to
“make it easy for people to access remedies if things go wrong.”
As such, it is pleasing to see safeguards built into the clause that ensure a complainant can still escalate their complaint to the ICO, and appeal any refusal from the commissioner to a tribunal.
Data rights groups, such as the Open Rights Group, hold much more serious concerns about the ability to refuse vexatious and excessive requests. Indeed, they worry that the new power will allow the ICO to ignore widespread and systemic abuses of data rights. As was the case with subject access requests, the difference between a complaint made in anger—which is quite likely, given that the complainant believes they have suffered an abuse of their rights—and a vexatious one must be clearly distinguished. The ICO should not be able to reject complaints of data abuses simply because the complainant acts in ways caused by distress.
As the response of the Government to their consultation reveals, only about half of respondents agreed with the proposal to set out criteria by which the ICO can decide not to investigate a complaint. The safeguard to appeal any refusal from the commissioner is therefore crucial in ensuring that there is a clear pathway for data subjects and decision subjects to dispute the decision of the ICO. It is also right that they should be informed of that safeguard, as well as told why their complaint has been refused, and given the opportunity to complain again with a more complete picture of information.
Overall, the clauses seems to strike the right balance between ensuring safeguards for data and decision subjects while helping the ICO to modernise. However, terms such as “vexatious” and “excessive” must be clearly defined to ensure that the ICO is able to exercise this new power of refusal proportionately and sensibly.
Carol Monaghan
I am looking for some clarification from the Minister. Under clause 39, it says:
“A controller must facilitate the making of complaints…such as providing a complaint form which can be completed electronically and by other means.”
Can the Minister clarify whether every data controller will have to provide an electronic means of making a complaint? For many small data controllers, which would include many of us in the room, providing an electronic means of complaint might require additional expertise and cost that they may not have. If it said, “and/or by other means”, which would allow a data controller to provide a paper copy, that might provide a little more reassurance to data controllers.
Sir John Whittingdale
Let me address the point of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West first. The intention of the clause is to ensure that complainants go first to the data controller, and the data controller makes available a process whereby complaints can be considered. I certainly fully understand the concern of the hon. Lady that it should not prove burdensome, particularly for small firms, and I do not believe that it would necessarily require an electronic means to do so. If that is not the case, I will tell her, but it seems to me that the sensible approach would be for data controllers to have a process that the Information Commissioner will accept is available to complainants first, before a complaint is possibly escalated to the next stage.
With regard to the point of the hon. Member for Barnsley East, we have debated previously the change in the threshold to “vexatious” and “excessive”, and we may continue to disagree on that matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 40 and 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 42
Consequential amendments to the EITSET Regulations
Amendment made: 47, Clause 42, page 72, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) In paragraph 13 (modification of section 155 (penalty notices)), in sub-paragraph (3)(c), for “for “data subjects”” there were substituted “for the words from “data subjects” to the end”.”.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
This amendment inserts an amendment of Schedule 2 to the EITSET Regulations which is consequential on the amendment of section 155(3)(c) of the Data Protection Act 2018 by Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Protection of prohibitions, restrictions and data subject’s rights
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 43 is a technical measure that creates a presumption that our data protection laws should not be overridden by future laws that relate to the processing of personal data, but it respects parliamentary sovereignty by ensuring that Parliament can depart from this presumption in particular cases if it deems it appropriate to do so. For example, if new legislation permitted or required an organisation to share personal data with another for a particular purpose, the default position in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary would be that the data protection legislation would apply to the new arrangement.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the provision will also apply with trade agreements? Certainly in the early stages of the negotiations for a UK-US trade agreement, the United States Government sought to include various provisions relating to tech policy. In such a scenario, would this legislation take precedence above anything written into a trade agreement?
Sir John Whittingdale
That would certainly be my interpretation. I do not see that a trade agreement could possibly overturn an Act of Parliament unless Parliament specifically sets out that it intends that that should be the case. This is a general protection, essentially saying that in all future cases data protection legislation applies unless Parliament specifically indicates that that should not be the case.
Until now, ensuring that any new data protection measures are read consistently with the data protection legislation has relied either on inclusion of express provision to that effect in new data processing measures, or on general rules of interpretation. There are risks to that situation. Including relevant provisions in each and every new data processing provision is onerous and could be inadvertently omitted. General rules of interpretation can be open to different interpretations by courts, particularly in the light of legal challenges following our exit from the European Union. This can create the potential for legal uncertainty and as a result could lead to a less effective and comprehensive data protection legislative framework.
Clause 43 creates a presumption that any future legislation permitting the processing of personal data will be subject to the key requirements of the UK’s data protection legislation unless clear provisions are made to the contrary. This is a technical but necessary measure and I commend it to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I understand that the clause contains legal clarifications relating to the interaction of data protection laws with other laws. On that basis, I am happy to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Regulations under the UK GDPR
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
The clause outlines the process and procedure for making regulations under powers in the UK GDPR. Such provision is needed because the Bill introduces regulation-making powers into the GDPR. There is an equivalent provision in section 182 of the Data Protection Act. Among other things, the clause makes it clear that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner and such other persons as they consider appropriate, other than when the made affirmative procedure applies. In such cases, the regulations can be made before Parliament has considered them, but cannot remain as law unless approved by Parliament within a 120-day period.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to learn that we have now completed part 1 of the Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Clause 46 provides an overview of the provisions in part 2 that are aimed at securing the reliability of digital verification services through a trust framework, a public register, an information gateway and a trust mark.
Clause 47 will require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish the digital verification services trust framework, a set of rules, principles, policies, procedures and standards that an organisation that wishes to become a certified and registered digital verification service provider must follow. The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner and other appropriate persons when preparing the trust framework; that consultation requirement can be satisfied ahead of the clause coming into force. The Secretary of State must review the trust framework every 12 months and must consult the Information Commissioner and other appropriate persons when carrying out the review. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 46 defines digital verification services. Central to the definition, and to the framing of the debate on part 2, is the clarification that they are
“services that are provided at the request of an individual”.
That is a crucial distinction: digital verification services and the kinds of digital identity that they enable are not the same as any kind of Government-backed digital ID card, let alone a compulsory one. As we will discuss, it is important that any such services are properly regulated and can be relied on. However, the clause seems to set out a sensible definition that clarifies that all such services operate at individual request and are entirely separate from universal or compulsory digital identities.
I will speak in more depth about clause 47. As we move towards an increasingly digitally focused society, it makes absolute sense that someone should be able, at their own choice, to prove their identity online as well as in the physical world. Providing for a trusted set of digital verification services would facilitate just that, allowing people to prove with security and ease who they are for purposes including opening a bank account or moving house, akin to using physical equivalents like a passport or a proof of address such as a utility bill. It is therefore understandable that the Government, building on their existing UK digital identity and attributes trust framework, want to legislate so that the full framework can be brought into law when it is ready.
In evidence to the Committee, Keith Rosser highlighted the benefits that a digital verification service could bring, using his industry of work and employment as a live case study. He said:
“The biggest impact so far has been on the speed at which employers are able to hire staff”––[Official Report, Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2023; c. 52, Q112.]
In a study of 70,000 hires, the digital identity route took an average time of three minutes and 30 seconds, saving about a week compared with having to meet with an employer in person to provide physical documents. That has benefits not only to the individuals, who can start work a week earlier, but to the wider economy, since the same people will start contributing to taxation and their local economy a week earlier too.
Secondly, Keith identified that digital verification could open up remote jobs to people living in areas where employment opportunities are harder to come by. In theory, someone living in my constituency of Barnsley East could be hired in a role that would previously have been available only in London, thanks to their ability to prove who they are without ever having to meet their employer in person.
In the light of those benefits, as well as the potential reduction in fraud from cutting down on the usability of fake documents, in principle it seems only logical to support a framework that would allow trusted digital verification services to flourish. However, the key is to ensure that the framework breeds the trust necessary to make it work. In response to the digital identity call for evidence in 2019, the Government identified that a proportion of respondents were concerned about their privacy when it came to digital verification, saying that without assurances on privacy protections it would be hard to build trust in those systems. It is therefore curious that the Government have not accompanied their framework with any principles to ensure that services are designed and implemented around user needs and that they reflect important privacy and data protection principles.
Can the Minister say why the Government have not considered placing the nine identity assurance principles on the statute book, for example, to be considered when legislating for any framework? Those principles were developed by the Government’s own privacy and consumer advisory group back in 2014; they include ensuring that identity assurance can take place only where consent, transparency, multiplicity of choice, data minimisation and dispute resolution procedures are in place. That would give people the reassurance to trust that the framework is in keeping with their needs and rights, as well as those of industry.
Furthermore, can the Minister explain whether the Government intend to ensure that digital verification will not be the only option in any circumstance, making it mandatory? As Big Brother Watch points out, digital identity is not a practical or desired option, particularly for vulnerable or marginalised groups. Elderly people may not be familiar with such technology, while others might be priced out of it, especially given the recent rise in the cost of broadband and mobile bills attached to inflation. Although we must embrace the opportunities that technology can provide in identity verification, there must also be the ability to opt out and use offline methods of identification where needed, or we will risk leaving people out of participating in key activities such as jobseeking.
Finally, I look forward to hearing more about the governance of digital verification services and the framework. The Bill does not provide a statutory basis for the new office for digital identities and attributes, and there is therefore no established body for the functions related to the framework. It is important that when the new office is established, there is good communication from Government about its powers, duties, functions and funding model. After all, the framework and the principles it supports are only as strong as their enforcement.
Overall, I do not wish to stand in the way of this part of the Bill, with the caveat that I am keen to hear from the Minister on privacy protections, on the creation of the new office and on ensuring that digital verification is the beginning of a new way of verifying one’s identity, not the end of any physical verification options.
Chi Onwurah
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East. I have some general comments, which I intend to make now, on the digital verification services framework introduced and set out in clause 46. I also have some specific comments on subsequent clauses; I will follow your guidance, Mr Hollobone, if it is your view that my comments relate to other clauses and should be made at a later point.
Like my hon. Friend, I recognise the importance of digital verification services and the many steps that the Government are taking to support them, but I am concerned about the lack of coherence between the steps set out in the Bill and other initiatives, consultations and activities elsewhere in Government.
As my hon. Friend said, the Government propose to establish an office for digital identities and attributes, which I understand is not a regulator as such. It would be good to have clarity on the position, as there is no discussion in the Bill of the duties of the new office or any kind of mechanisms for oversight or appeal. What is the relationship between the office for digital identities and attributes and this legislation? The industry has repeatedly called for clarity on the issue. I think we can all agree that a robust and effective regulatory framework is important, particularly as the Bill confers broad information-gathering powers on the Secretary of State. Will the Minister set out his vision and tell us how he sees the services being regulated, what the governance model will be, how the office—which will sit, as I understand it, in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—will relate to this legislation, and whether it will be independent of Government?
Will the Minister also help us to understand the relationship between the digital verification services set out in the Bill and other initiatives across Government on digital identity, such as the Government Digital Service’s One Login service, which we understand will be operated across Government services, and the initiatives of the Home Office’s fraud strategy? Is there a relationship between them, or are they separate initiatives? If they are separate, might that be confusing for the sector? I am sure the Minister will agree that we in the UK are fortunate to have world leaders in digital verification, including iProov, Yoti and Onfido. I hope the Minister agrees that for those organisations to continue their world-leading role, they need clarification and understanding of the direction of Government and how this legislation relates to that direction.
Finally, I hope the Minister will agree that digital identity is a global business. Will he say a few words about how he has worked with, or is working with, other countries to ensure that the digital verification services model set out in this legislation is complementary to other services and interoperable as appropriate, and that it builds on the learnings of other digital verification services?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East for setting out the Opposition’s general support for the principle of moving towards the facilitation of digital verification services. She set out some of the benefits that such services can provide, and I completely echo her points on that score. I reiterate the central point that none of this is mandatory: people can choose to use digital verification services, but there is no intention to make them compulsory.
The trust framework has been set out with a wide number of principles and standards, to which privacy is central. The hon. Member for Barnsley East is right that that will be necessary to obtain trust from people seeking to use the services. She and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central have both set out detailed questions about the operation of the new office and the work alongside other Government Departments. I would like to respond to their points but, given that we are about to break, we could accept the general principle of this clause and then discuss them, no doubt in greater detail, in the debate on subsequent clauses. Will the Committee accept this clause with the assurance that we will address a lot of the issues just raised as we come to subsequent clauses in this part of the Bill?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 18th May 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2023 - (18 May 2023)
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
Clauses 48 to 52 provide the Secretary of State with powers and duties relating to the governance and oversight of digital identities in the UK. Those functions will be carried out by the office for digital identities and attributes. I can tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central that the office is a team of civil servants in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The office will oversee certified organisations that provide trusted digital verification services, to ensure that the purpose of the legislation is being upheld as the market develops.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I appreciate the Minister’s clarification that the office will be a group of civil servants, but I do not see that set out in the Bill, in the clause that we are currently debating. Am I wrong?
Sir John Whittingdale
As the office is an internal body, within the Department, I do not think that it would necessarily be specifically identified in the legislation in that way. If there is any more information on that, I will be happy to provide it to the hon. Lady in a letter, but the office is not a separate body to the Department.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for providing greater clarification, but if the office is not a separate body, it cannot be claimed to be independent of Government, which means that the governance of digital verification services is not independent. Will he confirm that?
Sir John Whittingdale
This is a function that will operate within Government. I do not think that it is one where there is any specific need for particular independence, but as I said, I am happy to supply further details about precisely how it will operate if that is helpful to the hon. Lady.
Let me move on from the precise operation of the body. Clause 53 sets out requirements for certified digital verification service providers in relation to obtaining top-up certificates where the Secretary of State revises and republishes the DVS trust framework.
Clause 48 provides that the Secretary of State must establish and maintain a register of digital verification service providers. The register must be made publicly available. The Secretary of State is required to add a digital verification service provider to the register, provided that it has met certain requirements. To gain a place on the register, the provider must first be certified against the trust framework by an accredited conformity assessment body. Secondly, the provider must have applied to be registered in line with the Secretary of State’s application requirements under clause 49. Thirdly, the provider must pay any fee set by the Secretary of State under the power in clause 50.
The United Kingdom Accreditation Service accredits conformity assessment bodies as competent to assess whether a digital verification service meets the requirements set out in the trust framework. That, of course, is an arm’s length body. Assessment is by independent audits, and successful DVS providers are issued with a certificate.
The Secretary of State is prohibited from registering a provider if it has not complied with the registration requirements. An application must be rejected if it is based on a certificate that has expired, has been withdrawn by the issuing body, or is required to be ignored under clause 53 because the trust framework rules have been amended and the provider has not obtained a top-up certificate in time. The Secretary of State must also refuse to register a DVS provider if the provider was removed from the register through enforcement powers under clause 52 and reapplies for registration while still within the specified removal period.
Clause 48(7) provides definitions for “accredited conformity assessment body”, “the Accreditation Regulation”, “conformity assessment body” and “the UK national accreditation body”.
Clause 49 makes provision for the Secretary of State to determine the form of an application for registration in the digital verification services register, the information that an application needs to contain, the documents to be provided with an application and the manner in which an application is to be submitted.
Clause 50 allows the Secretary of State to charge providers a fee on application to be registered in the DVS register. The fee amount is to be determined by the Secretary of State. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to charge already registered providers ongoing fees. The amount and timing of those fees are to be determined by the Secretary of State.
Clauses 51 and 52 confer powers and duties on the Secretary of State in relation to the removal of persons from the register. Clause 51 places a duty on the Secretary of State to remove a provider from the register if certain conditions are met. That will keep the register up to date and ensure that only providers that hold a certificate to prove that they adhere to the standards set in the framework are included in the register. Clause 52 provides a power to the Secretary of State to remove a provider from the register if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provider is failing to provide services in accordance with the trust framework, or if it has failed to provide the Secretary of State with information as required by a notice issued under clause 58. Clause 52 also contains safeguards in respect of the use of that power.
Clause 53 applies where the Secretary of State revises and republishes the DVS trust framework to include a new rule or to change an existing rule and specifies in the trust framework that a top-up certificate will be required to show compliance with the new rule from a specified date.
I hope that what I have set out is reasonably clear, and on that basis I ask that clauses 48 to 53 stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As has been mentioned, a publicly available register of trusted digital verification services is welcome; as a result, so is this set of clauses. A DVS register of this kind will improve transparency for anyone wanting to use a DVS service, as they will be able to confirm easily and freely whether the organisation that they hope to use complies with the trust framework.
However, the worth of the register relies on the worth of the trust framework, because only by getting the trust framework right will we be able to trust those that have been accredited as following it. That will mean including enough in the framework to assure the general public that their rights are protected by it. I am thinking of things such as data minimisation and dispute resolution procedures. I hope that the Department will consider embedding principles of data rights in the framework, as has been mentioned.
As with the framework, the detail of these clauses will come via secondary legislation, and careful attention must be paid to the detail of those measures when they are laid before Parliament. In principle, however, I have no problem with the provisions of the clauses. It seems sensible to enable the Secretary of State to determine a fee for registration, to remove a person from the register upon a change in circumstances, or to remove an organisation if it is failing to comply with the trust framework. Those are all functions that are essential to the register functioning well, although any fees should of course be proportionate to keep market barriers low and ensure that smaller players continue to have access. That facilitates competition and innovation.
Similarly, the idea of top-up certificates seems sensible. Members on both sides of the House have agreed at various points on the importance of future-proofing a Bill such as this, and the digital verification services framework should have space for modernisation and adaptation where necessary. Top-up certificates will allow for the removal of any organisation that is already registered but fails to comply with new rules added to the framework.
The detail of these provisions will be analysed as and when the regulations are introduced, but I will not object to the principle of an accessible and transparent register of accredited digital verification services.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for clarifying the role of the office for digital identities and attributes. Some of the comments I made on clause 46 are probably more applicable here, but I will not repeat them, as I am sure the Committee does not want to hear them a second time. However, I ask the Minister to clarify the process. If a company objects to not being approved for registration or says that it has followed the process set out by the Secretary of State but the Secretary of State does not agree, or if a dispute arises for whatever reason, what appeal process is there, if any, and who is responsible for resolving disputes? That is just one example of the clarity that is necessary for an office of this kind.
Will the Minister clarify the dispute resolution process and whether the office for digital identities and attributes will have a regulatory function? Given the lack of detail on the office, I am concerned about whether it will have the necessary powers and resources. How many people does the Minister envisage working for it? Will they be full-time employees of the office, or will they be job sharing with other duties in his Department?
My other questions are about something I raised earlier, to which the Minister did not refer: international co-operation and regulation. I imagine there will be instances where companies headquartered elsewhere want to offer digital verification services. Will there be compatibility issues with digital verification that is undertaken in other jurisdictions? Is there an international element to the office for digital identities and attributes?
Everyone on the Committee agrees that this is a very important area, and it will only get more important as digital verification becomes even more essential for our everyday working lives. What discussions is the Minister having with the Department for Business and Trade about the kind of market that we might expect to see in digital verification services and ensuring that it is competitive, diverse and across our country?
Sir John Whittingdale
I look forward to debating the detail of the framework with the hon. Member for Barnsley East when it comes forward, but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central raised a couple of specific points. As I said, the new office for digital identities and attributes will be in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and it will work on a similar basis to that of the office for product safety and standards, which operates within the Department for Business and Trade.
However, I should make it clear that the office for digital identities and attributes is not a regulator, because the use of digital identities is not mandatory, so it does not have investigatory or enforcement powers. It is not our intention for it to be able to levy fines or resolve individual complaints. Further down the line, as the market develops, it may be decided that it should be housed permanently in an independent body or as an arm’s length body, but that is for consideration in due course. It will start off within the Department.
I will come back to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central with more detail about dispute resolution. I take her point; I am not sure how often what she describes is likely to happen, but clearly it is sensible at least to take account of it.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 55 and 56 stand part.
Government amendments 6 and 7.
Government new clause 3—Information disclosed by the Welsh Revenue Authority.
Government new clause 4—Information disclosed by Revenue Scotland.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 54 creates a permissive power to enable public authorities to share information relating to an individual with registered digital verification service providers. That the power is permissive means that public authorities are not under any obligation to disclose information. The power applies only where a digital verification service provider is registered in the DVS register and the individual has requested the digital verification service from that provider. Information disclosed using the power does not breach any duty of confidentiality or other restrictions relating to the disclosure of information, but the power does not enable the disclosure of information if disclosure would breach data protection legislation. The clause also gives public authorities the power to charge fees for disclosing information.
All information held by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is subject to particular statutory safeguards relating to confidentiality. Clause 55 establishes particular safeguards for information disclosed to registered digital verification service providers by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under clause 54. The Government will not commence measures to enable the disclosure of information held by HMRC until the commissioners for HMRC are satisfied that the technology and processes for information sharing uphold the particular safeguards relating to taxpayer confidentiality and therefore allow information sharing by HMRC to occur without adverse effect on the tax system or any other functions of HMRC.
Clause 56 obliges the Secretary of State to produce and publish a code of practice about the disclosure of information under clause 54. Public authorities must have regard to the code when disclosing information under this power. Publication of the first version of the code is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Publication of subsequent versions of the code is subject to the negative resolution procedure. We will work with the commissioners for HMRC to ensure that the code meets the needs of the tax system.
New clauses 3 and 4 and Government amendments 6 and 7 establish safeguards for information that reflect those already in the Bill under clause 55 for HMRC. Information held by tax authorities in Scotland and Wales—Revenue Scotland and the Welsh Revenue Authority—is subject to similar statutory safeguards relating to confidentiality. These safeguards ensure that confidence and trust in the tax system is maintained. Under these provisions, registered DVS providers may not further disclose information provided by Revenue Scotland or the Welsh Revenue Authority unless they have the consent of that revenue authority to do so. The addition of these provisions will provide an equivalent level of protection for information shared by all three tax authorities in the context of part 2 of the Bill, avoiding any disparity in the treatment of information held by different tax authorities in this context. A similar provision is not required for Northern Irish tax data, as HMRC is responsible for the collection of devolved taxes in Northern Ireland.
Stephanie Peacock
Many digital verification services will, to some extent, rely on public authorities being able to share information relating to an individual with an organisation on the DVS register. To create a permissive gateway that allows this to happen, as clause 54 does, is therefore important for the functioning of the entire DVS system, but there must be proper legal limits placed on these disclosures of information, and as ever, any disclosures involving personal data must abide by the minimisation principle, with only the information necessary to verify the person’s identity or the fact about them being passed on. As such, it is pleasing to see in clause 54 the clarification of some of those legal limits, as contained in the likes of data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Similarly, clause 55 and the Government new clauses apply the necessary limits on sharing of personal data from HMRC and devolved revenue authorities under clause 54.
Finally, clause 56, which seeks to ensure that a code of practice is published regarding the disclosure of information under clause 54, will be a useful addition to the previous clauses and will ensure that the safety of such disclosures is properly considered in comprehensive detail. The Information Commissioner, with their expertise, will be well placed to help with this, so it is pleasing to see that they will be consulted during the process of designing this code. It is also good to see that this consultation will be able to occur swiftly—before the clause even comes into force—and that the resulting code will be laid before both Houses.
In short, although some disclosures of personal data from public authorities to organisations providing DVS are inevitable, as they are necessary for the very functioning of a verification service, careful attention should be paid to how this is done safely and legally. These clauses, alongside a well-designed framework—as already discussed—will ensure that that is the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Trust mark for use by registered persons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 57 makes provision for the Secretary of State to designate a trust mark to a DVS provider. The trust mark is essentially a kitemark that shows that the provider complies with the rules and standards set out in the trust framework, and has been certified by an approved conformity assessment body. The trust mark must be published by the Secretary of State and can only be used by registered digital verification service providers. The clause gives the Secretary of State powers to enforce that restriction in civil proceedings.
Stephanie Peacock
Trust marks are useful tools that allow organisations and the general public alike to immediately recognise whether or not a product or service has passed a certain testing standard or criterion. This is especially the case online, where due to misinformation and the prevalence of scams such as phishing, trust in online services can be lower than in the physical world.
The TrustedSite certification, for example, offers online businesses an earned certification programme that helps them to demonstrate that they are compliant with good business practices and maintain high safety standards. This is a benefit not only to the business itself, which is able to convert more users into clicks and sales, but to the users, who do not have to spend time researching each individual business and can explore pages and shop with immediate certainty. A trust mark for digital verification services would serve a similar purpose, enabling certified organisations that meet the trust framework criteria to be immediately recognisable, offering them the opportunity to be used by more people and offering the public assurance that their personal data is being handled by a verified source.
Of course, as is the case with this entire section of the Bill, the trust mark is only worth as much as the framework around it. Ministers should again think carefully about how to ensure that the framework supports the rights of the individual. Furthermore, the trust mark is useful only if people recognise it; otherwise, it cannot provide the immediate reassurance that it is supposed to. When the trust mark is established, what measures will the Department take to raise public awareness of it? In the same vein, to know the mark’s value, the public must also be aware of the trust framework that the mark is measured against, so what further steps will the Department take to increase knowledge and understanding of digital verification services and frameworks? Finally, will the Department publish the details of any identified unlawful use of the trust mark, so that public faith in the reliability of the trust mark remains high?
Overall, the clause is helpful in showing that we take seriously the need to ensure that people do not use digital verification services that may mishandle their data.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support. I entirely take her point that a trust mark only really works if people know what it is and can look for it when seeking a DVS provider.
Regarding potential abuse, obviously that is something we will monitor and potentially publicise in due course. All I would say at this stage is that she raises valid points that I am sure we will consider as the new system is implemented.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Power of Secretary of State to require information
Amendments made: amendment 6, in clause 58, page 84, line 5, after “55” insert
“or (Information disclosed by the Welsh Revenue Authority)”
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State requesting a disclosure of information which would contravene the new clause inserted by NC3.
Amendment 7, in clause 58, page 84, line 5, after “55” insert
“or (Information disclosed by Revenue Scotland)”—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State requesting a disclosure of information which would contravene the new clause inserted by NC4.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clauses 58 to 60 set out powers and duties conferred upon the Secretary of State in relation to the exercise of her governance and oversight functions under part 2.
Clause 58 enables the Secretary of State to issue a written notice that requires accredited conformity assessment bodies or registered DVS providers to provide information reasonably required by the Secretary of State to exercise functions under part 2. The notice must state why the information is required. It may also state what information is required, the form in which it should be provided, when it should be provided and the place to which it should be provided. Any notice given to a provider must also inform the provider that they may be removed from the DVS register if they fail to comply with the notice.
The power is subject to certain safeguards. Information does not have to be disclosed if to do so would breach clause 55 in relation to HMRC data or data protection legislation, or if disclosure is prohibited by the relevant parts of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Information does not need to be disclosed if doing so would reveal an offence that would expose a person to criminal proceedings. That does not apply to offences mentioned relating to false statements.
Clause 59 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations specifying that another person is able to exercise her functions under part 2. This clause enables us to move the governance and oversight functions of the Secretary of State to a third party if appropriate.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way. Before he moves on to clause 60, can he set out, perhaps giving an example, where it might be appropriate to use the power in clause 59 to make arrangements for another person to take on these functions, or in what circumstances he envisages it being used?
Sir John Whittingdale
We are obviously at a very early stage in the development of this market. At the moment, it is felt right that oversight should rest with the Secretary of State, but it may be that as the market grows and develops there will need to be the oversight via a separate body. The clause keeps the power available to the Secretary of State to delegate the function if he or she chooses to do so.
Clause 60 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the functioning of this part. The first report must be published within 12 months of clause 47, the DVS trust framework clause, coming into force. The reports will help to ensure that the market continues to meet the needs of DVS providers, public authorities, regulators, civil society and individuals. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
To oversee the DVS register, it is understandable that the Secretary of State may in some cases need to require information from registered bodies to ensure that they are complying with their duties under the framework. It is good that clause 58 provides for that power, and places reasonable legal limits on it, so that disclosures of information do not disrupt legal professional privilege or other important limitations. Likewise, it is sensible that the Secretary of State be given the statutory power to delegate some oversight of the measures in this part in a paid capacity, as is ensured by clause 59.
As I have mentioned many times throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, the Secretary of State may not always have the level of expertise needed to act alone in exercising the powers given to them by such regulations. The input of those with experience and time to commit to ensuring the quality of the regulations will therefore be vital to the success of these clauses. Again, however, we will need more information about the establishment of the OfDIA and the governance of digital identities overall to be able to interpret fully both the delegated powers and the power to require information, and how they will be used. Once again, therefore, I urge transparency from the Government as those governance structures emerge.
That leads nicely to clause 60, which requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish yearly reports on the operation of this part. A report of that nature will offer the chance to periodically review the functioning of the trust framework, register, trust mark and all other provisions contained in this part, thereby providing an opportunity to identify and rectify any recurring issues that the system may face. That is sensible for any new project, particularly one that, through its transparency, will offer accountability of the Government to the general public, who will be able to read the published reports. In short, there are no major concerns regarding any of the three clauses, though further detail on the governance of digital identities services will need proper scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 59 and 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Customer data and business data
Sir John Whittingdale
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 61, page 85, line 24, after “supplied” insert “or provided”.
The definition of “business data” in clause 61 refers to the supply or provision of goods, services and digital content. For consistency with that, this amendment amends an example given in the definition so that it refers to what is provided, as well as what is supplied.
Sir John Whittingdale
We move on to part 3 of the Bill, concerning smart data usage, which I know is of interest to a number of Members. Before I discuss the detail of clause 61 and amendment 46, I will give a brief overview of this part and the policy intention behind it. The provisions in part 3 allow the Secretary of State or the Treasury to make regulations that introduce what we term “schemes” that compel businesses to share data that they hold on customers with the customer or authorised third parties upon the customer’s request, and to share or publish data that they hold about the services or products that they provide. Regulations under this part will specify what data is in scope within the parameters set out by the clauses, and how it should be shared.
The rest of the clauses in this part permit the Secretary of State or the Treasury to include in the regulations the measures that will underpin these data sharing schemes and ensure that they are subject to proper safeguards—for example, relating to the enforcement of regulations; the accreditation of third party businesses wanting to facilitate data sharing; and how these schemes can be funded through levies and charging. Regulations that introduce schemes, or significantly amend existing schemes, will be subject to prior consultation and parliamentary approval through the affirmative procedure.
The policy intention behind the clauses is to allow for the creation of new smart data schemes, building on the success of open banking in the UK. Smart data schemes establish the secure sharing of customer data and contextual information with authorised third parties on the customer’s request. The third parties can then be authorised by the customer to act on their behalf. The authorised third parties can therefore provide innovative services for the customer, such as analysing spending to identify cost savings or displaying data from multiple accounts in a single portal. The clauses replace existing regulation-making powers relating to the supply of customer data in sections 89 to 91 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013; those powers are not sufficient for new smart data schemes to be effective.
Clause 61 defines the key terms and concepts for the powers in part 3. We have tabled a minor Government amendment to the clause, which I will explain. The definitions of data holder and trader in subsection (2) explain who may be required to provide data under the regulations. The definitions of customer data and business data deal with the two kinds of data that suppliers may be required to provide. Customer data is information relating to the transactions between the customer and supplier, such as a customer’s consumption of the relevant good or service and how much the customer has paid. Business data is wider contextual data relating to the goods or services supplied or provided by the relevant supplier. Business data may include standard prices, charges or tariffs and information relating to service performance. That information may allow customers to understand their customer data. Government amendment 46 clarifies that a specific example of business data—information about location—refers to the supply or provision of goods or services. It corrects a minor inconsistency in the list of examples of business data in subsection (2)(b).
Subsection (3) concerns who is a customer of the supplying trader, and who can therefore benefit from smart data. Customers may include both consumers and businesses. Subsection (4) enables customers to exercise smart data rights in relation to contracts they have already entered into, and subsection (5) allows the schemes to function through provision of access to data, as opposed to sending data as a one-off transfer.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause defines key terms in this part of the Bill, such as business data, customer data and data holder, as well as data regulations, customer and trader. These are key to the regulation-making powers on smart data in part 3, and I have no specific concerns to raise about them at this point.
I note the clarification made by the Minister in his amendment to the example given. As he outlined, that will ensure there is consistency in the definition and understanding of business data. It is good to see areas such as that being cleaned up so that the Bill can be interpreted as easily as possible, given its complexity to many. I am therefore happy to proceed with the Bill.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I rise to ask the Minister a specific question about the use of smart data in this way. A lot of users will be giving away data a device level, rather than just accessing individual accounts. People are just going to a particular account they are signed into and making transactions, or doing whatever they are doing in that application, on a particular device, but there will be much more gathering of data at the device level. We know that many companies—certainly some of the bigger tech companies—use their apps to gather data not just about what their users do on their particular app, but across their whole device. One of the complaints of Facebook customers is that if they seek to remove their data from Facebook and get it back, the company’s policy is to give them back data only for things they have done while using its applications—Instagram, Facebook or whatever. It retains any device-level data that it has gathered, which could be quite significant, on the basis of privacy—it says that it does not know whether someone else was using the device, so it is not right to hand that data back. Companies are exploiting this anomaly to retain as much data as possible about things that people are doing across a whole range of apps, even when the customer has made a clear request for deletion.
I will be grateful if the Minister can say something about that. If he cannot do so now, will he write to me or say something in the future? When considering the way that these regulations work, particularly in the era of smart data when it will be far more likely that data is gathered across multiple applications, it should be clear what rights customers have to have all that data deleted if they request it.
Sir John Whittingdale
I share my hon. Friend’s general view. Customers can authorise that their data be shared through devices with other providers, so they should equally have the right to take back that data if they so wish. He invites me to come back to him with greater detail on that point, and we would be very happy to do so.
Amendment 46 agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Power to make provision in connection with customer data
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 62, page 87, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State or the Treasury may only make regulations under this section if—
(a) the Secretary of State or the Treasury has conducted an assessment of the impact the regulations may have on customers, businesses, or industry,
(b) the assessment mentioned in paragraph (a) has been published, and
(c) the assessment concludes that the regulations achieve their objective without imposing disproportionate, untargeted or unnecessary cost on customers or businesses.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 113, in clause 62, page 87, line 12, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State or the Treasury may invite a relevant sectoral regulator to contribute to, or to conduct, any impact assessment conducted in order to enable the Secretary of State or the Treasury to fulfil their obligation under subsection (4).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State or the Treasury to enable a relevant sectoral regulator to contribute to, or conduct, any impact assessments on smart data regulations.
Amendment 114, in clause 62, page 87, line 12, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must consult representatives of the relevant business or industry sector to inform their decision whether to make regulations under this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State or the Treasury to consult representatives of the relevant business or industry sector before making smart data regulations.
Amendment 115, in clause 62, page 87, line 12, at end insert—
“(5) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a target date for the coming into force of the first regulations under this section, and
(b) make arrangements for the completion of an assessment of the impact of those regulations.”
This amendment would require Government to identify a target for a first smart data scheme within 6 months, and make arrangements for an impact assessment for these regulations.
Stephanie Peacock
Of all the provisions in the Bill, the ones on smart data are those that I am most excited about and pleased to welcome. The potential of introducing smart data schemes is immense: they can bring greater choice to consumers, enable innovation, increase competition and result in the delivery of better products and services. I will address amendments 112 and 113, but I look forward to the opportunity to speak in support of this part more widely.
Most of the detail on how and where smart regimes will be regulated in practice through this Bill will follow in secondary legislation and regulation. That is deliberate and welcome, as it ensures that smart data schemes are built around the realities of the sectors to which they apply. Given that they cannot be included on the face of the Bill, however, it is important that the regulations are prepared in the way that any good data-related law is. There must be a committee of consultation to ensure that the outcome works effectively for consumers and businesses, with the appropriate data protection safeguards.
Indeed, there may be certain sectors in which the costs simply outweigh the benefits of introducing such a regime. Sky believes that there is currently no evidence that a smart data scheme in the communications sector would bring clear and tangible additional benefits to customers. Ofcom consulted on the proposal in 2020 and came to a similar conclusion. Sky argues that the communications sector already has
“a very high bar for supporting consumers to use data to find the best deal for them. For example, in 2020 Ofcom introduced End of Contract Notifications”,
which tell customers when their current contract is ending and what they could save by signing up to another deal. Sky says that Ofcom is
“also in the process of introducing One Touch Switching for fixed broadband which will make it easier for customers to move between providers who operate on different networks”.
As BT identifies, smart data initiatives require significant time and investment to implement. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that the implementation cost for the telecoms sector for a smart data initiative could be anywhere between £610 million and £732 million. That is not to say that the cost outweighs the potential benefits for all industries, including telecoms, but it is important that the Government weigh that up before making any regulations, particularly given that large costs be passed on to consumers, or that there may be less investment in other areas. In the telecoms industry, it could lead to a reduction in investment in full-fibre broadband and 5G. It is imperative, therefore, to ensure that all costs remain targeted, proportionate and necessary to bring about an overall benefit that outweighs the costs. An impact assessment would provide assurance that this has been taken into consideration before any new schemes are introduced.
When conducting such an assessment, sectoral regulators, which can provide expert insight into the impact of smart data in any particular industry, will be well placed to assess the costs and benefits in the detail needed. That is something the Government themselves recognise, as they have placed a requirement in the Bill to consult those regulators. The amendments I propose would strengthen that commitment, allowing relevant sectoral regulators the opportunity, where appropriate, to be formally involved in the process of conducting an impact assessment.
Sir John Whittingdale
I assure the hon. Lady that I and, no doubt, the whole Committee share her excitement about the potential offered by smart data, and I have sympathy for the intention behind her amendments. However, taking each one in turn, we feel amendment 112 is unnecessary because the requirements are already set by the better regulation framework, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and, indeed, these clauses. Departments will conduct an impact assessment in line with the better regulation framework and Green Book guidance when setting up a new smart data scheme, and must demonstrate consideration of their requirements under the Equality Act 2010. That will address the proportionality, targeting and necessity of the scheme.
Moreover, the clauses require the Government to consider the effect of the regulations on matters including customers, businesses and competition. An impact assessment would be an effective approach to meeting those requirements. However, there is a risk that prescribing exactly how a Department should approach the requirements could unnecessarily constrain the policymaking process.
I turn to amendment 113. Clause 74(5) already requires the Secretary of State or the Treasury to consult with relevant sector regulators as they consider appropriate. As part of the process, sector regulators may be asked to contribute to the development of regulatory impact assessments, so we do not believe the amendment is necessary.
On amendment 114, we absolutely share the view of the importance of Government consulting businesses before making regulations. That is why, under clause 74(6), the Secretary of State or the Treasury must, when introducing a smart data scheme, consult such persons as are likely to be affected by the regulations and such sectoral regulators as they consider appropriate. Those persons will include businesses relevant to the envisaged scheme.
On amendment 115, we absolutely share the ambition to grab whatever opportunities smart data offers. In particular, I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the commitments made last month by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who set out the Treasury’s plans to use the smart data powers to provide open banking with a sustainable regulatory framework, while the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), chaired the inaugural meeting of the Smart Data Council last month. That council has been established to support and co-ordinate the development of smart data schemes in a timely manner.
With respect to having a deadline for schemes, we should recognise that implementation of the regulations requires careful consideration. The hon. Member for Barnsley East clearly recognises the importance of consultation and of properly considering the impacts of any new scheme. We are committed to that, and there is a risk that a statutory deadline for making the regulations would jeopardise our due diligence. I assure her that all her concerns are ones that we share, so I hope that she will accept that the amendments are unnecessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. I am reassured by his comments, and I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 62 provides the principal regulation-making power to establish smart data schemes in relation to customer data. The clause enables the Secretary of State or the Treasury to make regulations that require data holders to provide customer data either directly to a customer, or to a person they have authorised, at their request. Subsection (3) of the clause also allows for an authorised person who receives the customer data, to exercise the customer’s rights in relation to their data on their behalf. We call that “action initiation”.
An illustrative example could be in open banking, where customers can give authorised third parties access to their data to compare the consumer’s current bank account with similar offers, or to group the contracts within a household together for parents or guardians to better manage children’s accounts. Subsection (3) could allow the authorised third party to update the customer’s contact details across the associated accounts, for example if an email address changes.
Clause 63 outlines the provisions that smart data scheme regulations may contain when relating to customer data. The clause establishes much of the critical framework that smart data schemes will be built on. On that basis, I commend clauses 62 and 63 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
As previously mentioned, and with the caveats that I expressed when I was discussing my amendments, I am extremely pleased to be able to welcome this part of the Bill. In essence, clauses 62 and 63 enable regulations that will allow for customer data to be provided to a third party on request. I will take the opportunity to highlight why that is the case by looking at some of the benefits that smart data can provide.
Since 2018, open banking—by far the most well known and advanced version of smart data in operation—has demonstrated what smart data can deliver over and over again. For the wider economy, the benefits have been remarkable, with the total value to the UK economy now amounting to more than £4.1 billion, according to Coadec, the Coalition for a Digital Economy. Consumers’ experience of banking has been revolutionised if they have consented of their own accord to have third-party applications access their financial data.
Indeed, a whole host of money management tools and apps can now harness people’s financial data to create personalised recommendations based on their spending habits, including how to budget or save. During a cost of living crisis, some of those tools have been extremely valuable in helping people to manage new bills and outgoings. Furthermore, online retailers can now connect directly to someone’s bank so that, rather than spending the time filling in their card details each time they make a purchase, an individual can approve the transaction via their online banking system.
It is important to reiterate that open banking is based on consent, so consumers participate only if they feel it is right for them. As it happens, millions of people have capitalised on the benefits. More than seven million consumers and 50% of small and medium-sized enterprises have used open banking services to gain a holistic view of their finances, to support applications for credit and to pay securely, quickly and cheaply.
Though open banking has brought great success for both consumers and the wider economy, it is also important that the Government learn lessons from its implementation. We must pay close attention to how the introduction of open banking has impacted both the industry and consumers and ensure that any takeaways are factored in when considering an expansion of smart data into new industries.
Further, given that the Government clearly recognise the value of open data, as shown by this section of the Bill, it is a shame that the Bill does not go further in exploring the possibilities of opening datasets in other settings. Labour has explicitly set out to do that in its industrial strategy. For example, we have identified that better, more open datasets on jobs could help us to understand where skills shortages are, allowing jobseekers, training providers and Government to better fill those gaps.
The provisions in clauses 62 and 63 to create new regimes of smart data are therefore welcome, but the Bill unfortunately remains a missed opportunity to fully capitalise on the opportunities of open, secure data flows.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Power to make provision in connection with business data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 64 provides the principal regulation-making power for the creation of smart data schemes relating to business data. Regulations created through this clause allow for business data to be provided to the customer of a trader or a third-party recipient. Business data may also be published to be more widely available.
These regulations relating to business data will increase the transparency around the pricing of goods and services, which will increase competition and benefit both consumers and smaller businesses. To give just one example, the Competition and Markets Authority recently highlighted the potential of an open data scheme that compared the prices of fuel at roadside stations, increasing competition and better informing consumers. It is that kind of market intervention that the powers provide for.
Clause 65 outlines provisions that regulations relating to business data may contain. Those provisions are non-exhaustive. The clause largely mirrors clause 63, extending the same protections and benefits to schemes that make use of businesses data exclusively or in tandem with customer data. The clause differs from clause 63 in subsection (2), where an additional consideration is made as to who may make a request for business data. As action initiation relates only to an authorised person exercising a customer’s rights relating to their data, clause 65 does not include the references to that that are made in subsections (7) and (8) of clause 63.
Stephanie Peacock
The measures in these clauses largely mirror 62 and 63, but they refer to business data rather than customer data. I therefore refer back to my comments on clause 62 and 63 and the benefits that new regulations such as these might be able to provide. Those remarks provide context as to why I am pleased to support these measures, which will allow the making of regulations that require data holders to share business data with third parties.
However, I would like clarification from the Minister on one point. The explanatory notes explain that the powers will likely be used together with those in clauses 62 and 63, but it would be good to hear confirmation from the Minister on whether there may be circumstances in which the Department envisages using the powers regarding business data distinctly. If there are, will he share examples of those circumstances? It would be good for both industry and Members of this House to have insight into how these clauses, and the regulatory powers they provide, will actually be used.
Sir John Whittingdale
I think it is probably sensible if I come back to the hon. Lady on that point. I am sure we would be happy to provide examples if there are ones that we can identify.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Decision-makers
Sir John Whittingdale
Clauses 66 to 72 contain a number of provisions that will allow smart data regulations to function effectively. They are provisions on decision makers who approve and monitor third parties that can access the data, provisions on enforcement of the regulations and provisions on the funding of smart data schemes. It is probably sensible that I go through each one in more detail.
Clause 66 relates to the appointment of persons or accrediting bodies referred to as decision makers. The decision makers may approve the third parties that can access customer and business data, and act on behalf of customers. The decision makers may also revoke or suspend their accreditation, if that is necessary. An accreditation regime provides certainty about the expected governance, security and conduct requirements for businesses that can access data. Customers can be confident their chosen third party meets an appropriate standard. Clause 66 allows the decision maker to monitor compliance with authorisation conditions, subject to safeguards in clause 68.
Clause 67 enables regulations to confer powers of enforcement on a public body. The public body will be the enforcer, responsible for acting upon any breaches of the regulations. We envisage that the enforcer for a smart data scheme is likely to be an existing sectoral regulator, such as the Financial Conduct Authority in open banking. While the clause envisages civil enforcement of the regulations, subsection (6) allows for criminal offences in the case of falsification of information or evidence. Under subsections (3) and (10), the regulations may confer powers of investigation on the enforcer. That may include powers to require the provision of information and powers of entry, search and seizure. Those powers are subject to statutory restrictions in clause 68.
Clause 68 contains provisions limiting the investigatory powers given to enforcers. The primary restriction is that regulations may not require a person to give an enforcer information that would infringe the privileges of Parliament or undermine confidentiality, legal privilege and, subject to the exceptions in subsection (7), privilege against self-incrimination. Subsection (8) prevents any written or oral statement given in response to a request for information in the course of an investigation from being used as evidence against the person being prosecuted for an offence, other than that created by the data regulations.
Clause 69 contains provisions relating to financial penalties and the relevant safeguards. It sets out what regulations must provide for if enabling the use of financial penalties. Subsection (2) requires that the amount of a financial penalty is specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. For example, the regulations may set a maximum financial penalty that an enforcer can impose and they may specify the methodology to be used to determine a specific financial penalty.
Clause 70 enables actors in smart data schemes to require the payment of fees. The circumstances and conditions of the fee charging process will be specified in the regulations. The purpose of the clause, along with clause 71, is to seek to ensure that the costs of smart data schemes, and of bodies exercising functions under them, can be met by the relevant sector.
It is intended that fees may be charged by accrediting bodies and enforcers. For example, regulations could specify that an accrediting body may charge third parties to cover the cost of an accreditation process and ongoing monitoring. Enforcers may also be able to charge to cover or contribute to the cost of any relevant enforcement activities. The regulations may provide for payment of fees only by persons who are directly affected by the performance of duties, or exercise of powers, under the regulations. That includes data holders, customers and those accessing customer and business data.
Clause 71 will enable the regulations to impose a levy on data holders or allow a specified public body to do so. That is to allow arrangements similar to those in section 38 of the Communications Act 2003, which enables the fixing of charges by Ofcom. Together with the provision on fees, the purpose of the levy is to meet all or part of the costs incurred by enforcers and accrediting bodies, or persons acting on their behalf. The intention is to ensure that expenses can be met without incurring a cost to the taxpayer. Levies may be imposed only in respect of data holders that appear to be capable of being directly affected by the exercise of the functions.
Clause 72 provides statutory authority for the Secretary of State or the Treasury to give financial assistance, including to accrediting bodies or enforcers. Subsection (2) provides that the assistance may be given on terms and conditions that are deemed appropriate by the regulation maker. Financial assistance is defined to include both actual or contingent assistance, such as a grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity. It does not include the purchase of shares. I commend clauses 66 to 72 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
Clauses 66 to 72 provide for decision makers and enforcers to help with the operation and regulation of new smart data regimes. As was the case with the digital verification services, where I agreed that there was a need for the Secretary of State to have limited powers to ensure compliance with the trust framework, powers will be needed to ensure that any regulations made under this part of the Bill are followed. The introduction in clause 67 of enforcers—public bodies that will, by creating fines, penalties and notices of compliance, ensure that organisations follow regulations made under part 3—is therefore welcome.
As ever, it is pleasing to see that the relevant restrictions on the powers of enforcers are laid out in clause 68, to ensure that they cannot infringe upon other, more fundamental rights. It is also right, as is ensured by clause 69, that there are safeguards on the financial penalties that an enforcer is able to issue. Guidance on the amount of any penalties, as well as a formalised process for issuing notices and allowing for appeal, will provide uniformity across the board so that every enforcer acts proportionately and consistently.
Decision makers allowed for by clause 66 will be important, too, in conjunction with enforcers. They will ensure there is sufficient oversight of the organisations that are enabled to have access to customer or business data through any particular smart data regimes. Clauses 70, 71 and 72, which finance the activities of decision makers and enforcers, follow the trend of sensible provisions that will be required if we are to have confidence that regulations made under this part of the Bill will be adhered to. In short, the measures under this grouping are largely practical, and they are necessary to support clauses 62 to 65.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 67 to 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Confidentiality and data protection
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill
Sir John Whittingdale
Clauses 73 to 77 relate to confidentiality and data protection; various provisions connected with making the regulations, including consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and a duty to conduct periodic reviews of regulations; and the repeal of the existing regulation-making powers that these clauses replace.
Clause 73(1) allows the regulations to provide that there are no contravening obligations of confidence or other restrictions on the processing of information. Subsection (2) ensures that the regulations do not require or authorise processing that would contravene the data protection legislation. The provisions are in line with the approach taken towards pension dashboards, which are electronic communications services that allow individuals to access information about their pensions.
Clause 74(1) allows the regulation-making powers to be used flexibly. Subsection (1)(f) allows regulations to make provision by reference to specifications or technical requirements. That is essential to allow for effective and safe access to customer data, for instance the rapid updating of IT and security requirements, and it mirrors the powers enacted in relation to pensions dashboards, which I have mentioned. Clause 74(2) provides for limited circumstances in which it may be necessary for regulations to modify primary legislation to allow the regulations to function effectively. For instance, it may be necessary to extend a statutory alternative dispute resolution scheme in a specific sector to cover the activities of a smart data scheme.
Clause 74(3) states that affirmative parliamentary scrutiny will apply to the first regulations made under clauses 62 or 64; that is, affirmative scrutiny will apply to regulations that introduce a scheme. Affirmative parliamentary scrutiny will also be required where primary legislation is modified, where regulations make requirements more onerous for data holders and where the regulations confer monitoring or enforcement functions or make provisions for fees or a levy. Under clause 74(5), prior to making regulations that will be subject to affirmative scrutiny, the Secretary of State or the Treasury must consult persons who are likely to be affected by the regulations, and relevant sectoral regulators, as they consider appropriate.
The Government recognise the importance of enabling the ongoing scrutiny of future regulations, so clause 75 requires the regulation maker to review the regulations at least at five-yearly intervals. Clause 76 repeals the regulation-making powers in sections 89 to 91 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which are no longer adequate to enable the introduction of effective smart data schemes. Those sections are replaced by the clauses in part 3 of the Bill. Clause 77 defines, or refers to definitions of, terms used in part 3 and is essential to the functioning and clarity of part 3. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
Many of the clauses in this grouping are supplementary to the provisions that we have already discussed, or they provide clarification as to which regulations under part 3 are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I have no further comments to add on the clauses, other than to welcome them as fundamental to the wider part. However, I specifically welcome clause 75, which requires that the regulations made under this part be periodically reviewed at least every five years.
I hope that such regulations will be under constant review on an informal basis to assess how well they are working, but it is good to see a formal mechanism to ensure that that is the case over the long term. It would have been good, in fact, to see more such provisions throughout the Bill, to ensure that regulations that are made under it work as intended. Overall, I hope it is clear that I am very supportive of this part’s enabling of smart data regimes. I look forward to it coming into force and unlocking the innovation and consumer benefits that such schemes will provide.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Plastic Pollution in the Ocean
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of reducing plastic pollution in the ocean.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on plastic pollution in the ocean, ahead of the United Nations global plastics treaty second round negotiations next week. I also thank the Chamber Engagement Team and constituents who have responded to its survey on this important issue.
As an island nation here in the UK, we see first hand the effect of our plastic pollution washing up along our coastline. While plastic has been one of the world’s most valuable inventions, inappropriate waste recycling has led to a global crisis where microplastics are present in our waterways and food chains. Nearly 460 megatonnes of plastic were produced in 2019. That is expected to reach 1,231 megatonnes by 2060—a 267% increase—and plastic waste is expected to see a 287% increase.
As a nation, we have reacted to our increased knowledge of the effects of plastic pollution via fantastic societal change. The use of reusable products, such as coffee cups and shopping bags, has really cut down the amount of waste washing up on our shores. The carrier bag charge, implemented in 2015, has reduced the use of single-use carrier bags in supermarkets by 95%, while the ban on straws, stirrers and cotton buds significantly reduced the number ending up in our oceans. Following the ban, the Great British Beach Clean said that cotton bud sticks had moved out of the UK’s top 10 most common beach litter items. The 2018 ban on microbeads has also limited difficult-to-clear plastics in our water. The Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch project also found 11% less litter on our beaches in 2022 compared with 2012.
There are also fantastic community efforts, such as Plastic Free North Devon, which work in the community to organise clean-ups, educate hospitality businesses on reducing plastic use and—especially important in tourist hotspots such as north Devon—offer wooden bodyboards in place of the traditional polystyrene ones. National bodies such as Keep Britain Tidy are launching projects such as their Ocean Recovery project, which is the only UK-based trawl net recycling scheme. Since being established last year, it has already recycled 100 tonnes of trawl net and rope. We are making great strides in reducing the amount of plastic we use, but we also need to make it easier to recycle the plastic—for instance, the estimated 4 billion plastic bottles that are not recycled each year.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for initiating the debate. She may be aware that the World Wildlife Fund argues that some 8 million tonnes of plastic get dumped every year. While she rightly describes the progress made in this country in particular—but also in others—does she share my view that for the future, we actually need to see discussion of how we can toughen up product standards to increase the amount of plastic that can be recycled, and give consumers more information about which plastics used in products can be recycled and which cannot?
Selaine Saxby
Yes, in many ways I agree. I will certainly come on to speak far more about the global implications of the situation. While we are doing so much on our own island, we need to do so much more. In particular, the upcoming deposit return scheme, confirmed in the environment improvement plan, will bring the UK in line with similar nations, and recycle 90% or more of relevant containers.
Alongside reducing use and recycling as much as possible, we also need to look at the hierarchy of waste and reusing plastic products where possible. I ask the Minister to look at setting a target for the reuse of packaging, alongside our work on recycling. By setting a target, we would incentivise businesses to invest in reuse schemes that reduce the amount of resources required in our packaging supply chains. A recent UN report on reducing plastic pollution found that proper reuse systems could reduce plastic pollution by 30% by 2040, compared with 20% for recycling. Investing in and facilitating a reuse system would also reduce the cost of waste management and increase jobs in the sector. Unfortunately, despite UK efforts, plastic has been entering the ocean for decades and continues to do so.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Microplastics continue to threaten our marine ecosystems, with research showing that fishing net pollution is deadly for sharks, seabirds and seals. Does she agree that the solution to this must be found through balancing industry productivity while increasing necessary regulation?
Selaine Saxby
Of course, it is vital that we find a balance. Fishing materials continue to be an issue, which is why I think that some of the initiatives that are already under way to help the industry to recycle more are so vital.
As I was saying, plastics have been entering the ocean for decades and continue to do so. Between modern-day plastic and legacy plastic—the oldest piece of plastic that has been found is a buoy from 1966—there are trillions of pieces of plastic floating in our oceans. They affect our entire ocean’s ecosystem at every stage, from turtles getting trapped in nets to plastic breaking down into microplastics and slowly building up in our food chain.
Although we do not know as much about our seas as we should, we know that plastic has negatively affected almost 700 marine species. Microplastics also slowly sink down through our oceans to settle on the ocean floor, forming plastic deserts that kill wildlife and can stretch up to hundreds of kilometres. The largest floating patch is the great Pacific garbage patch, which contains more than 100 million kg of plastic over an area three times the size of France. It is the largest example of an ocean gyre where the currents draw flotsam to a point. As the convergence spot of the currents from the south Pacific and the Arctic, the zone is a plastic superhighway. It takes an average of only seven years for plastic floating in the ocean to reach the great Pacific garbage patch.
We know that the next generation care passionately about the planet, particularly their oceans and beaches. As a coastal MP, I know how engaged our schools are with this issue, and it often acts as an introduction to wider conservation work. Last year, I attended Greenpeace’s big plastic count, which almost a quarter of a million people took part in, including more than 9,500 school students. That shows just how seriously our youngest constituents take plastic pollution. Books such as “Ruby Rockpool”, which was written by the mermaid Hannah Pearl, suggest ways that youngsters can help. They bring the problems to life, but unfortunately solutions are not as simple as in Hannah’s excellent book, in which the ocean is healed with a sea star’s power.
Of course, no matter what we do domestically, this is ultimately a global issue requiring a global solution. The UK is responsible for almost 7 million sq km of the world’s oceans, and one of our overseas territories in the south Pacific demonstrates the challenge. Henderson island in the Pitcairn Islands is both uninhabited and thousands of miles from the nearest population centre. Despite that, an estimated 40 million pieces of plastic rubbish have landed on its shores. The island is home to the endangered Henderson petrel and the flightless Henderson crake, and is an important breeding ground for many other large seabirds. As we saw in Sir David Attenborough’s excellent “Blue Planet II”, the impact of plastic in the ocean extends to seabirds and can lead to parents feeding their offspring plastic instead of fish.
To limit the continuing impact of plastic on our oceans and food chain, we need not only to reduce how much plastic waste irresponsibly reaches our environment, but work to remove it. Fortunately, there are innovative start-ups such as the Ocean Cleanup, which undertakes the only efforts to remove legacy plastics from our oceans. It aims to remove 90% of floating plastic from the ocean by 2040.
Margaret Ferrier
As we know, tiny microfibres are entering the sea due to us washing our clothes. The company CLEANR is now turning to 3D printing technology to create microplastic filters for washing machines. Does the hon. Member agree that we must continue to use new technologies available to develop innovative solutions to this environmental crisis?
Selaine Saxby
Indeed, I sponsored the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on that topic. Although there is much work to do on microfibres, the plastics I will talk about are significantly more dramatic, in terms of their magnitude and the skills that are needed to clean them up.
To remove the waste from the gyres, the Ocean Cleanup is using a combination of computer modelling, artificial intelligence and space-borne plastic detection to identify the densest areas of plastic to optimise clean-up. It has created a trawler-type solution that pulls a semi-circular 4 metre-high net system very slowly—half walking speed— through the garbage patch into a funnel called a retention zone, which takes the plastic on to ships to be taken back to shore. It sounds very simple, but it is in fact highly complex to work in the open seas of the Pacific and protect wildlife—it has several active systems to prevent bycatch—as it removes different types and sizes of plastic pieces. As it scales up the system, it is reducing the cost, and it aims to reach €10 per kilo of plastic waste.
As 80% of marine plastics are estimated to have come from land-based sources—the remaining 20% are from fishing and other marine sources—the Ocean Cleanup is also focused on preventing waste from reaching the ocean in the first place, predominantly from rivers. It has identified that 1% of the world’s rivers are responsible for transmitting 80% of those land-based plastics to the ocean. To prevent that plastic from entering the oceans, it has developed the Interceptor system, which is currently focused on the most polluting rivers. Its Trashfence system is used in the Rio Motagua in Guatemala, which currently emits approximately 20,000 megatonnes of plastic into the Caribbean each year, or 2% of all the plastic emitted into the world’s oceans annually. That is a key scheme for the Ocean Cleanup to be working on.
For the Ocean Cleanup to achieve its aims, it needs long-term, dependable funding. So far, it has raised more than $250 million from private donations. It is asking the UK to become the first Government to support it financially. At present, it needs $37 million to fund one of its new systems per year.
As a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, which called for a target in the UN global plastics treaty to stop plastics entering our oceans by 2040, the UK Government are leading the way in a global effort to clean up our oceans. They could signal a greater dedication to cleaning up the great Pacific garbage patch ahead of a legal obligation. They could also help with mapping the problems around the world, such as in the Atlantic and Indian oceans, where the UK has permanent naval bases.
The UK has an excellent capability in oceanographic research, and could work with the Ocean Cleanup to help it with the vital mapping of the gyres so that we know where to find the plastic, how much is there, what it likely consists of, where it is coming from and so on. The Ocean Cleanup has proven know-how, as it was the first to fully map the great Pacific garbage patch.
Although plastics have a significant impact on our wildlife, they also affect island nations smaller than our own. The Pacific island nations are not just on the frontline of rising sea levels; they are among those most affected by the increase in plastic in our oceans. China is working hard to court them and extend its influence and power projection, but the UK still has significant interests in the region. China is one of the world’s largest polluters, and the UK can strengthen its ties in the region by supporting measures to limit plastic pollution and help clean up other island nations’ waters.
The UN global plastic treaty second round negotiations next week are another opportunity for the UK to push for positive changes to our environment as a global leader. At COP26, we secured the Glasgow climate pact, and at COP15 in Montreal, we pushed for global protections of biodiversity and nature. We need to add our voice to negotiations to secure limits to virgin plastic production and unnecessary plastic use. With the fifth largest marine estate in the world, and a population dedicated to protecting our environment and wildlife, we are well placed not only to cut down on our own plastic waste but to lead global efforts in cleaning up our oceans.
We need to remove legacy plastics while they are retrievable. If we wait too long, they will break down into microplastics and we will have a far harder job of removing plastic from our environment. I hope the Government will not only continue to implement their environment improvement plan, but will lead support for projects such as the Ocean Cleanup.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Again we are debating the huge and growing threat of plastic pollution in our oceans. According to Recycle Track Systems:
“There is an estimated 75 to 199 million tons of plastic waste currently in our oceans, with a further 33 billion pounds of plastic entering the marine environment every single year. This constant flow of plastic production is simply too much for existing waste management and recycling infrastructure.”
Plastic makes up 85% of all marine pollution, and unless we reduce the amount of plastic waste we produce, it is simply impossible to meaningfully tackle this shocking and dangerous situation.
Fishing equipment makes up a huge quantity of marine plastic waste—currently 20%—and, at current rates, will be enough to coat the entire planet in just 65 years. Plastic pollution harms animal health disproportionately and impacts on the ecosystems of developing countries. It is estimated that across the UK, 5 million tonnes of plastic are used every year, around half of which is packaging and half of which is not successfully recycled, with only around 9% of global plastics recycled each year. Plastic waste often does not decompose and can last for centuries in landfill or end up as litter in the natural environment, which in turn pollutes soils, rivers and oceans, and harms the creatures that inhabit them.
We know that the scale of this problem is huge. It is a daunting and global challenge, but we can mitigate our throwaway culture, and the best way to reduce the amount of plastic entering our oceans is to reduce plastic waste.
Margaret Ferrier
The plastic polluting our oceans can largely be attributed to single-use takeaway items. However, such products are often relied on for food hygiene purposes. Does the hon. Member agree that we must work to establish a valid alternative to single-use takeaway items that meets food hygiene standards?
Patricia Gibson
Yes. The hon. Lady tempts me, because I will say more about that in a moment.
Recycle Track Systems says:
“There are numerous initiatives to curb ocean plastic pollution at any one time, including everything from grassroots beach clean-ups to international agreements. One of the recent changes is the United Nations Environment Assembly’s agreement in March 2022 to develop a legally binding treaty to bring plastic pollution to an end. It will still be years in the making but is a considerable step forward according to many. What’s more, many organizations, such as Ocean Conservancy, are now calling for more dramatic changes to stop ocean plastic pollution, such as the reduction in production and consumption as well as outright bans on single-use plastics”—
as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned— “Many are calling for a shift to a zero-waste circular economy as the only solution to a plastic problem that we can’t recycle away.”
The Scottish Government aim to make Scotland a zero-waste society with a circular economy. They have a target of recycling 70% of waste by 2025, exceeding even EU targets, and they are matching the EU target for plastic packaging to be economically recyclable or reusable by 2030. The Scottish Government are also a signatory to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s new plastics economy global commitment, which will ban specified items of single-use plastics in EU member states. They have signed up to the agreement, even though there is no compulsion for Scotland to do so, as it is no longer a member of the EU, sadly. I hope the UK Government will follow the example of Scotland and the EU in that regard.
Scotland’s deposit return scheme works on the basis of the polluter pays, a principle that incentivises recycling, reduces litter and tackles climate change by reducing the amount of plastic going to landfill or ending up in our oceans. The scheme has been delayed because the First Minister is very keen to work with business to get this right. It is in all our interests, even if it is sometimes tempting to make cheap political points about this issue. The reality is that it is a fine and noble principle, and we should all work to make sure that it can do what it says on the tin. We all need to think about how we use, reuse and dispose of our plastic, because that is the problem that oceans face today.
Selaine Saxby
Would the hon. Lady agree that, while the deposit return scheme systems that are being looked at across the UK are vital, is it not better—as we are talking about international efforts—that we all work together to ensure that the scheme runs across the whole country, rather than having different schemes in different parts of our own islands, making it more complex for everyone involved?
Patricia Gibson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, but the point is that we cannot all move at the speed of the slowest caravan. We have to be bold and ambitious in what we seek our deposit returns scheme to achieve. What she proposes would be a better way forward, but the UK Government are slower and less ambitious. That is a pity, but we cannot be held back by that.
The scale of the plastic pollution in our oceans is catastrophic, and it is deeply damaging and deadly to marine life and habitats. It is difficult to know how many marine animals are killed each year due to plastic pollution. Many will go completely unrecorded. That said, some estimate that over 1 million animals, including many sea turtles, die each year due to plastic pollution in the ocean. The majority of animals that die are seabirds. Mammals are often more visible in the media and the public imagination, but they actually count for only around 100,000 deaths. That is still a huge number, but it does not tell the whole story. Those are just the marine animals that die as a result of plastic debris in the ocean. The toll would be much higher if other polluting factors, such as emissions from plastic production, were taken into account.
On a different tack, animals carry microplastics in their bodies, so when those animals are eaten those microplastics are also ingested. The process is called trophic transfer of microplastics. Since one animal eats another, microplastics can move through the food chain, ultimately reaching the human food chain. Some scientists have estimated that the average person might eat 5 grams of microplastics in a week, which is about the weight of a credit card. Another study breaks that down to being up to 52,000 particles annually from various food sources. According to the UN, there are over 50 trillion microplastics in the ocean, more than the number of stars in the Milky Way—that is astonishing. Due to the sheer quantity of microplastics in the ocean, it is difficult to find any marine animal without plastic particles in its gut or tissue. It is poisoning their food supply.
Whether or not microplastics impact human health is a relatively new field of study, but what we know so far is troubling, according to experts. Plastics and microplastics contain many harmful additives and tend to collect additional contaminants from their surroundings. Microplastic ingestion has been correlated with irritable bowel syndrome, while plastic-associated chemicals, such as bisphenol A, show correlations with chronic illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. We are talking about serious contamination. Action on plastic waste in our oceans requires us to reflect very carefully on the price we pay for plastic pollution—and the price our oceans pay.
Margaret Ferrier
Traces of microplastics have even been found in the placentas of pregnant women and in human blood. The risks of microplastics for human health cannot be ignored any longer. Does the hon. Member agree that we must end the plastic pollution of our water for our own health, as well as for the environment?
Patricia Gibson
It is the case that we are polluting our oceans, poisoning our marine life and, ultimately, poisoning ourselves. I do not think that is too stark a way of putting it. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct.
I am pleased we have had this debate, but the international community needs to take co-ordinated and serious action for marine and human health. I am looking forward to the Minister telling us what the UK Government will do, and what international efforts she believes can be made, led by the UK, in this regard. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate, because it is important that we keep a spotlight on the issue.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for working hard to secure this important debate. As she and others have mentioned, visible signs of plastic pollution are everywhere. In preparing for the debate, I have been struck by the staggering scale of the problem. Each year, the world produces over 350 million tonnes of plastic—a mass that outweighs all living mammals on Earth combined. Projections suggest that by 2050 there could be more plastic in our seas than fish. Over the past decade alone we have produced more plastic products than in the entire previous century. In the span of just one human lifetime we have inflicted an unimaginable level of damage to the global environment, particularly our oceans.
Is it not alarming that so much of our produce is packaged in plastic? A supermarket plastic bag serves its purpose for 30 minutes—the duration of an average commute. In a beverage, a straw is used for a mere five minutes, and the lifetime of a plastic stirrer is all of 10 seconds. Despite their fleeting use, those items outlive us by over 400 years. Regrettably, only 9% of all plastic produced has been adequately recycled. That is due in part to degradation of the recycling process. Plastic is functionally recycled often as little as once, meaning that recycling alone will not solve the immense challenges posed by plastic pollution.
For plastic to be recycled it needs to be free from food residue. Plastic bottles need to be crushed and their caps removed. Some containers use two or more different plastics, which must be separated either manually or by specialist equipment. That complexity creates a significant bottleneck in the recycling process. Most material recovery facilities do not even have the technology to process flexible packaging, leading those items often to end up in landfill or to be incinerated. Does the Minister agree that the sheer diversity of different plastic materials remains an issue that is yet to be fully addressed, and that we should aim for a zero-waste society, prioritising reduction and reuse over downstream interventions such as recycling?
Turning to the effect of plastic pollution on our natural world, we are all too aware of the devastation that it wreaks on marine life. Turtles choke on plastic bags, mistaking them for jellyfish. Those who have seen David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet” will have witnessed albatrosses feeding floating rice bags to hungry chicks, having found them in the remotest reaches of the South Atlantic. Our fishermen’s livelihoods are also suffering acutely from plastic pollution. North sea fishermen on average spend two hours each week cleaning their nets of marine litter. At a time when food security is of paramount importance, we simply cannot afford to neglect the health of our seas.
It is not only our oceans that suffer. Before it reaches the sea, plastic pollution affects our own health. With the convenience of food delivery apps, ordering food directly to our home has become easier than ever before. However, when hot food is placed in those containers, chemicals from the packaging can leak into the food, and subsequently our bodies. One article that I read citing research by World Wildlife Fund International suggested—I think the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) read the same research—that we may be ingesting up to 5 grams of plastic a week. It is shocking that it is the equivalent of eating a credit card.
Bisphenol A, or BPA—a hormone disruptor used in polycarbonate plastics—can mimic the effects of oestrogen in the body and interfere with the normal functioning of hormones. In high heat, or after multiple uses, plastic can degrade, releasing BPA into our food and water supplies. Plastic bottles with that chemical in them are everywhere. They can be found in rivers, on beaches and littering our streets. Fizzy drinks alone produced 90,000 tonnes of single-use plastic in 2019. I am glad that there has been a movement towards drinking tap water in restaurants as opposed to bottled beverages. Many products packaged in unrecyclable plastic do not form part of a healthy diet, so that shift is welcome from a health perspective, but what more can we do?
Interestingly, the majority of people are aware of our plastic waste problem. However, the extent to which different individuals, communities and nations are committed to addressing the problem varies hugely. In the UK, we are taking steps to tackle unnecessary plastic waste domestically, such as banning microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, and the forthcoming ban on plastic cutlery and plates from October is another encouraging development. It is heartening to see local government, as well as social and environmental groups, actively preventing, monitoring and collecting the plastics that cause marine pollution, yet there is much more we can do to lead the global response to this global issue.
Current commitments will result in only a 7% reduction in the annual discharge of plastic into the ocean by 2040. The increase in plastic production has not been mirrored by a corresponding increase in recycling rates. Once plastic enters the ocean, it is very difficult to retrieve. While new technologies can capture larger marine debris, small plastic items and microplastics are virtually impossible to recover, especially when they sink deep into the ocean, so prevention is the best solution. We need consistent rules for recycling. More importantly, we must shift the narrative to focus on reduction and alternative systems to traditional recycling models. Only then can we achieve meaningful change and a significant reduction in plastic pollution in our oceans.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate. I will spend a few moments thinking about the local, national and international aspects of plastic pollution in the oceans.
Turning first to local things, plastic pollution in my part of Devon is being dealt with by enthusiastic activists. We have a brilliant team of volunteers called Plastic Free Seaton, and while many of us were recovering from the King’s coronation celebrations on 8 May, they were celebrating the national day of volunteering. When some of us were perhaps clearing up disposable plastic plates or polystyrene cups, the group, including Seaton’s scouts and guides, were out there in the rain on Seaton beach doing brilliant work clearing up the waste that had been left behind.
Looking beyond Seaton, we have similar initiatives such as Plastic Free Ottery and Turn Lyme Green. Thinking about the point made about fishermen and our seas, the fishing fleet at Beer would desperately like us to deal with the issue better. I also pay tribute to Sidmouth Plastic Warriors and the excellent campaigning force that is Denise Bickley. She and others have gathered a group of 724 people in Sidmouth who regularly clean up our beaches, and they will be doing so at Sea Fest this Saturday afternoon.
As national legislators, we should be thinking global and acting local. The hon. Member for North Devon pointed out that 80% of marine plastic comes from the land, and that is not just true of desirable items—those plastic things we might want to use—but occasionally true of those things that we do not want. For example, anyone who finds a parking penalty attached to their car will see that it is wrapped in plastic.
The particular scourge that I want to discuss this afternoon is cigarette butts. Cigarette butts contain a filter that is made of a polymer called cellulose acetate, which breaks down in the sea and contributes to the microplastics that we have heard so much about. I have heard the argument that filters are there for a reason, and we might suppose there are health benefits to the smoker. However, the science I have read suggests that one of the reasons cigarette companies use plastic filters is to keep the cigarette rigid. In economics, there is a concept called moral hazard, whereby if someone is told that there is a mitigating factor in what they are doing, they might do more of it. I think that is true of smoking through a filter. If someone thinks the filter is protecting their health, they might be inclined to smoke more cigarettes. It might, therefore, actually be worse for public health than not having a plastic filter at all.
We have heard about the damage to our marine life, and cigarette butts also play a role in that. A cigarette butt will tend to float on the surface of the sea, and sea life will mistake it for a morsel of food and ingest it. We might think that vaping is the future and somehow the solution, but even single-use vaping products have hardened plastic and disposable cartridges. On the subject of smoking and vaping, we have to think about producer responsibility, where the producer has to pay.
We have talked about the local and national contexts. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a more ambitious target: the end of non-essential single-use plastics by 2025. We would like to see the ban on stirrers and cutlery to be extended to polystyrene plates and, in the fullness of time, cups as well. We would like to see the creation of an independent advisory committee on plastics pollution to advise the Government on policy and dates for the phasing out of various types of plastic. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a more ambitious target for addressing plastic pollution than that set out in the Government’s Environment Act 2021, which in many respects will not be enforced until 2037.
Above all, I would like to see an end to plastic exports. Although we can talk about what we would like to do on regulation and legislation in the UK, this is a global problem. Given that the oceans account for 70% of the surface of the planet, we need to ensure that we are not causing harm overseas as well as in our own country. I am curious to hear from the Minister whether the Government wish to introduce regulations on cigarette butts, given that I have heard from people working for a plastic-pollution-free east Devon that it is cigarette butts that are a particular scourge for our beaches in the west country.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this much-needed debate, as well as Members who have made valuable points on how the world uses plastic.
Plastic has been one of the world’s most valuable inventions. It is durable and flexible and has myriad uses. It has reduced product weight, increased the life cycles of materials and massively reduced waste, all of which have huge environmental benefits. However, its very durability and strength means that we have created a monster, as others have said. Having been on nurdle hunts on beaches and shores around the Forth estuary, I have witnessed the devastation that these nurdles have caused. I remember someone saying in a debate a while ago that seabirds are now picking up these plastic nurdles and feeding them to their young, which means that they are filled up but starving to death. That is an awful image.
Around the world, nearly 460 megatonnes of plastic were produced in 2019, and that number is expected to grow by 267% by 2060, which is not that far away. In parallel, plastic waste is predicted to increase from 353 megatonnes in 2019 by some 287% by 2060. The predictions are that mismanaged waste will increase and the number will grow to an alarming 533% by 2060. Meanwhile, the plastic waste emitted annually to the hydrosphere is expected to increase by 2060 from 6.1 megatonnes to 11.6 megatonnes, which is about 190%. It is nearly doubling. Eventually, 22% of the plastic entering the hydrosphere enters the ocean. That number will increase to 29% by 2060. These statistics are verified by the OECD global plastics report.
Trillions of pieces of plastic drift in our oceans. They eventually sink to the bottom of the ocean, killing life and, as has been said, creating ocean “deserts”, or they gather in vast floating patches of plastic hundreds of square kilometres in size. The largest one, the great Pacific garbage patch, is estimated to cover an area equivalent to three times the size of France. That is a very scary image. The plastic is then broken down into many millions of small pieces, which float down the water column, making it more and more difficult to remove.
The plastic has four main negative effects. First, it harms marine ecosystems irrevocably. Nearly 700 marine species are negatively affected by plastic in the oceans, including 100 listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as endangered, such as the Hawaiian monk seal, the hawksbill sea turtle and the Galapagos petrel. Moreover, the plastic brings horrifically invasive species into the ecosystem. Secondly, as it breaks down into microplastics, it is eaten by fish and potentially ends up in our food systems, with the health implications that everybody has mentioned—I do not think this is in doubt; it is actually happening now—for humans and particularly for children and babies, given how they are fed. Thirdly, the plastic has economic implications, impacting shipping through propellor entanglement and other marine activities, especially fishing, and undermining tourist areas. Fourthly and importantly, there is a growing body of research showing that by reducing oxygen in the water and thereby the amount of life that oceans can sustain, the plastic almost certainly reduces the ability of oceans to store carbon and therefore combat climate change.
I wish to take this opportunity to compliment the Ocean Cleanup organisation, which has advised me and others on the worrying waste that we are producing. The Ocean Cleanup proposes undertaking what may be considered the largest high seas clean-up in history. Its mission is to remove 90% of floating plastic in the ocean by 2040. The whole project is based on scientific research. To efficiently address the issue, we need to understand where the plastic is, what it consists of and, crucially, where it comes from.
To reiterate what others have said, 26 academic partners on five continents are seeking to understand the ocean garbage patches, and numerous scientific institutions have produced 49 scientific publications in different peer-reviewed journals. There is great interest in this. Using computational modelling, the Ocean Cleanup crew estimates in which areas the circulating currents are creating plastic hotspots. As has been said, artificial intelligence is used while further research is conducted in the field of spaceborne plastic detection in collaboration with the European Space Agency, ARGANS Ltd and other spatial sector organisations. It is reassuring that people are tackling this huge problem. Research shows that it takes up to seven years for plastic emitted into the oceans to make it to the GPGP. The plastic there can survive for decades; it degrades by about 1% per annum.
To clean the oceans and address legacy plastic, Governments need to focus on areas where there is most recoverable plastic, which is in the ocean gyres—the permanent current systems, which trap plastic debris. As I said, the largest and best known patch is the great Pacific garbage patch, and that is where efforts are being focused. A trawler-type solution has been crafted. It pulls a semi-circular, 4-metre-high net system slowly, as the hon. Member for North Devon said, through the garbage patch and into a funnel—the retention zone—which takes the plastic on to ships to be taken back to shore. I have watched videos of that; it is very impressive, and very dangerous.
To protect our oceans, stopping the leakage of future plastic pollution from rivers is the best form of prevention. We are talking about interceptor systems to prevent plastic from entering the seas. With a focus on the rivers that research has shown pump the most plastic into our oceans, there has been work with national, regional and, importantly, local governments to create a range of tailored interceptor systems—suited to rivers that are tidal or not, have deltas or do not, are slow-flowing or fast-flowing, deep or shallow, and so on. There are 12 interceptors now in place in different types of rivers in south-east Asia and the Caribbean, as the hon. Member mentioned.
The encouraging news, which gives us all some hope, is that the Ocean Cleanup organisation has signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations development programme to collaborate on eliminating plastic pollution in our oceans and rivers around the globe. The goal of that partnership is simply to reduce leakages of plastic into marine ecosystems by boosting policies and, particularly, behaviour change aimed at advancing sound plastic waste management systems and reducing overall plastic pollution, and accelerating the deployment of interception technologies in rivers to end marine plastic pollution. Let us hope that they and their partners, and all Governments, are successful in their objectives to clean up our treasured oceans and protect them for our future generations.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this hugely important debate, which is so well timed ahead of the treaty negotiations next week, and on the day that the water companies have listened to huge anger from the public and Labour MPs over sewage spills. There were 301,000 in the UK in the last year alone. English water companies have apologised and said, “More should have been done”. Many would say that that sums up the Government’s policy over the last 13 years—surely, more should have been done. However, it is heartening to see cross-party agreement this afternoon about the need to tackle plastic pollution and the damage that it does to our oceans. I thank all the Members who have spoken today.
This afternoon, I am speaking in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is attending to a family commitment in Newport. Given my campaigning on plastic in wet wipes, for example, and as a WWF ocean champion MP, I am hugely grateful to have this opportunity to talk about Labour’s commitment to preserving our planet and protecting our environment.
We have reached a critical point, and I am here today to impress on the Minister how serious the situation has become. The facts speak for themselves. According to the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, 12 million tonnes of plastic enter our oceans every year, where they become a hazard for marine wildlife and make their way up the food chain and on to our dinner plates. Plastic production is increasing. The carbon that that uses and the pollution that it causes is also increasing and damaging our oceans. Only Government action can counter the power of the plastics industry and do what our constituents want, which is to save and protect our oceans.
Margaret Ferrier
I welcome the calls for the UK to use its position on the world stage to deliver the UN global plastic treaty. It is imperative, however, that the treaty offers all workers across the plastics supply chain the opportunity to transition to sustainable jobs. Does the shadow Minister agree that the UN global plastic treaty must be inclusive and recognise the interests of indigenous people?
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree. The writing needs to be on the wall for the plastics industry. We need to say that creating more and more virgin plastic is just not acceptable, and there needs to be a transition to a future and to a green jobs revolution across the world, as we hope to have in this country.
I thank all of the ocean activists who have campaigned for our oceans, including Surfers Against Sewage, the Marine Conservation Society, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WRAP, and David Attenborough and his “Blue Planet” programme, which several Members have mentioned. I also thank the Putney Tidy Towpath group and Thames21 in my constituency, who clean up our beautiful River Thames. I thank all the equivalent groups across the country who do so much work to clean up our rivers. They want to know what is happening at a Government level so that they do not have to keep coming back and picking up the plastic week after week. They are watching this debate very closely.
So many children in schools have asked me about this issue. I have been to many classrooms where there are ocean animals swinging from the roofs and pictures on the walls. We have had so many questions from children; we know that it matters to people across the country, but especially to children.
No one doubts the importance of plastic to the modern global economy, and it has transformed human life in many positive ways. However, this is the bottom line: our production and consumption habits, coupled with the current waste management systems, are totally unsustainable, and we are heading towards an irreversible environmental catastrophe if we do not take action.
If we continue on the current trajectory, the OECD estimates that global plastic production will double by 2040. In the UK alone, it is estimated that 5 million tonnes of plastic is used every year, nearly half of which is packaging. We cannot detach plastic from climate change. Plastic is highly carbon-intensive to produce. According to a study published in the journal, Nature, last year, plastics are responsible for 4.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing about 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually. Tackling plastic production means saving the planet.
We also know that 100 million marine animals die each year from plastic waste alone, according to the Marine Conservation Society, ranging from birds to fish to other marine organisms. It is a disgraceful state of affairs and we must all do more, go further and try harder to preserve our planet and protect our environment.
With recycling rates where they are and with most plastics single use, it is no surprise that plastic is oozing its way into our water at an unprecedented rate, and 80% of marine pollution originates on land. We cannot rely on beach and river clean-ups to keep our beaches tidy. We need to take holistic and co-ordinated action to end plastic pollution.
As many Members have pointed out, plastic pollution is far-reaching. It is found everywhere—in all parts of the world—from fresh Antarctic snow to the deepest ocean trenches. The pollution that we see on our streets and our beaches is just the tip of the iceberg.
Plastic pollution harms human and animal health. Plastic has been found in human blood, mothers’ placentas, whales’ stomachs and numerous fish, sea birds and other marine animals. The World Wide Fund for Nature believes that a human could ingest about 5 grams of plastic every week, which is the equivalent of a credit card, just because of the way it moves through our food chain. We might literally be eating a credit card’s worth of plastic every week.
Plastic pollution of the ocean obviously crosses borders as well, so we need to do all we can in the UK. However, without leading successful global action, we will not save the oceans. Half measures from the Government simply will not wash.
One issue that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention is how Government action can protect our environment through banning plastic in wet wipes. In 2019, 11 billion wet wipes were used across the United Kingdom, and 90% of them contained some form of plastic. The use of wet wipes has increased enormously since then, because of covid and additional hygiene uses.
Wet wipes with plastic in do not break down; they pollute our rivers and oceans, harm wildlife and clog up our sewers. Tesco and Boots have stopped all sales of wet wipes with plastic in them. They have led the way on that and shown what can be done. A ban, however, would create a level playing field for businesses and make action go further and faster.
The Government promised to take action to ban plastic in wet wipes in 2018. They held a consultation on that and on other single-use plastics, which closed in February last year. I welcome the announcement that, from October, there will be a ban on other single-use plastics, such as plastic plates, trays, bowls, cutlery, balloon sticks, polystyrene cups and food containers, but we now need to know the date for the ban on plastic in wet wipes. It could have been included in the Environment Act 2021 or in the water strategy, with an actual date, but there is still no ban. I hope to hear more from the Minister on this issue later.
The Government should go further and faster to preserve our planet and protect our environment, as a Labour Government under my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will do. In Labour-run Wales, the Welsh Government, under First Minister Mark Drakeford, have committed to banning a range of single-use plastics. Their long-standing commitment to reduce waste and unnecessary plastic is outlined in their circular economy strategy, “Beyond Recycling”, which aims to have a zero-waste Wales by 2050.
That is important, because it is about priorities, focus and action, and I am sorry to say that priorities, focus and action have not been the order of the day with this Government in Westminster. The Conservatives have been in power for 13 long years, but have left the agencies that should tackle waste and pollution underfunded and understaffed. No wonder we have not seen the action that we need. We have seen the mess that has been caused with sewage pollution. The Environment Agency has struggled to tackle waste crime and monitor waste exports, and councils are struggling to deal with waste effectively while cutting waste collections. Government Members shamefully voted against Labour’s amendments to the Finance Act 2021 on a plastic packaging tax, which would have required the Government to pay due regard to the principles of waste hierarchy and a circular economy. The Conservatives are weak on tackling the effects and causes of all waste. Labour would take the issue seriously. Action is a no-brainer, and we have to get on with it.
I have seven questions for the Minister. First, as I am sure she is aware, in 2018, the UK launched the Commonwealth clean ocean alliance with Vanuatu, which brings together 34 Commonwealth countries in the fight to tackle plastic pollution. Can she update us on the progress that the programme has made, and what the next steps are? Secondly, will she consider bringing forward a national action plan for tackling plastic pollution to increase the focus and action on this issue?
Thirdly, will the Minister give an update on progress towards the deposit return scheme? Fourthly, she will know that plastic packaging accounts for nearly 70% of our plastic waste. When was the last time the Government sat down with manufacturers and worked on a road map for eliminating plastic packaging in food and other products, thereby driving down plastic production?
Fifthly, have there been discussions with the Secretary of State for Education regarding the role of schools in tackling plastic pollution? They have a huge role to play. Sixthly, can the Minister provide more detail on the upcoming ban on plastic in wet wipes that was announced in April, and will she meet me and my shadow Environment colleagues to discuss it? Finally, can she give an assessment of how well the Government’s environment plan is working in relation to reaching their target of eliminating all avoidable plastic waste by 2042, and whether she feels that target is ambitious enough in the light of the need to save our oceans?
Our oceans are precious. Plastic pollution is irreversible, drives biodiversity loss, and has a devastating impact on marine and human life. Without dramatically reducing plastic production and use, it will be impossible to end plastic pollution in our oceans. Banning plastic in wet wipes is widely supported by the public, MPs, retailers and producers. Last year, 250,000 people from across the UK, including more than 9,000 school students and 36 MPs, including myself, took part in the Big Plastic Count. Such actions show the public demand for action. The public are on board and so are the Opposition. We are just waiting on the Government. If they do not have the appetite for it, we will provide the plans if they step aside.
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for bringing this critical matter to the House. I am so glad that we have had this debate, especially this week. I assure her that she has an ally in the Labour party if she wants real, ambitious and comprehensive change and protection for our natural world.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Minister, you have about half an hour in which to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Thank you, Sir Christopher. You might be pleased to hear that I may not go on for half an hour, but that will give a little time for my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) to respond. I thank her for bringing this matter before the House. She is a great champion for her constituency, particularly on subjects connected with water and the coast. I do not think that anyone could ask for more on that front. She has to be praised for all the work that she has done, and particularly for bringing this subject for us to debate today.
While Members across the House have our differences, there is an awful lot of common ground. Plastic in the ocean is unacceptable, and we have to do something urgently to tackle it. To the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), we have probably all been in and out of schools. It is honestly the No. 1 subject that children want to talk about. I went into Oake, Bradford and Nynehead Primary School the other day, and it was top of the agenda. I share with the children all the things the Government are doing on the environment, on plastics and on waste and recycling. I usually leave them knowing that we are genuinely tackling a lot of these issues, which are so important not just to children but to us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon sent a letter to the Secretary of State, and I will respond. I was waiting until today, just in case any matters arose from the debate, but she will get her response very shortly. I thank her for all the work she does in North Devon. I will expand a bit on what we are doing both domestically and internationally, because they work together, as has been highlighted today.
Rebecca Pow
I will make a little progress, just to set the scene.
As Members have said, the annual plastic flow into oceans will triple between 2016 and 2040, which is a pretty shocking thing to think about. Plastic has already had a devastating effect on the environment and it is due to get worse, which is why we have to take urgent action both domestically and internationally. Although it would be wonderful to take out all the plastic in the oceans—we have heard some really good stories about how that has been done in many places, and credit to all the organisations doing that work, many of which are voluntary—the absolute key is to tackle the problem at source and to reduce the amount of plastic going on to the market, so I will talk about that in some detail. It is what the Government’s focus is all about.
Our environmental improvement plan 2023 states that we have targets for reducing all forms of marine plastic pollution where possible, and our 2018 resources and waste strategy sets out how we will do that. In our environment improvement plan, we have set a target of achieving zero avoidable plastic waste by the end of 2042. How will we do all that? There is a step-by-step process, and it will be done through a whole range of measures that focus on maximising resource efficiency; reusing, recycling and reducing the overall amount of plastic on the market; and keeping what plastic we do use—because there are no doubt some really important uses of plastic—in the circular economy for much longer. As we have heard from various colleagues, the key element of our packaging and waste regime and reforms is the extended producer responsibility scheme, which puts the onus on the manufacturer that places the packaging on the market and makes them responsible for its lifecycle and where it ends up. We also have the deposit return scheme, which has been mentioned by a number of colleagues. It is due to start in October 2025, but intensive work is being done on both schemes right now.
I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon about Scotland. We obviously welcome the involvement of the devolved Administrations, because it would all be much simpler if we had the same scheme. We are working very closely together. Scotland’s scheme has been held up, but we are working to progress ours as quickly as possible. The third element is our consistent collection, so that we collect the same products from our local authorities. That will help us to get good-quality recyclates, and it will help the whole system to work effectively. We are pressing on with that and will shortly announce the results of our consultation. I will also slip in at this point that we will also announce our consultation on the ban of wet wipes shortly. I recognise that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney, has done a lot of work on this issue, as have many people in this room and other colleagues across the House.
The Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), mentioned his party’s policies for recycling. He seemed to be slightly behind the curve; we are already introducing all of the schemes to tackle plastic packaging and plastic waste. We are well on the case, and realise how important those schemes are.
We have done a lot already. We have significantly reduced major supermarket retailers’ use of single-use carrier bags, as was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, by over 97%. That was enabled, or triggered, by the 5p charge. We have since introduced the 10p charge and extended it to all retailers. That is really making the extra difference we need on carrier bags.
Richard Foord
The Minister says that the Government have already taken account of the proposals I talked about on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Does that include the points I made about cigarette butts? Will she tell us what the Government are doing to crack down on cigarette butts in the ocean?
Rebecca Pow
Yes. I have spent a lot of time working on cigarette butts as well. They are a nasty, poisonous, polluting litter item. In fact, in terms of numbers of items littered, they are the largest. A lot of work has been done on that front. We work very closely with WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme—on options for tackling the littering of cigarette butts, which include making the industry more responsible for the cost of dealing with them. We are considering next steps now. The hon. Member may not be aware that, with the stick hanging over the industry, it has come up with £30 million to voluntarily deal with cigarette butt littering. We will watch closely to see how that proceeds.
In October 2020, we introduced measures to restrict the supply of plastic straws, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned, as well as plastic drink stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds, which we did ahead of the EU. We are building on that progress with our recently announced bans on single-use plastic plates, bowls, trays, containers, cutlery and balloon sticks from this October. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent reminded us, quite starkly, why we need to do this—those things stay in the environment for so long; she gave the figure of 400 years. We are doing absolutely the right thing in bringing in those bans. As time progresses, we will review those bans to see whether they are effective and to make sure that we have the right processes in place—I think the shadow Minister asked about that.
The form of marine litter with the greatest known impact on marine life is abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear, known as ghost gear. That has been estimated to cause a decline of between 5% and 30% in some fish stocks. The Administrations of the UK are committed to working together, and with industry, through the British Irish Council, to develop solutions for the collection and recycling of end-of-life fishing gear—the gear left lying about on the quayside—of which there is a large quantity. To fulfil that commitment, the UK is reviewing domestic measures for end-of-life fishing and aquaculture gear with the intention of moving the sector towards a circular economy model, finding ways to recycle that material. It is quite complicated, because the gear contains a lot of different materials. We will ensure that any new requirements do not create a competitive disadvantage for our fishing industry.
Regional sea conventions can also play a key role in co-ordinating action, sharing knowledge and monitoring the state of the ocean, and as a contracting party to OSPAR—the regional seas convention for the protection of the north-east Atlantic—the UK participates in monitoring programmes to assess regional trends in marine litter and develops and takes action in co-operation with our nearest neighbours. In 2021, OSPAR contracting parties agreed the north-east Atlantic environment strategy. The strategy has a number of objectives on tackling marine litter in the north-east Atlantic, including a strategic objective to prevent inputs of, and significantly reduce, marine litter, including microplastics in the marine environment. Under the strategic objective, contracting parties also agreed to publish an updated regional action plan on marine litter, which was published in 2022.
The strong programme of domestic and regional action means that the UK is well placed to be a leading voice in tackling plastic pollution on the wider international stage. The UK was proud to co-sponsor the proposal to prepare a new international, legally binding plastic pollution treaty, which was agreed in the United Nations Environment Assembly in February 2022.
Margaret Ferrier
With Malaysia’s high contribution to plastic pollution, and its status as a comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership country, does the Minister believe that our recent accession to the bloc could be a good opportunity to drive environmental change with trading partners?
Rebecca Pow
One of our key focuses is on environmental protection. We are doing a great deal of work, as I am outlining, on the international stage to work with our partners, and influence them on things that we are doing at home—demonstrating that a lot of those things can be done nationally. The aim is to reduce, reuse, recycle, and limit the amount of plastic going on to the market in the first place.
The process for negotiating the new agreement that the UK co-sponsored is under way. The first intergovernmental negotiating committee was in November last year. The UK took an ambitious stance on that, supporting a treaty that will restrain the production and consumption of plastic, address plastic design and encourage more recycling and reuse. Those are the things we think are critical.
The UK is also a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, which is a group of 50 countries that are calling for a target under the treaty to stop plastic from flowing into the environment by 2040. That very much reflects our approach at home. We reiterated that commitment at the recent G7 meeting in Japan, where all G7 nations committed to ending plastic pollution, with the ambition to reduce additional plastic pollution to zero by 2040. We are going to continue to push for ambition at future negotiation sessions, including the forthcoming one in Paris, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. My officials and I will go to that, and we are hoping for real, useful progress there. Every colleague in the Chamber has mentioned the importance of international treaties and work.
We already support a range of initiatives to remove or remediate plastic in the marine environment. We support the Fishing for Litter initiative and many other local schemes. Fishing for Litter is a voluntary, unpaid litter bycatch removal scheme for commercial fishermen, run by KIMO, a network of local authorities, which provides fishing boats with bags to dispose of marine-sourced litter collected during normal fishing operations. Fishing for Litter South West England is currently funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair’s fisheries and seafood scheme. In 2018, we also changed marine licensing measures to make it easier for divers to recover marine litter, including fishing gear. That is something they highlighted to us, and we had to make a tweak to enable them to be able to do that and safely dispose of it when they brought the litter back on to land.
Under the OSPAR Commission’s regional action plan for marine litter, the UK works with other contracting parties to implement actions. The plan includes an action to prevent, locate and handle abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear.
I also agree with the importance of monitoring plastic pollution. The UK co-funds the Marine Conservation Society’s recording of litter from sections of our coast. That helps us to monitor plastic pollution levels and trends. That data is used in combination with other monitoring data to measure the impact of our policies and inform our decisions about how to tackle marine litter. Its information was really useful in informing our work and regulation on the ban of cotton buds. We looked at the things that rocked up most frequently on beaches, which included balloon sticks and so forth.
I note the valuable work done by the Ocean Cleanup, which is an interesting initiative. I cannot say that we have a pot of money to put into that, but we are certainly grateful for the work it does and we are obviously looking very closely at what will proceed from that.
We are working closely with other countries around the world to understand how to tackle legacy plastic pollution through the treaty. As mentioned, we are working hard to prevent plastic from entering the environment in the first place by making producers responsible for their plastic.
We are also supporting a lot of other international action. In 2021, the then Prime Minister announced the new £500 million blue planet fund, which lots of colleagues are familiar with. The fund aims to protect and enhance the marine environment and reduce poverty. It includes a focus on tackling marine pollution and supporting coastal communities. That point was raised; we have to bring the communities along with us in all that.
Through the UK’s blue planet fund, we are working with the Global Plastic Action Partnership to take collaborative action on tackling pollution in developing countries, including Indonesia, Ghana and Vietnam. Through that partnership, the UK is supporting the creation of national roadmaps to address plastic pollution, which outline the action, finance and innovation needed to achieve national commitments. In Indonesia, for example, the partnership is working towards a target of reducing mismanaged waste by 70% by 2025.
The blue planet fund’s ocean country partnership programme is also supporting countries to tackle, reduce and mitigate marine pollution through the development of science-led policy and the strengthening of marine expertise. Everything must be science based. That is what they are working on.
The UK also appreciates the critical role that young people play in paving the way for change. Since 2019, we have supported the United Nations Environment Programme’s Tide Turners plastic challenge badge. That has developed a community of over 500,000 young people doing work on plastic pollution.
The UK also contributes to PROBLUE, the World Bank’s multi-donor trust, which supports the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources. A key component of that is prevention and management of marine pollution. PROBLUE projects aim to address the threats posed by such pollution, including litter, plastics and land-based sources that are contributing to what goes into our seas. Additionally, the UK co-chairs the Commonwealth clean ocean alliance alongside Vanuatu. I think the shadow Minister mentioned that. We work very closely with them on the Commonwealth blue charter’s action groups. We have delivered the Commonwealth litter programme, which is delivering scientific technical assistance across all Commonwealth countries. It is proceeding very constructively.
I have just a couple of questions left to answer. I think I have answered the question about the evaluation of the effectiveness of our bans because we have to qualitatively and quantitively analyse the difference that our policies are making. We are committed to doing that, and we are evaluating the impact of the plastic straw ban. The timing of that evaluation is dependent on our progress in introducing our other packaging reforms, but it is currently scheduled for 2026-27.
The hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) is a great advocate of the work on plastics and microplastics. He always talks about nurdles, and he did not fail to do so today. They are pre-production plastic pellets—the raw materials used in the production of plastic items—and they can be lost all over the place. It is shocking how much we find them on our beaches and in the sea. In 2019, the British-Irish Council recognised the need to address that source of microplastics, and it committed to learn from a trial supply chain approach that is taking place in Scotland. We are watching that carefully. The Administration supported the development of a publicly available specification developed by the British Standards Institution, which set out how businesses handling or managing the pellets can reduce pellet loss. It is the first initiative of its kind, and it was published in July 2021.
Hon. Members raised overseas exports of plastic waste. We plan to consult later this year on options to ban the export of plastic waste to countries that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Government have committed to that, and it is being rolled out.
I hope I have demonstrated the enormous amount of work that is being done on this front, but that is not to say that there is not an enormous amount to do. There is: this is a huge problem. We are taking action domestically through the new initiatives that we are rolling out. They are a game-changer for lots of people and local authorities, so we will have to bring people with us. I think we will do so, because there is such a positive attitude towards reducing our plastic waste.
I once again thank everyone who took part in the debate. It is good to get this issue on the agenda. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon for securing it.
Selaine Saxby
Again, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank all hon. Members, and particularly the Minister, for participating. The Minister’s extensive speech demonstrated the volume of work that the Government have undertaken and continue to undertake to clean up our vital oceans.
I particularly thank the Ocean Cleanup team—João Ribeiro-Bidaoui is in the Public Gallery. The video of the work that it is undertaking in the Pacific—I understand that the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) has seen it—is very compelling. I urge Members and anyone else who cares to do so to join us on 13 September in the Churchill Room. There will be a live transmission by the founder of the Ocean Cleanup, Boyan Slat, from the Pacific as he works on the ships cleaning up the ocean.
We have a real opportunity to do more on the global stage. Great Britain really could rule the waves on this one.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of reducing plastic pollution in the ocean.
National Numeracy Day
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered National Numeracy Day.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I declare an interest as a graduate in physics and maths. I have had a particular interest in this subject for a long time; indeed, I have three maths A-levels.
Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of National Numeracy Day—a day earmarked for the championing of everyday maths. We learn various different aspects of maths at school, but it is important to remember that the purpose of maths is to inspire everyone, at whatever age and from whatever gender or socioeconomic background, to possess the confidence and skills to competently understand numbers and be able to apply them in our day-to-day lives. We do not use trigonometry or Pythagoras’ theorem when doing the weekly food shop, but basic numeracy crops up all the time. When writing this speech, for instance, I had to estimate how long to speak for to keep my colleagues interested and not allow them to doze off for too long.
Numeracy is the ability to apply numbers in everyday life, solve problems, make informed decisions and seize the opportunities that are presented as a result. National Numeracy is an independent charity. It was initially funded by one of the big four multinational professional services networks, namely KPMG. Since launching, it has attracted a growing number of organisations that recognise the importance of improving the nation’s numeracy. Since 2012, through National Numeracy Day the charity has helped over 2.7 million people unlock new levels of potential, be that in school, work or their personal lives. One of the concerns is about the number of people who leave school without basic numeracy capabilities.
It is not until we really think about it that we realise how prominent mathematics is in our day-to-day activities. It is crucial for developing logical thinking and for reasoning strategies. I will give a few examples of where mathematics come in. Financially, it is important to have the appropriate skills to understand our payslips, calculate mortgage rates or rental payments, account for bills or any other outgoings, pay for items either through cash or card, and make sure we are not being ripped off. Practically, we use maths to negotiate journey times, plan the food shop, use cooking recipes, read the time and relate distances for travel. Recreationally, we might use the skills in music, when playing sport, to set time limits on phones or even with driving. It is prominent everywhere, and we must understand that maths is vital.
For those who significantly struggle with numeracy or who lack confidence, it is extremely difficult to get through the basic tasks we undertake daily. Research has shown that people who have low maths skills are increasingly vulnerable to debt, fraud, financial exclusion and unemployment. In 2020 it was estimated that more than two thirds of unemployed adults possessed extremely low numeracy skills. This is a consequence of not acquiring the skills in school or early life.
As a nation, we are often regarded as one of the richest and most powerful countries globally. Despite this stature, our numeracy levels are significantly below the average for developed countries, ranking just 21st in the widely-recognised Survey of Adult Skills. The consequence is a cost to the UK economy of millions of pounds—in unemployment, poor health and treatment costs—as well as a widening of the skills gap between those who are highly skilled and those who are not. To give an idea of how much it is costing, Pro Bono Economics recently commissioned data estimating that up to £25 billion is lost in earnings each year owing entirely to low numeracy skills.
Across the UK, low confidence and competence when dealing with numbers disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities, with deprivation of numeracy skills traditionally being passed on from one generation to another. It is even more important, therefore, that those people have access to easy, supportive and free recourses to help to improve such struggles, and prevent future generations from adopting those anxieties. Staggeringly, half of working-age adults in this country—more than 16 million people—have numerical skills equivalent to those of a primary-school leaver. That has led to more than half of young adults admitting that they have avoided a particular job, interview or qualification, thereby hindering their full potential, because they feared that it would involve using mathematics when they had no confidence in doing so.
There is also a distinct gender gap with regard to number confidence. Women are significantly less confident than men when self-assessing their numeracy skills—so much so that they feel twice as anxious about maths, and consequently are disproportionately affected by negative experiences with maths at school. Unless we encourage young women to take up maths and develop those skills, we will never close the gender pay gap, which we all wish to see removed.
Children are undeniably far more impressionable than adults. The very make-up of those whippersnappers’ brains allows them to absorb information faster and much more efficiently. It is therefore of the utmost importance that nurseries, schools and education centres are taking the opportunity to equip our youth with the skills necessary to possess numerical competence and confidence. Teachers and learning assistants undergo vast training to get to their positions. They are advised on the syllabus and learning techniques that are required to educate, and hopefully have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. It is clearly far better to have those experts teach our children, so that the information they learn is accurate, rather than struggling to teach themselves at a much later stage, with a risk of misunderstanding and not being corrected. If a child does not have a good teacher, they often have to rely on their parents. If the parents are averse to maths, that can cause a challenging intergenerational cycle.
If children are taught how to competently negotiate bus timetables, money and other numerical skills, interfrastically it prepares them for life. It is essential that they are taught such skills as youngsters to ensure that they do not lack the understanding once they have reached adulthood, and therefore are able to gain greater independence. When stripped of such skills, people are immediately dependent on others and have to rely on the honesty of others, subjecting them, sadly, to a high possibility of being taken advantage of. In many cases, people doing a big shop do not know whether the bill they are being charged is correct, because they are unable to add up in their heads the rough cost of what they are buying as they go. Only when they get to the till do they realise. Even then, they may not pay the right amount, so there is a real challenge to everyday life.
I am very pleased that earlier this year the Prime Minister announced his ambition that all school pupils in England will have to study some form of mathematics until the age of 18. That does not mean that they will have to study in detail the sort of things that would be studied for A-levels and at degree level, but it does mean that basic mathematics will be understood by someone leaving secondary school. Some believe that that will have inconsequential results, but it will drastically increase the UK’s productivity and give stronger emphasis to the huge importance of possessing competent numerical skills. It will also equip school-leavers with a quantitative and statistical intellect, which is needed for many of today’s jobs and those of the future. For example, we have heard today of different companies requiring artificial intelligence and reducing the number of people involved. Well, if people have high mathematical skills, that will mean they will be able to do the higher-skilled jobs required in the future.
I am encouraged that the Government have recognised the impact of the pandemic on education and responded by establishing a national tutoring programme, investing over £1 billion to bring children’s education up to speed. By 2024, over 6 million tutoring packages will have been delivered to support struggling children. That is an important provision to come out of the pandemic, because if children have not been in classrooms, it has been quite a challenge for teachers to teach them these skills, and recovering from that position is all-important.
Many people only realise when they reach adulthood the impact of their lagging numeracy. I reiterate: it is by no means too late to improve, and it should not be something to be embarrassed about, ignored or avoided at all costs—far from it. We need to normalise later learning and asking for help, because doing so will open so many doors. People who face a challenge in getting back into the employment market can acquire these skills and therefore acquire a better job with better rates of pay. More than 9 million people in the UK rate their numeracy as low and 86% say that their financial knowledge is also minimal. Surely that emphasises the need for more later learning in such matters. This is a case of getting not just schoolchildren to catch up but also adults who may have been failed in the past.
National Numeracy hosts a vast range of programmes, initiatives and campaigns to help adults to take the leap and improve their numeracy in a bite-sized and approachable way. Thousands of testimonies tell us that the programmes have boosted people’s confidence and drastically reduced the anxiety that surrounds mathematics for many people. The charity has found that the most influential way to support adults is to help them first to understand the value of numeracy in their lives, which is clearly important, and then to help them to experience quick success, which builds their belief in their ability and capability to use mathematics.
This Government, who I am proud to support, are a great champion of lifelong learning, and are investing £560 million in the Multiply programme to give thousands of adults the opportunity to gain employer-valued maths qualifications, and to improve their skills through Multiply’s easy-to-use and accessible digital platform.
As I come to the end of my speech, I thank my colleagues for attending. I look forward to hearing others’ remarks—if not from the Back Benches, from the various party spokesmen and indeed from the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb). I hope that, if nothing else, this debate can inspire a few people to make a conscious effort to improve their numeracy skills and in turn unlock an unlimited number of new opportunities.
On National Numeracy Day, we aim to break the taboo that maths is scary, not cool or impossible. Indeed, maths is the gateway to many amazing opportunities. The National Numeracy campaign, the Government, local schools and Protect Pure Maths are always available to offer help and support. The message to people out there is: be sure to get in touch; if you fear your maths skills are not up to speed, look for opportunities to improve your capability, gain confidence, gain new abilities and, if nothing else, improve your basic skills.
Finally, I thank all those at National Numeracy who made yesterday such a success and wish the charity all the best for the rest of the events it is hosting throughout May.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is my pleasure, Dame Maria, to contribute to this debate. Like the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I am a physics and a wee bit of maths graduate. A long, long time ago, I qualified as a physics and maths teacher, although I sometimes say that it is so long ago that I have forgotten half the physics I learned and Stephen Hawking proved that the other half was wrong.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we use numbers every day of our lives, very often without realising it, but a lot of people are scared of them—sometimes, too scared to even try to get over their fears. People go through their entire lives avoiding particular occasions that might show them up or make them think they look silly because their basic numeracy skills are not as good as they would like them to be. For people of my age, some of it is to do with bad experiences at school. Certainly when I went to school, teachers had a habit of humiliating any pupil who was struggling with any part of their work. Thankfully, that does not happen now.
When I go into the schools in my constituency, I am very encouraged by how supportive and patient teachers and other school staff are with pupils who, in my day, would just have been left behind. I am also amazed when I look at some of the techniques that are used now, particularly with children at a very young age, to get them speaking numbers in pretty much the same way as they learn to speak their native language without really understanding how the grammar works. The contribution that is being made by teachers at every stage of education in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is making a big difference in helping young people to learn essential skills, and there is no doubt that numeracy is one of the most essential.
Not only am I a graduate in two very numerical disciplines, but I was lucky enough to be absolutely fascinated by numbers when I was a wee boy; I could not get enough of them. That, plus the fact that I was probably one of a small minority of children at the time for whom the education system was well suited, meant that I did very well. I sailed through my maths exams at school. I used to do maths Higher papers for fun, to relax after I had spent an evening studying for my other exams.
Sometime towards the end of my first year at Glasgow University, the maths caught up with me and I clawed my way along by my fingertips for the remainder of my degree, but because I still love playing with numbers, it makes it genuinely difficult for me to get the concept that people find numbers scary. There is no doubt that an awful lot of people do. If we could get an honest assessment of 650 MPs, we would probably find that most of them, or certainly a significant number, will try to avoid doing anything with too many numbers in it, or they will get someone in their office to do the number part of a briefing or a speech they are preparing.
On National Numeracy Day, the Deputy Prime Minister did not know how many years the SNP had been in Government in the Scottish Parliament. It may simply be that he had forgotten the year we first got elected, and mistook it for the much more recent coming to power of the Conservatives, but it was an interesting—although I suppose light-hearted—way to mark such an important day.
I have heard people say that they have never tried a sudoku puzzle because they are no good at maths. A sudoku puzzle has numbers in it, but there is nothing mathematical about it. We could put in letters, shapes or wee dogs of nine different kinds, and the puzzle would be exactly the same; there is something about seeing a lot of numbers or an array of numbers that puts people off. The more we try to understand what does that to people, the quicker we can help them set aside their fears and get familiar with numbers, in the same way as when we find out what makes people scared of other languages when they get to certain age, we may be able to change the fact that the UK as a whole is shamefully bad at second, third and fourth languages. Children who are brought up bilingual become expert linguists when they are a wee bit older, so there may be something to think about there.
I mentioned sudoku puzzles, but basic skills in numeracy are not just important to be able to do puzzles—in the sudoku puzzles, they are not important at all. Numeracy is an essential skill for everyone to be able to look out for themselves. As the hon. Member for Harrow East said, it is important for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different financing offers, such as mortgages or bank loans. We had to bring in regulations about how the annual percentage rate is calculated in order to standardise it across the whole industry and make it a requirement to be brought to the attention of any customer before they sign on the dotted line, because the sales reps—the conmen and women—were presenting numbers in a very misleading way, knowing that a significant number of their victims, or customers, would not spot what they were up to.
Even a lot of people who think they are numerate do not understand what happens when different probabilities are combined. That can make someone who spends their time at the bookies or online gambling an easy target. A lot of people, for example, think that if they are being offered 10 lottery tickets per pound, it is better odds than one lottery ticket per pound, but if everybody gets 10 tickets and there is the same amount of prize money, their chances are exactly the same. People are encouraged to gamble more because the chances of success are made to look much better than they are.
We need people to be more numerate so that they can avoid being taken in when politicians use numbers to try to completely deceive them. There is a well-known saying: “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Clearly, nobody present would ever think to do this, but every single time I go into the main Chamber I will hear a politician deliberately using numbers and statistics in such a way that will cause people to believe something that is not true. Technically that is not lying, but it is still deceitful. We could do with losing it entirely from our public life, but we could also prevent it from being successful by helping people understand what different combinations of numbers and percentages mean.
I am sad to say that the first example I can find comes from the late, much-lamented Margo MacDonald, an absolute stalwart of the SNP. The first time I was old enough to vote was in 1979, and I was swithering between the SNP and the Labour party, which is what my dad, grandad and great-grandad had always gone for. In a party political broadcast a few days before the election, Margo MacDonald was tearing into the record of the Labour Government on inflation. I think she said that over a five-year period prices had gone up by 50%, meaning that the pound in the pocket was worth only 50p compared with five years previously. But that was not true. As an 18-year-old first-year student at the University of Glasgow, I knew that, and I suspect I would have known it when I was 10 or 11. It did dent my confidence in the SNP of those days that it had been able to put that into a party political broadcast and nobody had picked up on it.
More importantly, a few years ago, we had a really serious issue with the marking and awarding of results in Scotland’s exams during lockdown. Students could not have exams, so all results had to be based on the school’s predictions and assessments of how pupils were likely to have done. That is never going to be a fail-safe system. Education Scotland wanted to have a pass rate that was about the same as usual, because universities would not have bought it if everybody had passed, so it had to come up with some way of amending the figures. That meant that it was very difficult to explain why some people had passed and some had failed.
One of the things that got me was that the teachers understandably spoke up on behalf of their pupils, saying things like, “We filled in the assessments, and our prediction was that everybody in the class would pass.” But that is not what they had done. They had considered each individual pupil in the class and said, “I think the probability is that that child will pass.” However, if we add a lot of individual high probabilities, we can end up with a very low probability. For example—I checked this just before I started speaking—we could say that an individual pupil is 90% likely to pass an exam. However, if there is a class of seven pupils, each of whom is 90% likely to pass, the probability that all seven will pass is less than 50%. With a class of 30, it is almost certain that they would not all pass. There is no way of predicting which one will and which one will not—and that is assuming that the 90% estimate is anything other than a guess.
Numeracy is also about interpreting what numbers mean, rather than simply being able to play with them. It is about being able to spot when people are using numbers to put a precision and reliability on a piece of information that does not really deserve it. I do not like it when numbers are applied to something that should be assessed by way of a judgment. We can say that we think that someone will pass their exam or driving test, but putting a number to it makes it look like a hard, scientific fact, because that is what we usually use numbers for. We have to make sure that people are able to tell the difference between numbers that are used in the right context, correctly and accurately, and numbers that are misused, as they all too often are, in a way that is designed to con people.
I have a number of times had to look into investment-type scams that have caught out my constituents. In the information that is sent out to people in order to reel them in, at some point there is usually something that somebody with high numeracy skills would have spotted, so they would have known there was a catch to the guaranteed investment scheme, guaranteed pension scheme or whatever it is. The scams are deliberately worded in such a way as to prevent the vast majority of people from spotting where the catch is.
That leads me to the need for much better financial education. I heard today at the Public Accounts Committee that about 25% of young people leaving school think they are financially educated to the extent that they need to be to survive in today’s financial world. Everybody here knows this, but let me say for the record that 25% is not enough.
I am looking at the number on the clock that tells me how long I have been speaking, and at the faces of Members who are probably thinking that it has been more than long enough, so I will draw my remarks to a close. Numbers are important, but sometimes they do not tell the whole story. The number of Members here today is not a measure of how important our colleagues think adequate numeracy is. It really is an essential skill. I cannot speak for England, but in Scotland we have certainly made a lot of progress in improving numeracy skills, particularly of vulnerable young people and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That said, we have to go much further.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Maria. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for opening the debate. It is a pleasure to be speaking about National Numeracy Day, even if it is a day after it. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it National Numeracy Day plus one.
I pay tribute to all the maths teachers, tutors and numeracy charities across the country. Maths can be a trickier subject than others for some people, but the hard work of teachers, teaching assistants, tutors, parents and volunteers goes such a long way in educating our nation’s children and improving their numeracy skills.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of helpful contributions. He is clearly very qualified to do so, given his three A-levels in maths. I note that the Minister jotted that down; perhaps he will encourage the hon. Gentleman to take up a career in maths teaching one day. I thank him again for securing this debate.
As we have heard, the importance of numeracy cannot be overstated. The skills that we learn in maths classrooms last us a lifetime, and we use them every day. As the hon. Gentleman said, whether it is dividing up a bill at a restaurant, working out which supermarket deal offers the best value or figuring out how many days it is until the weekend, we all use maths every day. However, according to the National Numeracy charity—the organisation behind National Numeracy Day, as the hon. Gentleman said—nearly half the UK’s working population have the numeracy levels expected of an 11-year-old child. Only a fifth are functionally numerate, measured as the equivalent of a GCSE grade 4 or above. As a result, the UK sits in the bottom half of the OECD numeracy skills rankings.
Although people sometimes make light of the fact that they are bad at maths, it really should not be a laughing matter. Poor numeracy skills impact people’s lives in a real way. They can impact personal finances too, and leave people more susceptible to fraud and amassing debt. Skills learned in school are later needed when it comes to valuing a mortgage deal, planning credit payments, taking out loans or saving for retirement. As the hon. Gentleman said, National Numeracy estimates that poor numeracy costs the economy up to £20 billion per year, as a widespread lack of confidence with numbers contributes to sluggish productivity.
These problems clearly require urgent attention, but they are not fixed by gimmicks, pledges or empty rhetoric. In 2011, the then Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said that he would like to see the vast majority of pupils in England study maths to the age of 18 within a decade. Of course, the Prime Minister has reheated that pledge in recent months, but he is yet to explain how he expects to deliver it given that the Government have failed to meet their maths teacher recruitment target every year for the past decade, leading to a total shortfall of more than 5,000 teachers.
Despite the Prime Minister’s words, the problem is not getting any better. Last year, more teachers left our schools than joined initial teacher training courses. Under the Conservatives, teacher vacancies have risen by 246%. The Government’s failure to recruit and retain teachers has left schools scrambling to fill roles and asking non-specialist teachers to go above and beyond. Recent Labour party analysis found that one in 10 maths lessons in the past year were taught by non-expert teachers, meaning that high standards are currently for some of our children but not all. Ministers have also quietly shelved plans for the £100 million digital aspect of Multiply. It was supposed to be launched last year and was previously described by the Department as a “critical pillar” in the plan to boost maths skills, and as the “centrepiece” of the Prime Minister’s push to improve adult numeracy, but according to recent reports, it has been put on hold. It remains unclear whether the £100 million earmarked for the scheme will be used for other numeracy initiatives or whether the money will go back to the Treasury.
The Government’s levelling-up White Paper set
“a new national mission to ensure that 90% of children leaving primary school in England are reaching the expected standard in reading, writing, and maths by 2030.”
But in 2022, 41% of year 6 pupils in England left primary school without meeting the expected standard. That is 50,000 more children than 2019. We are moving backwards. The figures are even worse for children on free school meals, fewer than half of whom are meeting expected standards by the end of primary school. The same is true of secondary school, where the attainment gap is now wider than at any point in the last decade.
The Government will claim that those gaps are due to the pandemic, but the gap was widening before covid and has worsened since. Last week, the Education Policy Institute reported that primary school children are still struggling to catch up on maths in the wake of covid, with children aged four to 11
“five weeks behind their expectations prior to the outbreak more than three years ago.”
We should not forget that during the pandemic, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), said that he had “maxed out” funding for children. The hugely damaging impact of the Prime Minister’s inaction on children’s learning of maths—his alleged priority—is only beginning to become clear.
In the debate, all Members have said that improving numeracy for children and adults is extremely important. The first step to addressing the problem is ensuring that children are taught the subject properly. That means being taught by experts, not overstretched teachers covering for their colleagues. That is why Labour is committed to ensuring that pupils are taught by specialist teachers in each subject, including maths. We will do this by recruiting thousands of new teachers across the country, ensuring that schools are not understaffed, that maths is not being taught by English teachers and vice versa, and that teachers are not burnt out from both doing their own job and covering someone else’s. Once in schools, we will also support teachers by entitling them to ongoing teacher training, providing them with the skills and knowledge to thrive—the skills that teachers tell us they need to develop their professional expertise in their chosen area—and ensure that every young person has a teacher with the expertise and time to teach with confidence and care.
Labour will also look at the curriculum and what young people are learning as a whole to ensure we are equipping them with the knowledge and skills they need to thrive in the world and in the workplace of the future. Under Labour, young people will learn practical life skills such as pension planning, understanding credit scores, applying for a mortgage and understanding employment and rental contracts. We want to see young people succeed academically and in life. Central to that is developing literacy and numeracy skills. We will support them to be ambitious, creative and confident young people, who enjoy music, arts, sports and culture. We will also support them to be great communicators, collaborators and problem solvers and to be happy and successful.
Labour will deliver an excellent education for every child in every school in every part of the country. In doing so, we will drive up standards in all areas, including numeracy, and support all children to fulfil their ambitions. As we have heard, the importance of numeracy to children’s future life chances is simply too crucial to not be addressed with immediacy. I therefore hope the Minister will outline what his Department is doing to recruit its target number of maths teachers for the first time in a decade and to retain the brilliant maths teachers already in the profession, ensuring that our children are taught by subject specialists.
Can the Minister update the House on his Department’s plans for the digital platform Multiply, which was set to be launched last year? It was previously described by the Department as a crucial pillar in the plan to boost numeracy skills, but according to recent reports has been put on hold. In his response, it would be helpful if he could specifically update us on whether the £100 million earmarked for the platform will be used for other numeracy-focused projects. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I thank all colleagues for their contributions to this important debate.
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his opening speech, celebrating National Numeracy Day, which, as everyone has pointed out, was actually yesterday. I guess someone miscalculated. My hon. Friend was worried about the length of his speech; it was absolutely the right length, and kept us all interested. None of us who were listening nodded off.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for his excellent speech, which revealed his clear understanding of maths in general, and statistics in particular. There was a 50% probability that I was not going to like his speech, but it turned out I 100% liked it. I congratulate him on his contribution.
Maths is crucial. We use it every day, whether at work, managing households, or understanding loans and credit. Without a solid foundation in the subject, young people risk being shut out of the careers to which they aspire, and the life they want to lead. Adults with poor numeracy are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as those with competent numeracy at age 30. That is why the Prime Minister announced last month new details of how we will transform our national approach to maths. We will change the way the system works so that everyone will study some form of maths up to 18.
Quality maths education must be built on foundations laid throughout schooling, starting in primary school. The subject is an important part of a knowledge-rich curriculum, giving pupils fluency in key concepts so that they can explore more complex mathematics in secondary school and beyond. That is why we have undertaken fundamental reforms to strengthen maths teaching over the last decade.
Since 2010, the Government have made great strides in improving maths performance across all ages. The way the subject is taught has been transformed in schools, based on the best available international evidence. That includes learning from the approach used by the countries that perform the highest in maths. We reformed the national curriculum teaching methods and the use of textbooks in order to raise standards. More than half of England’s primary schools have now adopted the mastery-based pedagogy from south-east Asia. Teaching for mastery has been supported by 40 beacon schools that demonstrate exemplary teaching, known as maths hubs, as well as by the National Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics.
Mastery pedagogy encourages fluent recall of number facts, and promotes efficient written methods, as well as a whole-class teaching approach with the objective that no pupil is left behind. In mastery teaching, as in top-performing jurisdictions such as Singapore and Shanghai, significant time is spent developing a deep understanding before moving on to the next part of the curriculum sequence—teaching the components of calculation, step by step. That approach to teaching has shown that wide attainment in the subject is possible. In the 2019 trends in international mathematics and science study survey, year 5 pupils in England achieved their highest ever mathematics score of 556, which improved significantly on 546 in 2015.
To complement evidence-based approaches to maths teaching, the Government introduced more challenging assessments at both primary and secondary levels. That included the multiplication tables check in year 4, which was made statutory in 2021. For pupils who took the check, the mean average score was 19.8 correct answers out of 25, with 27% of pupils achieving full marks. The Government also introduced new key stage 2 maths tests, and reformed GCSEs and A-levels. Those assessments ensure that children master the basics of mathematics before tackling more demanding content, and match the standards set in the highest performing countries and jurisdictions around the world.
The improvement in maths attainment was seen in England’s 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment results, which were our highest ever for 15-year-olds. PISA assesses the performance of 15-year-olds in reading, maths and science in approximately 80 countries. In terms of international league tables for maths, the UK was 28th in PISA 2009 and moved up to 18th place in PISA 2018.
Last month, the Secretary of State announced plans to expand the maths hubs programme so that more children can benefit from those proven teaching methods. By 2025, the proportion of schools supported by teaching for mastery will expand to 75% of primary schools and 65% of secondary schools. Maths hubs’ intensive support will aim to reach the schools that need it most, and they will also deliver an expansion of the mastering number programme, which helps children in the first years of primary school to master the basics of arithmetic, such as number bonds and times tables. The programme will reach over 8,000 schools by 2024, and we will also expand it to years 4 and 5 in order to bolster those cohorts’ fluency in times tables.
Last month’s announcement also included further support for teachers of 16 to 19-year-olds who are resitting their mathematics GCSE or functional skills qualification. We know that teaching for mastery also works for this age group, because an evaluation showed that GCSE resit students taught by teachers in the full mastery intervention made one month of additional progress in maths compared with other students. Tellingly, students from disadvantaged backgrounds made even greater progress, averaging two months’ additional progress compared with other students. Since 2014, 16 to 19-year-olds without maths GCSE grade 4 or above have been required to continue studying maths, and more students than ever are now achieving that important benchmark. In 2021-22, 80.3% of 19-year-olds achieved grade 4 or equivalent in maths—the highest level on record.
Enhancing pupils’ mathematics requires us to fully support those capable of the highest attainment in the subject, and since 2018 we have funded the advanced mathematics support programme to increase participation in core mathematics, AS and A-level mathematics, and further maths. My hon. Friend has A-levels in maths and further maths: I am trying to work out what the third one is, but perhaps he can tell me.
Nick Gibb
Of course.
The advanced mathematics support programme also supports improved teaching of level 3 maths qualifications. Additional targeted support is offered in areas of low social mobility and low participation in level 3 maths, to increase opportunities for all students to study the subject beyond the age of 16. Since the programme began, it has reached 86% of state-funded schools and colleges in England, with over 3,000 participating in at least one form of its maths support.
Our reforms and interventions have shown that no pupil’s maths destiny is fixed, as targeted support and proven teaching methods can dramatically improve attainment. To build on our progress, we have announced a fully funded national professional qualification for primary school maths leaders, to improve pupil outcomes still further. That will include instruction in how to train other teachers in maths mastery pedagogy, and we expect it to be available to all primary schools from February next year. We will update the targeted support fund for the 2023-24 year to provide additional funding and incentivise uptake by teachers.
A good understanding of maths has significant benefits for young people’s economic prospects, as has been discussed in this short debate, and a mathematically literate population is essential for a strong economy, as I know my hon. Friend will agree. We are one of the few countries in the OECD where young people do not routinely study some form of maths until the age of 18. The Prime Minister recently confirmed his ambition for all young people to study maths until the age of 18, which will equip them with the knowledge they need to succeed, whatever their chosen career. Indeed, he announced the policy at the London Screen Academy, which is where young people over the age of 16 are taught to make movies. If we get this right, it will deliver a transformative change for our economy and society.
The maths to 18 expert advisory group has now been established to guide the next stages of our thinking. It will consider both the maths needed by the changing employment market and the most effective way that this can be taught. To support those aims, the Government will commission research on post-16 maths provision around the world, so that our curriculum can rival those of the best-performing countries. Additionally, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education will work with employers to review the maths content in apprenticeships. I look forward to hearing the group’s conclusions on how we can enhance young people’s maths knowledge before they start work and make Britain more globally competitive.
Teachers already work tirelessly to deliver high-quality maths education. Rolling out maths to a substantially larger post-16 cohort will require a greater workforce, trained and equipped to teach young people the maths skills that they need, and we will work closely with schools and colleges to do that sustainably. We are already expanding the Taking Teaching Further programme, delivering funding for further education colleges to recruit and offer early career support to those with relevant knowledge and industry experience to retrain as FE teachers, and we will launch a financial incentive pilot this year for up to 355 teachers that will be targeted at some of the hardest to fill subjects, including maths.
We know it is not enough to bolster the abilities of the up-and-coming workforce: as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, some 8 million adults in England have maths skills below those expected of a nine-year-old. We announced the Multiply adult numeracy programme in 2021, which is the first priority of the UK shared prosperity fund, the Government’s flagship fund for supporting people and places. That programme teaches adults maths that they can use in everyday life, and can support them to attain a formal qualification, such as functional skills or the GCSE. Some 81 local areas in England are receiving up to £270 million in funding up to 2024-25, and that programme has already reached over 10,000 people.
Following National Numeracy Day, I would like to restate the Government’s commitment to maths as an essential pillar of children’s education. It enables them to build logical thinking and intellect, while equipping them with practical competency for work and life. The Prime Minister wants to change how we value maths as a country while making a positive difference to people’s lives, their career prospects and the economy, and we hope to build on the advances in school-age teaching in the past decade to ensure that every young person leaves education with the maths they need to succeed in modern life.
Bob Blackman
Thank you, Dame Maria, for presiding over the debate, and I thank colleagues for their contributions. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) posed a number of questions and highlighted a number of examples of the bad use of maths that, I suspect, would have had many of our colleagues scratching their heads, not quite understanding what he was alluding to. That probably demonstrates why so few of our colleagues have come to speak in today’s debate.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) reminded me of Douglas Adams, one of my favourite authors who is sadly deceased. Apart from writing “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, he also wrote “The Meaning of Liff”, and one of the great words I always remember from that book is “bodmin”—when a group of friends go out, the bill is presented and everyone puts in what they consider to be their share, there is always a balance left. That is a “bodmin”—the balance that someone has failed to calculate. I thank the hon. Member for his offer of taking up a mathematics tutorship, but I am looking forward to continuing to represent the good citizens of Harrow East for many years to come.
My right hon. Friend the Minister, of course, has relayed exactly what the Government are laying out on numeracy. One of the important points that the Government are taking action on is rolling out a clear programme for young people in schools and beyond, enabling them to acquire those skills. We need to combat the gender gap in maths as well, because at the moment, from bitter experience, young women tend to move away from mathematics in an unfair way. Those who do go into mathematics are highly skilled and brilliant and succeed in life, but we need to get this idea that mathematics is not cool—it is not for them—out of the system in many respects. Equally, I was glad that the Minister relayed some of the actions that the Government are taking to combat the lack of numeracy in older people. That is holding our country back, and we need to ensure that those people who possibly have a great fear of maths and do not want to share that fact get the skills they need, so that they can contribute to our society in a far better way.
Dame Maria, I thank you and others for the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have it, and note the fact that we have managed to continue the debate long after the main Chamber has adjourned. That just proves how important mathematics is, not only in today’s society but in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered National Numeracy Day.
Written Statements
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II: Funeral and Related Events
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The death of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022 and the period of national mourning that followed was a moment of huge national significance. Body Estimated costs incurred Department for Culture, Media and Sport £57.420 million Department for Transport £2.565 million Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office £2.096 million Home Office £73.68 million Ministry of Defence £2.890 million Northern Ireland Office £2.134 million Scottish Government £18.756 million Welsh Government £2.202 million Total £161.743 million
During this period, many hundreds of thousands of people came in person to pay their respects, at the Lying at Rest in Edinburgh, the Lying in State in Westminster, as well as in London and Windsor for the state funeral on 19 September. Many more people also came out to support His Majesty The King and other members of the Royal Family as they travelled around the UK during this time.
The Government’s priorities were that these events ran smoothly and with the appropriate level of dignity, while at all times ensuring the safety and security of the public.
As Departments finalise their accounts ahead of publication in the coming months, the Government are now able to publish an estimate of the costs associated with delivery of these events by the main Government Departments and devolved Administrations involved, as follows.
All figures are the marginal costs, meaning money spent specifically on the events, as opposed to costs that would have been incurred in any case. Where necessary, additional funding was provided by the Treasury to meet these costs. This included fully refunding the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Office for their respective costs, which in turn they were able to repay to partners who also incurred costs.
[HCWS784]
Double Taxation Convention: San Marino
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
A double taxation convention with San Marino was signed in London on 17 May. The text of the convention is available on HM Revenue and Customs’ pages of the gov.uk website and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The text of the convention will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS782]
Announcing the Public Body Review of the British Tourist Authority
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
Today we are announcing that the second stage of the public bodies review into the British Tourist Authority is under way.
The public bodies review programme delivers against the commitments made in the declaration on Government reform to increase both the effectiveness of public bodies and departmental sponsorship, making Government work better in service of the public. Public body reviews will be underpinned by broad minimum requirements covering efficiency, efficacy, accountability and governance. The review will follow guidance published in April 2022 by the Cabinet Office: “Guidance on the undertaking of Reviews of Public Bodies”.
The British Tourist Authority trades as both VisitEngland and VisitBritain, both of which are classed as executive non-departmental public bodies of DCMS. The British Tourist Authority was set up by the Development of Tourism Act 1969, with its main aim to support the development of Great Britain’s tourism industry.
The Department agreed to commence a full-scale review into the British Tourist Authority. Emir Feisal has been appointed as the independent lead reviewer to lead the review. He will work with a review team composed of officials from the Department. The review team has drafted the terms of reference for the review in consultation with the lead reviewer, the Department and the British Tourist Authority. These set the scope of the review and, among other things, will cover how the British Tourist Authority is supporting places across every part of the UK to develop and market a high-quality tourist offering, boosting jobs, and helping to level up the economy. In conducting the review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders in the tourism sector across the UK.
As set out by the Cabinet Office guidance, the review will report to the Government, and the Government will publish the conclusions of the review alongside any departmental response in due course.
[HCWS780]
Children Missing Education
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
The Government are committed to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable in our society, are safe and have access to an excellent education.
The Department for Education has today launched a call for evidence on “Improving Support for Children Missing Education” in England, which is open until 20 July 2023. This builds on other policies to improve the lives of children, including the children’s social care implementation strategy and consultation “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, and plans to reform special educational needs provision via the “Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan”.
Children missing education (CME) are children of compulsory school age who are not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at school. CME are at significant risk of under- achieving and becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—later in life. More immediately, they are also at significant risk of becoming victims of harm, exploitation or radicalisation.
CME make up a very small minority of school-aged children and some will be missing education for a short period—for example, while they move between schools during the academic year. Children who miss longer periods of education present greater concerns, and it is especially important that these children can be effectively identified and supported.
The legislative framework places responsibilities for CME on parents, schools and local authorities. In 2016 the Department issued statutory “Children Missing Education” guidance that sets key principles to enable local authorities in England to carry out their legal duty to make arrangements for identifying, as far as it is possible to do so, CME. This guidance is available on gov.uk.
The “Improving Support for Children Missing Education” call for evidence seeks to strengthen the understanding of CME and the challenges that those responsible for addressing CME face. This call for evidence seeks comments, evidence and insight regarding:
How local authorities, schools and other agencies identify and support CME;
The challenges that the sector faces in identifying and supporting CME, and how these could be addressed; and
How best practice in identifying and supporting CME can be promoted.
Since autumn 2022, the Department has also been gathering aggregate, termly data on CME from local authorities in England on a voluntary basis. This data is helping the Government to improve our understanding of the CME cohort and the support that local authorities may need. Headline figures from the autumn 2022 and spring 2023 collection will be published today on gov.uk. These are experimental statistics and the quality of the data returns should improve over time.
[HCWS781]
Independent Reviewer of National Security Arrangements: 2022 Report
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton- Harris)
The role of the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland is to monitor compliance with annex E of the St Andrews agreement 2006, reviewing the relationship between MI5 and PSNI in handling national security matters.
Professor Marie Breen Smyth, the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland, has sent me her report for 2022. What follows is a summary of the main findings of the report covering the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022. Professor Breen Smyth states:
“My contact with MI5 and the PSNI was largely conducted in person. I was given a clear insight of both the current direction, the prevailing budgetary conditions and the interaction between both organisations. The policy of wider collaboration and further community initiatives has continued.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the restrictions introduced by the UK government, the level of activity amongst terrorist and paramilitary groups abated somewhat. With the ending of restrictions and a return to previous levels of mobility and freedom of movement, that suppressive effect has ended and these groups have returned to their previous levels of operational activity.
Although the threat assessment for Northern Ireland was lowered in 2022 from Severe to Substantial, in their Fifth Report the Independent Reporting Commission pointed out that paramilitarism remains a clear and present danger. The threat from Dissident Republican (DR) groups remains a concern for law enforcement.
The two main loyalist groups, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) continue to operate, and sections of both groups, largely in the Belfast area, are involved in intimidation, criminality and violence.
The PSNI reported that work continued on broader communication and improving protocols between PSNI and MI5 in order to increase cooperation in releasing information whilst maintaining security protocols. Dialogue between the Human Rights Advisor to the Policing Board and MI5 has established a relationship of mutual understanding. Regular meetings and exchanges at a high level between PSNI and MI5 are noticeable and commendable.”
“My conclusions in relation to Annex E of the St Andrews agreement are as follows.”
To reinforce this comprehensive set of safeguards, the UK Government confirm that they accept and will ensure that effect is given to the five key principles, which the chief constable has identified as crucial to the effective operation of the arrangement:
a: All Security Service intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland will be visible to the PSNI
I am informed that the PSNI continues to have sight of all security service intelligence relating to NIRT. There is compliance.
b: PSNI will be informed of all Security Service counter terrorist activities relating to Northern Ireland
There are a number of processes in place to ensure that the PSNI is fully informed. There is compliance.
c: Security Service intelligence will be disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using police procedures
This continues to be organisational practice. There is compliance.
d: The great majority of national security CHIS in Northern Ireland will continue to be run by PSNI officers under existing handling protocols
The PSNI and security service continue to work jointly on cases and arrangements for this continue to be jointly negotiated and agreed. There is compliance.
e: There will be no diminution of the PSNI’s responsibility to comply with the Human Rights Act or the Policing
PSNI continues to operate within the National Security arena in strict compliance with ECHR. There is compliance.
[HCWS783]
House of Lords
War Widows’ and Widowers’ Pensions
Baroness Crawley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in resolving the issues faced by those who surrendered their War Widow(er)’s Pensions because of remarriage or cohabitation.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving Army reservist. I am pleased to confirm that the war widows’ ex gratia payments scheme was announced yesterday for this group. The scheme will make one-off payments of £87,500 to members of this group, in recognition of their sacrifice. It addresses the inequitable situation for a cohort who, under the Armed Forces covenant, deserve special consideration. I take this opportunity to thank those who have tirelessly campaigned on the issue for many years for bringing this into sharp focus for us.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord very much for his Answer and his very welcome news for so many war widows, after so many years. He will know that the War Widows’ Association, senior members of which are below the Bar today, have given the Government’s announcement a welcome—a cautious welcome. They have asked that his department work with them into the future on matters of tax, terms and conditions, and the 13-page form that each of these quite elderly war widows will have to fill out. Can he also confirm the timeline for the new scheme as starting within this calendar year, as time is not on these ladies’ side?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all her work on this issue, as well as that of my noble friend Lady Fookes. The Ministry of Defence consulted the War Widows’ Association on this proposal, and I pay tribute to the association and its members for their candidness in discussions with Ministers and officials on this. I can confirm that the scheme will go live in winter 2023—this calendar year—and that we will absolutely work with the association, and with Veterans UK, to signpost to all those eligible how to apply for the scheme.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the War Widows’ Association.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
While the ex gratia payment falls short of the full restitution of a war widow’s pension, which they would ideally like, it would be churlish indeed not to welcome most warmly this long-overdue and most welcome payment. Will my noble friend take into account the great age of many of these ladies and their frail condition? The government machine needs to get more of a move on than it usually does in these matters. Will my noble friend take as his motto a cry often heard in the streets: “When do we want it? We want it now”?
Lord Harlech (Con)
I greatly appreciate the comments from my noble friend. She is absolutely right; this issue has taken a long time to consider. I accept that it has taken too long but, in light of this week’s announcement, the important thing is that everybody works together to make sure that those who have missed out and those who are entitled to the scheme get it as soon as possible.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I strongly welcome this long- awaited decision—and bully for the military covenant, which has been shown at last to have some teeth. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that widows in this class are those whose spouse died as a direct result of their service before 6 April 2005, and not just those whose spouse died on an operation for which a campaign medal was awarded?
Lord Harlech (Con)
I can confirm to the noble and gallant Lord that this scheme applies to all those who surrendered their war widow’s pension before the change was made to eligibility pre April 2015. Those eligible will be those whose spouse suffered death or injury on operational deployment or in a training exercise. If it was in service, they will be eligible.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I too declare an interest as a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association. I was an RAF wife for 30 years and 24 moves. Like most wives of my generation, I was quite unable to have a career and contribute to my own pension pot. I was totally reliant on my husband’s contributions, so how cruel it was to cancel those contributions if widows, many of them very young, had the temerity to remarry. We are very grateful to the Treasury for this move, but can the Minister say how simple it will be and what advice and guidance will be offered to this dwindling band of ageing widows to enable them to access this money for the future?
Lord Harlech (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her campaigning on this issue. I agree that, looking at this issue through the prism of today, how it was administered seems a cruel decision. However, that was not a choice specific to this cohort of people; it was across all public service pensions. Through the Armed Forces covenant, the tireless campaigning of the association and Ministers such as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, we have sought to grip this issue and have taken the action that we have this week.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, these Benches also have a very long association with the War Widows’ Association. My kinsman the late Baroness Strange was the president of the War Widows’ Association for 15 years from 1990. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, raised a very interesting point about tax. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government are going to take away with one hand what they have given with the other. Will these ex gratia payments be tax free?
Lord Harlech (Con)
The noble Earl is right to raise this. This payment has been the subject of extensive negotiations with the Treasury. Tax considerations have been taken into account when arriving at the sum, so this payment will not be tax free.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I join with others in very much welcoming the Government’s decision, which was announced yesterday and which the Minister has confirmed today. I also join with others in congratulating my noble friend Lady Crawley, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the War Widows’ Association on the work they have done. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in saying that the speed of implementation is really important. Can the Minister push the department and other parts of government to implement this as soon as possible? The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, frightened me, so I am sure she would have frightened the Minister to get on with it as well.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I totally agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. I can only reconfirm what I have said: it is essential that those who believe they are eligible to apply for the scheme make contact as soon as possible with Veterans UK, which can guide them step by step through the process to ensure the minimal delay. The money is there now, and we want to get it out to the people who deserve it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank and congratulate my noble friend the Minister. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Would it not be a good idea if the Minister and his colleagues had a word with some other Ministers about another smaller but very deserving group of people: those who suffered from the Post Office scandal?
Lord Harlech (Con)
May I start by wishing my noble friend a happy birthday? I shall certainly take his comments back. He raises an important point about the Post Office situation and I shall take it back to my colleagues in another department.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
What is the Government’s estimate of the total number of beneficiaries of this welcome change? What will happen to those who, alas, are deceased before this comes into operation?
Lord Harlech (Con)
The noble Lord makes two important points. First, we estimate that around 380 people will be eligible for this scheme. Secondly, for those who do not apply and would be eligible but subsequently pass away, their descendants would not be entitled to it. However, if a potential beneficiary made an application and then sadly passed away during the process, the money would be paid out to their estate.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Government have worked out that 380 people might be eligible. The Minister suggested that those people should contact the War Widows’ Association or Veterans UK for information. Could the Government not do the decent thing and write to all those they believe to be eligible?
Lord Harlech (Con)
I think the point of Veterans UK is to provide advice and help to all those affected, both the bereaved and veterans. But I take the noble Baroness’s point that a two-pronged approach may be the most sensible in this situation.
Health: Economic Inactivity
Lord Londesborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which poor health is contributing to a rise in economic inactivity.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, long-term sickness is now the most common reason for economic inactivity among the working-age population. The number reporting being long-term sick or disabled as their main reason for economic inactivity has grown by 550,000 over the last four years to a total of 2.6 million people. We therefore announced a wide-reaching package in the Spring Budget to support disabled people and people with health conditions to work, building on our existing package of support.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response, but our nation’s deteriorating health requires urgent, in-depth analysis. The increase of 500,000 people on long-term sick leave is estimated to hit our economic output and productivity by between £30 billion and £50 billion per annum. Add that to our annual benefits for inactive working age people, which has grown by £35 billion in the last three years. It is a vicious circle: less economic activity, less tax revenue, less funds for healthcare and soaring benefits bills. When will we see insightful data on what lies behind the record 2.6 million who are long-term sick linked to NHS performance, particularly preventative healthcare?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister tasked my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to look at workforce participation working across government. The Government are focused on supporting those groups where inactivity levels are higher and so employment support is most needed, including the long-term sick, the disabled, welfare recipients, people aged over 50 and parents. To tackle rising economic inactivity due to long-term sickness, a wide-ranging package was announced in the Spring Budget to support disabled people and those with health conditions to work. New investment broadens access to additional work coach support for disabled people and those with health conditions, introduces a new supported employment programme and focuses on providing faster access to joined up work and health support.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s incentives for occupational health in SMEs and the health and disability White Paper. Are the Government considering embedding occupational therapists within GP practices for those who are self-employed?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The health and disability White Paper published in March sets out plans to transform the future system to support more disabled people to start, stay and succeed in work. We will reform the benefits system so that it focuses on what people can do. But, on the noble Baroness’s specific points, to my knowledge, GP practices are innovating and introducing such measures—but this needs to be expanded further.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have spent 13 years taking away money from the most deprived communities in Britain. Does the Minister accept the link between poor health and the money that has been reduced in those communities?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, it is great to see the noble Lord in his place. When I saw him sat there, I had déjà vu from his green Bench in the House of Commons—he is in exactly the same place to ask those Exocet questions. On his specific question, health can be linked to welfare payments, but it is also linked to unemployment because being in good-quality work benefits people’s health and well-being and that of all communities.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, when chronic fatigue, whether triggered by Covid or some other virus, contributes so substantially to the numbers of economically inactive people, can the Minister explain what progress has been made to find a treatment for these very severely handicapped patients? What are the Government doing to make sure that a treatment is urgently found?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a difficult question that I cannot answer in full. But the Government are supporting disabled people and have done for over a decade now. It is important that people who can work should do so, including disabled people. But I cannot give a fulsome response to the noble Baroness’s question, so I will write to her.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the data shows that there has been a significant and worrying increase in the number of people leaving work because of long-term illness and disability, and it is in everyone’s interest that everything possible is done to keep people in work as their conditions develop. In that respect, and following the previous question on occupational health, what are the Government doing to ensure that sufficient occupational health professionals are available to support all of the businesses that need them? Will this profession be part of the long-awaited workforce development plan that we are looking for from the Government?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to talk about data and how we can learn from it. It is currently difficult to quantity the direct effects of this, but it is indeed a factor. Data on employment rates suggests that those awaiting treatment were often already inactive before Covid, and it is therefore possible that longer waiting lists may be exacerbating this. But the noble Lord raised a good point, and I agree with him: that is what the Government will be doing, because it is important to take each patient on a case-by-case basis, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, ONS data shows that, for every 13 people working, one is suffering long-term sickness—a record number of people not in work due to ill health. So could the Minister commit to expanding and tailoring specialist help for those who cannot re-enter the workplace due to long-term ill health? What preventative provision will be made to tackle the increase in mental health issues in young people and the increased incidence of back and neck pain, which are major contributors to the unprecedented numbers of people who are unable to work?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
New investment in the Spring Budget broadens access to additional work-coach support for disabled people and those with health conditions, it introduces a new supported employment programme and it focuses on providing faster access to joined-up work and health support, including for mental health and musculoskeletal conditions—the two leading causes of economic inactivity due to long-term sickness. But the noble Baroness raises an important point: the Covid period exacerbated all of this, and the system is under pressure. As I said in my earlier answer, the best way to do it is to take each patient on a case-by-case basis to ensure that there is help and support into work. Jobcentre Plus is doing an amazing job on that, working with the health service.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, we know that food insecurity is associated with poor health outcomes. Professor Greta Defeyter found that, for every £1 invested in the holiday activity and food programme, there is a wider economic benefit of £11. Can the Minister confirm whether funding is available to extend that programme beyond next year?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I apologise to the right reverend Prelate, but I am afraid I do not have that information to hand, so I will write to her with an answer.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the nature of the conditions that are keeping people off work has changed substantially: the biggest cause used to be back pain, and now it is mental health problems. This has happened largely since the lockdowns, and it is not surprising: if you tell people that a terrible virus is out there, there will be more anxiety and depression. Will my noble friend the Minister consider the long-term impact on health and mental health before we take a decision of that kind again?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point, and he is exactly right: mental health and musculoskeletal conditions are the main issue for long-term sickness. The Covid pandemic meant that a lot of us worked from home in a sedentary position—we were not built for that; we were built for activity. Work always pays, but it also helps with mental health in the long term, so the key is to get as many long-term sick people back into work.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is now well known that diet is the primary cause of not only early death but early ill health across the world. Some 60% of this country eats ultra-processed food as its main source of diet. It is not a coincidence that, in the last 30 years, we have seen ill health and a rise in mental health problems. This is new research, but it is powerfully backed by many scientists. Will the Minister consider meeting me and the relevant people to try to understand that, if we fed people well from the moment of pregnancy right through, a lot of this might be averted?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point, and I am aware of those surveys. I am always happy to meet her.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when I was on the cardiac ward of St Thomas’ some years ago, almost all of the other men were there because of complications of diabetes. The scale of the diabetes and obesity crises—they are linked—is one of the major problems of poor health in our workforce. Unless we have a more coherent food strategy—the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, suggested this—encouraging people to eat more wisely and perhaps increasing the regulation of food, we will not solve some of these problems of poor health in our workforce. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am pleased to see that the noble Lord made a fulsome recovery. He is exactly right: obesity is a global issue in the western world, and it leads to health complications that put huge pressures on our NHS.
Air Quality Strategy Consultation
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the compliance of their revised national air quality strategy consultation with best practice, as laid out in the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government published the Air Quality Strategy: Framework for Local Authority Delivery by the legal deadline of 1 May. Although we recognise that the consultation period for the draft strategy was shortened, almost 450 responses were received, including 97 from local government. We took into account these responses in the publication of our final strategy, and the document will drive the local action on air quality that we all want to see.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, local authorities are central to efforts to improve the country’s air quality, but the nature of this consultation exercise suggests that the Government think otherwise. Regardless of any prior engagement, does the Minister really believe that a period of just 10 days—starting immediately before Easter, during the school holidays and in the run-up to the local elections—was sufficient to allow councils to formulate their response and get it signed off internally? Will the department do the right thing and reopen this consultation to ensure that no one misses their opportunity to respond—or are the Government once again dodging any scrutiny?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness knows how I hate to see her disgruntled, so I will see whether I can make her gruntled. The consultation was open for 10 days, the department received 434 responses in total and 97 local authorities responded—but that was not the totality of it. We have engaged with stakeholders, including local government, since December 2021; we have run a series of nine workshops to gain views and input from a range of stakeholders; and more than 30 meetings were held with internal and external stakeholders, as well as over 200 stakeholders from community groups, NGOs, academia and local authorities. This Government consult like no Government have before; sometimes, I wonder whether we consult too much, but in this case I think we have got this absolutely right and created a strategy that reflects what people want.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in relation to consultation and the London mayor, does my noble friend agree that the main cause of increased traffic congestion and the knock-on effect on air quality is the lack of synchronisation of traffic lights, which is driving not just London cab drivers but all London motorists to distraction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises a point that cab drivers raise with me frequently. It is a serious point. As she knows, air quality is devolved to the mayor, who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of his policies. Undoubtedly, with ULEZ and other policies, this is causing tensions, but it is for him to answer. Our point is to help local government in all its forms to deliver. We are putting in money to assist local authorities in tackling air quality right across the country. London is the biggest challenge. That is why we work with the mayor when we can to make sure that we are achieving that in the capital.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, Cabinet Office consultation principles state:
“Consultations should last for a proportionate amount of time”
and should be judged
“on the basis of legal advice and taking into account the nature and impact of the proposal”.
Air pollution is estimated to be responsible for more than 64,000 deaths in the UK, costing in the region of £20 billion, as estimated by the Royal College of Physicians report, Every Breath We Take. Does the Minister really believe that nine working days is a proportionate amount of time to gather responses on air pollution, the biggest environmental risk to public health?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I cannot add in response to the noble Baroness more than I said in my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because I think that we have consulted very widely, not just during those dates that she cited but across the piece. Air quality is one of the key priorities. If the noble Baroness looks at our environmental improvement plan, she will see what we are asking to be delivered right across this country. She will see that it is a priority and that we are consulting in a variety of ways to make sure that we reflect those who have to deliver this, which is, in the main, local authorities.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we are told by the Government in their draft air quality strategy that they expect
“local authorities to … reduce PM2.5”
and that if action is insufficient
“we will consult on introducing a … legal duty on local authorities to take action”,
why are Conservative authorities in London are not only obstructing the taking of action to reduce PM2.5 but playing politics by attacking Sadiq Khan for implementing government policy on the congestion charge zone? Is that not just blatant hypocrisy?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That question reflects issues relating to politics in London that are particularly complex and the impact of the mayor’s ULEZ on people on low incomes who have to travel to the centre of London. The noble Lord makes the accusation of playing politics, but the Question is about consultation. What we are trying to do nationally is support local authorities, and sometimes what the mayor is trying to do is despite what the local authorities within his mayoralty are trying to achieve. That is a local question for London and not for our national policies.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that not only is it disastrous that there was such a short time for consultation but the substance of the document on which he was consulting is woefully inadequate to attack the problem? I speak as a former president of an independent organisation, Environmental Protection UK, which made a submission to the consultation. Is it time for the Government—and, in view of the electoral cycle, probably the main opposition party—to recognise that we need a new clean air Act and a central direction through a new clean air commission? Until the Government grasp that necessity, this problem will continue to afflict our people and contribute to the long-term sickness that we have just been discussing.
Lord Benyon (Con)
What I would say to the noble Lord, whom I respect for his experience in this area, is that running campaigns to create new laws sometimes misses the most effective way to deliver. The most effective way in which the Government in England can be responsible for this is to support the local authorities which have to do it. We are doing that with money, and we are doing it with policies that require them to hit certain targets—on PM2.5, on nitrous oxide and others. That is the best way to do it. If the noble Lord wants a piece of legislation that will deliver that, it is the Environment Act.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, surely when it comes to pollution in London, if you have bicycle lanes and increased traffic jams, you do not reduce pollution, you increase it.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend talks about an issue which may well be the case in certain areas. Encouraging cycling, walking and the use of public transport is undoubtedly better for health, as the previous Question showed; it is undoubtedly better for the quality of life in our cities. On the other side, if you get it wrong, you make the problem worse. That is why local solutions are better, and it is why the Government’s policy provides resources and targets and why they will take further action if local authorities fail to deliver.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I regret to tell the Minister that my noble friend Lady Hayman is still disgruntled. That is because he did not address the fact that the events for stakeholders that he described were poorly advertised and the notice was short. As a result, many stakeholders who would have liked to attend or to contribute to the consultation did not get the opportunity. Could he address that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The number of responses was typical of the kinds of consultations that my department conducts. That 97 local authorities responded in full and that there were many other events, engagements and direct contact with local authorities and other campaigners meant that we ran a full consultation, and we have an air quality strategy that reflects that.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister’s throwaway remark about the possibility of there being too many consultations tempts me to ask him—and I declare my interests—whether the problem is not too many consultations but not enough follow-up and action when consultations have taken place? Could he look in particular at the consultation several years ago on energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely understand the point made by the noble Baroness. Perhaps mine was born out of being slightly long in the tooth in this game, because when I was last at Defra, it was always the threat of infraction fines that delayed policy—“Oh, Minister, that may well result in us being infracted by Europe”. Now, I find very often that consultations are followed by consultations on consultations, and it is a way of kicking the can down the road. I am a firm believer in the right sort of consultation; I just want to make sure that we are delivering policy as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Sudan: Civilian Population
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effects of the conflict in Sudan on the civilian population and of the number and wellbeing of displaced people.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are gravely concerned by the ongoing hostilities in Sudan. Innocent civilians are losing their lives and being subjected to the most terrible violence. The humanitarian situation has worsened dramatically, with the UN estimating that an additional 9 million people will need humanitarian assistance. Following the outbreak of violence, 740,000 people have been internally displaced within Sudan and more than 245,000 are now estimated to have fled to neighbouring countries.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and concur with the figures he has just given the House—that nearly 800,000 people have joined the already 3.7 million people who are displaced in Sudan and another 120,000 fleeing to neighbouring countries, some of whom will end up in small boats making dangerous journeys. Will the Minister agree therefore to provide a written response to the more than 30 recommendations in the recently published all-party parliamentary group report marking the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Darfur, in which 200,000 to 300,000 people died and 2 million were displaced, especially in the light of this week’s declaration by Genocide Watch of another impending genocide, and urgently authorise a formal joint analysis of conflict and stability assessment, or JACS, convening a high-level strategic discussion with our international partners to address this unfolding crisis in Sudan? Will he urge on the warring parties the need for a sustainable peace and a civilian-led Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, we welcome the Jeddah declaration of 11 May, which provides a degree of respite. The trajectory is moving in the right direction, but more needs to be done for a sustainable ceasefire. The noble Lord mentioned the work of the APPG, which I am well versed in. I know of the important work that has been done over the last 20 years. When I visited Darfur, I saw directly the impunity which prevailed regarding the crimes committed at that time. In a particular chapter of the APPG report, there is an extensive number of recommendations. I suggest that I write to the noble Lord outlining some of the steps we have taken, including those based on the recommendations we are considering.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, holding perpetrators to account for their actions is essential, both for the sake of those who have suffered so greatly in this conflict and to ensure that the people in charge know they will be held responsible. Does my noble friend the Minister support the call from Sudanese women’s human rights defenders and women’s groups, supported by the International Service for Human Rights, for the Human Rights Council to establish an international investigation mechanism with sufficient resources to investigate and document sexual and gender-based violence?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, I am the Government’s lead on, and the Prime Minister’s special representative for, preventing sexual violence in conflict. Tragically, we again see women and girls in Sudan being targeted specifically. On the issue of the Human Rights Council, my noble friend will also be aware that the United Kingdom, as penholder, led on the resolution, which we believe was practical and drew attention to the current crisis as it unfolded. It is probably the strongest statement we have seen from the HRC in this respect. I recognise the points my noble friend raised, and I assure her that the Government are very much seized of what more can be done in this area.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the main loser is the people of Sudan. Does he agree that there is no real hint of compromise among the protagonists, both of whom see this as an existential problem—that there will be one winner and one loser?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that there can be no winners in this situation, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both made clear, through direct interactions with the two parties and their generals, the importance of reaching an agreement—a ceasefire, in the first instance—to allow for humanitarian assistance and a sustainable peace between the two parties. We have seen some traction. We are working very closely with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and I praise its efforts in this regard. We have seen the first agreement, which provides protections though international humanitarian law. Unfortunately and tragically, we are still seeing attacks on humanitarian workers. We are working with key partners, including the Quad, on this, and I will continue to update your Lordships’ House accordingly.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alton raised the spectre of refugees—these people would be genuine asylum seekers coming from Sudan—potentially ending up on small boats. What discussions is the FCDO having with the Home Office about ensuring that people who are fleeing violence will be treated in a humane way in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, our country has a long tradition of ensuring that we are a sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. I know that my colleagues in the Home Office are monitoring the situation very closely to ensure that we are able to respond effectively to this crisis.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the growing involvement of the Wagner Group in Sudan? We are only too well aware of its appalling track record on a great many issues, not least the treatment of civilians in conflict areas. How soon can we expect the Government to proscribe that repugnant organisation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord will know that I cannot speculate on his final question. However, we are fully aware of the work of the Wagner Group from emerging reports about possible activities in Sudan and wherever there is a gap, as I have said before at the Dispatch Box. We have seen that the Wagner Group is operating very effectively in the Sahel too, particularly in Mali. There is an added element: this is not just an ordinary mercenary group—it does a deal with whoever is governing or controlling a particular area, so there is a direct economic benefit. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord that this is a very dangerous development, and we certainly do not need the Wagner Group emerging as another threat in Sudan.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the humanitarian crisis and the people of Sudan suffering. One area of deep concern is the desperate need for healthcare supplies. The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent has 30 tonnes of surgical supplies in Port Sudan being held up by bureaucracy. How are the Government using our partnerships in the region to unblock those supplies to ensure that the needs of the people of Sudan are met?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord is correct that supplies are being held up. Some of them of being challenged directly; even the most basic humanitarian support is being interrupted and aid workers continue to be attacked. With the exception, I believe, of the ICRC, there is no operational body on the humanitarian side. However, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met this week with the new president of the ICRC, and we are working with near neighbouring countries, particularly Egypt, to ensure we open up key routes. We are also working with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and partners in the Quad to ensure that essential requirements are met, including humanitarian support and medical supplies.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, Sudan was already hosting over a million refugees—the second highest refugee population in Africa—before the current conflict. The majority of those were from South Sudan, Ethiopia and other neighbouring countries. The UNHCR has called for urgent new emergency funding to help deal with the crisis. Can the Minister say what is happening to the people in camps already reliant on the aid agencies, many of whom are fleeing and going to other countries? Is any help being received there? What is happening to the displaced population of refugees already hosted by Sudan?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we are looking at our full humanitarian response to the crisis, including working with Sudan’s near neighbours. We have issued a new £5 million funding package as an immediate response to the crisis, and we are looking at what other funding we can provide. However, I will be very open with the noble Baroness about the challenge. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, highlighted, there are supplies and support, but it needs to get through to Sudan. As the noble Baroness will be aware from her own work, South Sudan is also reliant on that supply route from Sudan, which presents an extra logistical challenge. We are looking at announcing new measures, and the House will be updated.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, further to the excellent question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the Minister’s response, would a refugee seeking to flee this dreadful conflict in Sudan be able to find a safe and legal route to the United Kingdom?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, we work with key agencies, including the UNHCR, to ensure that there is a validated process for those seeking refuge. During the crisis in Sudan, we also provided support for British nationals and their relatives—qualifying dependants—to leave Sudan. As I said in my answer to the noble Baroness, the Home Office is looking at what further response is necessary.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 20 April be approved.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 16 May.
Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill
Thursday 18th May 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 10 May 2023 - (10 May 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the Bill, I pay tribute to Peter Brooke, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from 1989 to 1992, who sadly passed away this week. I had the immense privilege of being Peter’s special adviser in the months before the 1992 general election and supported him before that as the Northern Ireland desk officer in the Conservative Research Department. He was, as has been pointed out, a man of profound personal integrity, learned, witty and unfailingly polite and courteous. Peter served as Secretary of State while the Troubles were still raging and—we should never forget—around 100 people a year were losing their lives as a result of the security situation. He cared deeply about Northern Ireland and, with infinite patience and determination, sought a better, more peaceful and stable future for all its people. His huge role in the origins of what became the peace process should never be underestimated. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House in sending our sincere condolences to his widow Lindsay and the Brooke family at this difficult time.
I turn now to the Bill itself. It is, of course, with profound regret that I return once again to this Dispatch Box to bring forward legislation in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive. I am certain that noble Lords across the House will agree that this is not a position in which any of us would wish to find ourselves. In line with our steadfast commitment to the 1998 Belfast agreement, His Majesty’s Government remain committed to supporting the restoration of the Executive in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. In our view, a strong devolved Government, with elected representatives from across the community working together, is the surest foundation for the governance of Northern Ireland within our United Kingdom and the best outcome for all its people.
Last month, many of us came together, including Members of your Lordships’ House—including the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on the Bench opposite—to reflect on the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement. We marked the progress that Northern Ireland has made over the past quarter of a century and the relative peace and prosperity that the agreement has brought. This anniversary remains an opportunity for all of us to recommit to building an even brighter future for Northern Ireland. Now is the time to decide how we want to move forward together, to create a better future for and deliver on the priorities of the people of Northern Ireland. That includes a more prosperous economy and better, more sustainable public finances and services.
On that note, and before I provide an overview of the Bill, I will say a few words on Northern Ireland’s public finances. As the provisions of the Bill will indicate, we are acutely concerned about the long-term stability of public finances in Northern Ireland. It was with considerable disappointment that, in the absence of devolved government, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland found it necessary, once again, to intervene and set a budget for 2023-24. I set out that budget in a Written Statement to your Lordships’ House on 27 April. As he has made clear on multiple occasions, the extent of the budget pressures facing Northern Ireland departments is, to put it mildly, extremely challenging. Departments are facing difficult decisions in the current circumstances. The Government recognise that, and it is one of the overriding reasons why we need an Executive in place to take some of these decisions and make choices on budget priorities.
As the UK Government, we stand ready to work with a restored Executive on these issues but, in the meantime, we have a responsibility to ensure that public services and management of public funds can continue. We will, in due course, introduce legislation that will put that budget on to a legal footing, if the Executive are not restored to do so. Members of your Lordships’ House will have the opportunity to debate in more detail those allocations if and when we have to introduce that legislation.
Today, though, I will focus on the Bill and its provisions. The Bill is of course a short one and I will seek to be brief in recognition of that. I once again express my sincere thanks to the Benches opposite for their continued co-operation as the Government seek to bring the Bill forward at the requisite pace. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for the constructive manner in which they and others intend to approach this legislation.
The Bill does three important things. First, it continues the provisions relating to decision-making for Northern Ireland civil servants which Parliament passed last December through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. These provisions, which clarified the decisions that civil servants in Northern Ireland departments can take in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers and an Executive, are due to expire on 5 June. Through the Bill, these powers will continue until the Executive are reformed. That will avoid a governance gap arising if an Executive are not in place by 5 June. As before, senior officers will be required to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State; the Government published an updated draft of that guidance on 10 May. We would, of course, welcome any representations that noble Lords or others may have on that guidance before we finalise it.
The second main provision of the Bill—and the more novel provision in this legislation compared with previous Bills—is to provide for new powers for the Secretary of State to explore, with Northern Ireland departments, options for budget sustainability including further revenue raising in Northern Ireland. Alongside commissioning advice, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to direct consultations to be held by Northern Ireland departments on those matters. These powers are, again, time limited and will apply only until an Executive are formed. These measures are deliberately focused on official advice and consultations on budget sustainability. Final decisions on any implementation are best taken by locally elected representatives; the Bill does not give the Secretary of State any power to direct implementation of any such measures.
Finally, the third thing that the Bill does is to ensure greater political oversight of the management of public money in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill does that by providing for Northern Ireland department accounts and associated documents to be laid in the House of Commons, in the absence of the Assembly. In previous absences of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the law has provided for that scrutiny to fall to Parliament, and the provision in the Bill will do that again. This provision will be active only for this and any future periods where there is no functioning Assembly, on the basis that public bodies must always be scrutinised for their good management of public money.
In conclusion, the measures in the Bill will ensure a continuation of the current governance arrangements in Northern Ireland, should there be no Executive when they expire next month. However, these measures are not, and cannot be, a substitute for devolved government in Northern Ireland. We acknowledge that the current arrangements are by no means desirable—to put it mildly—particularly in the context of Northern Ireland’s difficult financial position. I also recognise that the Bill is not a long-term solution to the wider issues with which Northern Ireland is grappling: they are matters for a newly reconstituted Executive and Assembly to address. The marking of the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement has reminded us all of the importance of making the institutions in Northern Ireland work, and work for the entire community. His Majesty’s Government believes that having an effective and functioning devolved Government is crucial to showing that the union itself works for the whole community in Northern Ireland. That is why the restoration of the Executive remains our top government priority in Northern Ireland. We will continue to do everything that we can to make that happen in as short a timeframe as possible and, as we do that, we will keep these arrangements under review. For now, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, we certainly agree with the Minister when he says that it is regrettable that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not up and operating—but we all know perfectly well why. My party gave much notice—in fact, I think that we gave 13 months’ notice—in this House and elsewhere that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive were on life support. Now the whole thing has collapsed due to these red lanes, green lanes and border controls. We are no longer strictly a part of the United Kingdom in the same sense as Scotland and Wales.
But the main point I want to make today pertains to Clause 2 in relation to advice and information on options for raising public revenue. The Government are right to be alive to the fact that Northern Ireland needs more public revenue, but the implication of this is that the way forward is through local means. That, however, is to distract attention from the key point at issue. On 2 May, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council published a report that uses the Holtham formula to calculate what needs to be spent in Northern Ireland in order for needs to be met on the same basis as they are in England. Crucially, the Holtham formula for defining need per head of population is not a random assertion but the result of a government commission that the UK Government have already accepted for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Using the formula, the Fiscal Council demonstrated that in order for needs to be met in Northern Ireland on the same basis as England, Northern Ireland needs to receive £124 per head. Crucially, however, the Treasury block grant transparency document shows that spending per head in Northern Ireland for the spending review period of 2022 to 2025 is £121 per head. It is, therefore, no surprise that Northern Ireland is currently in the midst of a very serious funding crisis, with Stormont departments having to make cuts right, left and centre. Today, Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK to be in receipt of below-needs block grant funding. Northern Ireland thus finds itself in a similar position to Wales in 2009-10, but, rather than just being £1 below need for one year, Northern Ireland is £3 below, and not just for this financial year but for the last financial year and for the next financial year.
If we extrapolate for the three-year funding review period, the Fiscal Council report demonstrates that we are currently underfunded to the tune of just over £1.2 billion. The critical point in all this is that after Wales went below need for funding in 2009-10, the UK Government responded in a way that established three critical precedents. First, they accepted the Holtham formula as a definition of need. Secondly, they introduced a 5% transitional needs adjustment for Wales, whose purpose it is to slow down the Barnett squeeze up until reaching the Holtham formula definition of need. This applies when funding per head has not fallen below need. Thirdly, it introduced a Barnett floor for Wales on the basis of the Holtham formula definition of need to introduce a complete needs adjustment at the point where funding per head reaches need and threatens to go below.
In making that arrangement, the UK Government have agreed that it would be wrong for funding per head ever to fall below need, and made provision to prevent this ever happening again. The Government are now duty bound to afford the people of Northern Ireland the same courtesy. As we have already fallen below need, this should result in a full needs adjustment backdated to the beginning of the spending review period. In recent weeks, the Government have sought to press the DUP back into government in various ways. I ask that they reflect very carefully about the implications of trying to use the current funding crisis as a means of doing so. The reason we had to withdraw from Stormont is that we were not prepared to settle for, and thus effectively cement in, a second-class citizenship in which we no longer have the right to stand for election to make the laws to which we are subject and in which we are forced to be presented to the rest of our home economy as if we are a foreign country. I do not think it would reflect well on the Government to do that and I do not think it would be wise.
Finally, in the normal sense of events there would be an opportunity to ask the Minister for a meeting between Committee and Report to discuss the need for a comparable Barnett floor provision for Northern Ireland to that which exists in Wales. However, there will be no time between Committee and Report, as all remaining stages are to be taken on one day, so I will take this opportunity of asking for such a meeting to discuss this ahead of the remaining stages.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill, but I want briefly to echo the words of the Minister on Lord Brooke and the major contribution he made to the affairs of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
There is no alternative at this moment to the appearance of the Bill, which I think I can say safely that the whole House regrets. I welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in the other place is taking a closer look at the general question of Northern Ireland funding and the longer-term problems of the financing of Northern Ireland. I note with great interest the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that there may be lessons to learn from Wales: I think we should listen carefully to what he said on that.
As I said, there is no alternative at this moment, but of course there could be an alternative in quite quick order if the DUP were to take up its share of the co-premiership of Northern Ireland. Our briefing note from the Library is absolutely excellent—it is of very high quality—but it refers to the DUP taking up the deputy premiership as if it were, like the deputy premiership in the other place, a subordinate position, whereas of course Northern Ireland is a co-premiership and it is worth just making the point that the DUP would have half a share of the co-premiership were it to take up that position. Indeed, I remind the House that, on the basis of its previous work in this respect, it actually delivered 10 years of stability to Northern Ireland—something that is all too casually forgotten.
I conclude by briefly referring to the words of the Foreign Secretary at the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, on the working of the protocol. That committee, which has done important work, will soon, I hope, be the Select Committee on the Working of the Windsor Framework. The Foreign Secretary stressed the way in which, if the DUP returned to government, it would not lose agency, it would actually gain agency. At this point, it is a passive spectator with respect to realities which, however objectionable, are actually not going to change.
It is worth remembering that we are on a road and on a process. The Theresa May iteration of the withdrawal agreement that arrived in this House contained absolutely no reference to the existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Johnson iteration changed that, and it has been changed much more again by the new Windsor Framework. It is perfectly clear that the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly going forward in handling the relationship of these tricky problems—and they are tricky problems, to which there is no perfect solution—is now considerably enhanced. Parliament as a whole has moved very substantially on what is called the democratic deficit: indeed, the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has laid a lot of emphasis on that.
I remind the House that the brake which has been introduced in the new arrangement is a new development. It is increasingly clear, from listening carefully to the debates, that it is not disputed on any side that it is of significance. There is an argument, given the totality of developments, about how important it is, but there is no argument any more about its specific effectiveness, on either side. That is one of the few points of clarity in what I think has been a very confused debate in Northern Ireland which has not focused enough on the exact details of what has been before the people of Northern Ireland over the last few weeks; it has become increasingly clear.
I draw brief attention to the unilateral declaration by the UK Government on the democratic consent mechanism in Article 18, posted on 24 March of this year on the EU website and noted by the EU. This again raises a whole space for political play in dealing with the possible difficulties that might well arise. Of course, ultimately there is a simple reality. As Lord Trimble did twice, with my total support, if it turns out that undertakings have been given—for example, the apparent undertakings in the very important White Paper the Government have laid out—and if the DUP enters the Executive and it turns out that the undertakings, or the apparent basis on which the DUP is entering, are not correct, there is the option of actually withdrawing again. Nobody can dispute this. Lord Trimble effectively did it twice. It is not very nice and I would deeply regret seeing it happen. I deeply regretted it being done twice in a different era, but it was actually the right thing to do and it sustained the process in the end. But it is indisputably an option.
So the alternatives are either to be a passive recipient of things that cannot be changed or to engage in genuine political debate about the future.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister said it was with profound regret that he was bringing forward this Bill; I think we all share that sentiment. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, but it is important that we remind ourselves why we are here: we are here because the United Kingdom Government decided that Northern Ireland could be treated differently, and our citizenship is being eroded in many ways. The internal market has gone and all the hype about the Windsor protocol, as I would call it, is being exposed more and more. Therefore, we are here through the Government’s own making, and because they are not committing to the whole of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union—which was what was on our ballot paper in Northern Ireland as well.
Of course, we have to go ahead with this Bill; it is important. However, I think we should also remind ourselves that the 1998 devolution process, which we have been commemorating recently, is inherently unstable. It may have enhanced peace, yet there have been over 150 terrorist murders in that period, mostly killings between terrorist groups and each other. None were caused by the state, although around five involved the deaths of security force and prison staff. You could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the ceaseless list of 1970s legacy cases going through the courts in Belfast—every week there is another one—all of which are trying to rewrite history by reallocating blame for killings from the IRA to some element of state forces. It is really important that your Lordships realise and remember that.
A working Executive could do various things. They could agree on dividing up the money from the block grant. However, as we know in this House, any issues which require the two communities to yield on their particular hard and fast views mean we in Parliament end up legislating time after time: on legacy, abortion, gay rights or welfare reform—anything that is really controversial ends up here. We need to remember that as well.
The 1998 consociational structure means that Stormont operates on two tracks that do not meet. Local government works because it operates more on a committee system that cannot be boycotted easily. We see, and it is quite sad, that the Government, having changed the date of the local council elections to today, then put Northern Ireland legislation on the agenda for today. My personal view is that we should be strengthening local government in Northern Ireland, increasing the numbers of Members of Parliament, and doing away with and abolishing the whole Stormont set-up.
The current Secretary of State will not remember it, unlike the Minister, but when David Trimble twice pulled down the Executive over decommissioning, or the lack of it, he experienced the same wave of outrage that we hear in the media in Northern Ireland about what is not happening and Stormont not sitting. Today that rage is compounded by the strategic budget cuts. I believe that Northern Ireland needs the same focus on the Barnett formula, and how it works, that Wales got—it really is time for that. People in Northern Ireland are not stupid. They know that some 98% of government spending in Northern Ireland will proceed, regardless of whether Stormont is sitting or not. The financial situation is dire, and of course some of that happened under Stormont. The Sinn Féin Finance Minister could not get his budget through Stormont, so the idea that if we all get back to Stormont tomorrow the finances would be sorted is rather silly.
We have a legislative lockdown, but with only the minimum of law changes needed to keep the show on the road and to stop the lack of money supply actually wrecking sections of the economy. However, I feel the Secretary of State has perhaps decided that punishing the Northern Ireland people is the way to get devolved government back. We have seen senior civil servants—who I am sure are taking soundings from government Ministers—choose the most conspicuous cuts, such as this week’s cut to nurse-training funding, to frighten the public. I am sure this is being given the green light by certain people in certain positions. That health cut is going to inflict a major workforce shortfall in three years’ time, when those nurses who should have been graduating and entering the local profession will not do so—and of course there is a huge shortage of trained nurses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
There is some common sense in the Bill. Clause 2 gives powers for the Secretary of State to direct departments to provide advice or information, and even to oblige them to carry out a consultation. There might be a seed of a possible return to what I think would be a more sensible solution, and that would be a form of direct rule.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, on the Front Bench, will probably have a different view, but I think the Orders in Council system could have been a better way. We are going to find it extremely difficult to get Stormont set up and working well. It is time we started to think about that and to realise that Northern Ireland does need the direct attention of this place, and not treat devolution as some way of getting rid of it. We need to remember that while we have the Windsor protocol we will not have devolution.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I share the regret expressed by the Minister and other Members that we are discussing this Bill today. It is deeply unfortunate that this legislation is necessary. However, rather than repeat the argument about how we got here—I am no fan of either the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor Framework—I wish to concentrate my remarks on the perilous financial position the people of the Province now find themselves in.
His Majesty’s Government have committed to bring forward a separate Bill to put the draft budget recently set by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the statute book. That budget could have been part of the Bill before us today, but I am pleased it is not because it at least holds open the possibility of a change of approach from Mr Heaton-Harris.
I know the Secretary of State is a fan of sport, and indeed a qualified football referee. However, I do not know if he is a poker player. If he is, I would not expect him to be a particularly successful one. It is perfectly obvious to see what he is attempting to achieve, both by publishing his draft budget and by his comments surrounding its content.
To be fair to Mr Heaton-Harris, I understand his frustration at the lack of a functioning Executive and Assembly at Stormont. It is a frustration held by a great number of people in Northern Ireland, albeit for an assortment of different reasons. However, I do not believe it is right for him to place such fear and worry in the minds of so many individuals, families and organisations across the Province because of the failure of politicians in Belfast and London, and indeed Dublin.
According to the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, Stormont departments—now run solely by unelected civil servants—will be expected to find £800 million in cuts and revenue-raising measures as a result of what has become known locally as the “punishment budget”. The fiscal council calculates that the draft budget amounts to a reduction of some 3.3% in real terms this year. That is a much harsher cut than that faced by Whitehall departments, which have been handed a 0.7% real-terms budgetary reduction.
In education—I declare an interest as my wife is a retired principal of a leading primary school in south Belfast—schools in Northern Ireland are facing a 2.7% cut in funding. In contrast, the budget for schools in England is due to rise by 6.5%. I fail to see how that is in any way justifiable, particularly in the wake of the pandemic and the challenges pupils in Northern Ireland, as indeed elsewhere, have had to face.
There are other areas of grave concern for me regarding the Government’s planned budget cuts, but I will highlight just two. First, on policing, speaking at the end of last month, Assistant Chief Constable Bobby Singleton told the BBC that the PSNI expected to be hit by a budget cut of £150 million. He said this figure was based on indications he had been given by the Department of Justice, which, as the Minister confirmed to me in a recent Written Answer, is responsible for its funding. Given the recent and thankfully failed attempt by dissident republicans to murder DCI John Caldwell, and the increase in the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland from “substantial” to “severe”—a decision taken by MI5, independent of Ministers—I believe the cut to PSNI funding is particularly ill-advised and a reckless path to tread.
His Majesty’s Government have had few achievements to proclaim over the past few months, but one has been meeting their target of recruiting 20,000 additional police officers in England and Wales since 2019. Meanwhile, earlier this year in Northern Ireland, the chief constable announced plans to reduce numbers by 6% to just 6,700 officers, making it the smallest force it has ever been. Given the ongoing terrorist threat and the time it takes to train new officers, that is an appalling state of affairs which is neither acceptable nor sustainable.
I also want to speak about health. Here in England, barely a day goes past without another story in the media about the dire state of NHS waiting lists, but waiting lists in Northern Ireland are by far the worst in the entire United Kingdom. In figures released in March, 122,267 Northern Ireland patients were on waiting lists in the in-patient and day case categories, with 66,302 waiting a year or more for their surgeries. Further, 6,000 had been waiting for five years or more—long before the world had even heard of Covid-19. Yet, in the Secretary of State’s draft budget, NHS funding in the Province is due to rise by a mere 0.5%, far below the increased amounts for health in Great Britain.
I also have deep concerns about the problems faced by community pharmacies in Northern Ireland, many of which are struggling to stay afloat because of a range of problems, including the Northern Ireland drug tariff and the delayed implementation of the community pharmacy commissioning plan for Northern Ireland. Rather than go into the intricacies of the situation on the Floor of the House, I politely ask the Minister to meet with me and representatives of community pharmacies in the Province to hear their concerns directly. I hope that is an invitation he will accept.
Finally, today is local elections polling day in Northern Ireland. As politicians, we are more aware than most that it should be a day of excitement and hope for a better future. However, given the political vacuum people in the Province have found themselves in once again, there is no sense of optimism. Local voters face the prospect of a continuing absence of accountable political leadership, a seemingly endless stream of funding cuts to key services and little prospect of respite any time soon. Even the levelling up fund, which many local community groups and sports clubs were hoping would enable them to do something positive for their areas, allocated only a minimal amount for Northern Ireland in round 2 and left numerous applicants significantly out of pocket because of the expense of putting together their professional bids.
The Bill is before us today because His Majesty’s Government were left with few other options. However, if and when a budget Bill is brought forward, I hope Ministers, including the Prime Minister, will have the foresight and wisdom to look again at the figures, particularly in relation to health, education and policing. I accept the need to reform how Stormont operates, but in the depths of a cost of living crisis I appeal to the Government to do the right thing by protecting the people of Northern Ireland from the perils that the current draft budget graphically exposes them to.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I shall not detain the House long nor repeat everything that has already been said, because it would be quite unnecessary. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and I agree entirely with what he said: there is no alternative to this legislation. That is unfortunate but true.
I think this is the first occasion on which we have debated Northern Ireland business since the death of Lord Carswell, a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. I raise his death and pay tribute to him because I remember being here during the Brexit debates, which were long, monotonous and varied, when he spoke about his childhood in Belfast and how he could bicycle down from Belfast to Dublin and never saw a border or a border guard. That was in his lifetime. We talked a lot of nonsense about how there might be a hard border in Northern Ireland, but there has never been a hard border across the island of Ireland. Friends of mine spent many years trying to stop illegal border crossings, mostly smuggling and terrorist-related, across the internal border, and they completely failed.
One should remember what Lord Carswell said because this is partly behind the whole issue about the Windsor Framework. My view is that the Windsor Framework is flawed but it is the best deal we will get. In addition, we live in the art of the possible; that is what the Windsor Framework is. In politics, much as we might wish to, we do not always get our own way on everything. I deprecate the fact that the European Union should have anything to do with a sovereign part of the United Kingdom, but that is the situation we are in.
To move on slightly to the broader issue, I very much deprecate the fact that Sinn Féin is the largest party in the Assembly now—or it would be if the Assembly was sitting. I hate it. Sinn Féin was always described as the political wing of the IRA, and I think it still is. Because of that, it sticks in my craw that anybody should vote for Sinn Féin, although a lot of very decent people do. The IRA is now somewhat romanticised in Northern Ireland, but in fact it is a bunch of ghastly, murderous thugs, and we should remember that—starting with Gerry Adams, who, not in this world but perhaps in the next, should answer for the deaths of people such as Jean McConville. However, I say to my fellow unionists that we live in the world as it is and we are in the art of the possible.
I will not digress too far, but after 1997, many people in the Conservative Party wished to go back and say, “Why didn’t these stupid people, the electorate, vote for us?” Finally, however, we worked out that you do not blame the electorate—you blame yourselves for why people do not vote for you. I say to my fellow unionists, we have to change. The world changes; we all have to change—unbelievably, I am less hard-line than I was. I say to my fellow unionists that we need political leadership to understand how to get the electorate’s confidence back, and political leadership to go back into the Assembly so that we have an Executive in Northern Ireland. For all its defects, that is the best way forward.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap and make one point, which is about the relationship of science to the Bill. I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, about Lord Brooke. It is right that his contribution and the work he did over many years is acknowledged in a debate of this kind.
Science, and the science community in Northern Ireland, needs an Assembly as much as any other community. Much excellent work is done on science in Northern Ireland, as well as elsewhere in the UK. It was no coincidence that on the recent visit of the President of the United States, he went to the University of Ulster to open the new premises, because good work is done in Ulster, as well as elsewhere.
I have reason to share the view of the scientific community that it needs a working Assembly. For many years, in a former capacity, with colleagues in the science community, I used to organise the science event known as “Science and Stormont”, which was held every year in Stormont with a working Assembly. Science is a refreshingly non-partisan area of endeavour, and at those meetings, year after year, representatives of all the major parties would come to this event to speak: we would have a sort of round table. Sometimes we went to listen to the Assembly in action later. These were very successful events and they mattered to the scientific community in Northern Ireland.
I understand entirely why the Bill is necessary, and I support it. Beyond that, I simply wanted to use my moment to make the point that science really matters, and science needs a working Assembly, and I very much hope that it will not be too long before we see that.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the unusually important but not often raised issue of science in Northern Ireland and the role that Northern Ireland can play in that regard. I, too, begin by paying tribute to Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for the invaluable work he did in paving the way towards the peace process. I was very moved by the Minister’s comments—I know he used to work for him—echo his sentiments and send my condolences to Lord Brooke’s family.
This has been a very interesting and, in terms of recent debates, relatively short debate. No doubt many colleagues are back in Northern Ireland today for the local election polling day. As ever, I thank the Minister and his private office for the very courteous way in which he consulted all parties ahead of Second Reading. As is customary and has been said by all noble Lords speaking in this debate, we support the need for the Bill but deeply regret that it remains necessary. One can but hope that with the results of the local elections in Northern Ireland at the weekend will come an end to this continued state of political paralysis and limbo. The continued absence of a functioning Executive and Assembly is hugely to be regretted and is having an extremely negative impact on ordinary people’s lives. It is causing financial, governance and constitutional issues that are of concern to us all.
A Northern Ireland friend told me this week that her mother had a fall last Thursday afternoon and ended up at A&E at the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald. There were 165 people in the queue ahead of her, including children with broken bones, and nine ambulances were waiting outside. In Northern Ireland, as perhaps elsewhere in the UK, the NHS is in a state of crisis and, for as long as there remains no functioning Executive and Assembly, there is little or no opportunity to take major healthcare or other public sector decisions. The state of limbo is equally resulting in an inability to promote educational reforms, to move forward and make progress in dealing with the legacy of the past or to take long-term economic strategic and budgetary decisions for the future.
This is all the more tragic because there are potentially very positive economic opportunities for Northern Ireland. A major trade conference is planned for September and the US envoy has offered to bring a trade mission to Northern Ireland, but without a functioning Executive in place it will be hard to take full advantage of these opportunities. While praising the continued hard work and dedication of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, does not the Minister agree that this continued state of limbo is putting the Civil Service in a very awkward position? Although the Bill seeks to put sticking plaster over some of the difficult public sector finance issues facing Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that the definition of public interest, as set out in the Bill, is ultimately a subjective political judgment?
It is not our intention on these Benches to table amendments to the Bill before us today, but I would like to ask some follow-up questions on reviewing public financing stemming from the amendments tabled by my friend Stephen Farry MP and the Alliance Party in the House of Commons last week. If the Minister is unable to give an immediate response to these questions, perhaps he would consider giving a more detailed response later in a letter.
First, would the Minister consider commissioning a report to provide an assessment of expenditure costs stemming from duplication as a result of divided communities, and its impact on public finances in Northern Ireland? Secondly, does he agree that it would be useful to engage with the Treasury on options to provide an “invest to save” fund to support the transformation and sustainability of public finances in Northern Ireland? Thirdly—an issue raised by other noble Lords already—will the Northern Ireland Secretary engage with Northern Ireland departments and the fiscal council in relation to the Barnett formula and a needs-based review?
The 25th anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement reminded us all that progress is made as a result of political leadership and courage, often at the highest level. The signing, welcome on these Benches, of the Windsor Framework agreement was also clearly driven by the Prime Minister. I appreciate that there are a great many other issues currently facing the Prime Minister, but does the Minister agree that finding a way to end the continued impasse and bring back a functioning Executive has to be a key priority for the Prime Minister and his team in the weeks ahead? If that does not happen and the current stalemate continues, can the Minister tell us what thought has been given to how and when the Government will decide that, for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland, enough is enough?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, obviously, I join the Minister and other Members of your Lordships’ House in referring to the work of Lord Brooke. Peter Brooke was a man of huge decency and integrity. He was a colleague of mine in the House of Commons, and obviously a very effective Secretary of State in the sense that he actually progressed the peace process. Also, and sometimes forgotten, he was a very effective chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee. He will be missed. He played his part in Northern Ireland history; there is no question about that.
We of course agree with the necessity of the Bill. It has a very innocuous name, the Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill. What it actually means is that we are going to carry on with a sort of direct rule until we can resolve the problems with regard to the restoration of the institutions. That is not good, of course—we deeply regret it and I will come to that in a second—but with regard to the Bill, particularly on the issue of finance, there are important questions that the Government have to address. They have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others. There is a case—I speak as a former Finance Minister for Northern Ireland—for a re-look at, reform of and rethink of how the Barnett formula applies to Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, quite rightly referred to Northern Ireland, in the formula sense, being underfunded. He referred to the position of Wales, which I know a little about. It is quite interesting to reflect that the settlement changed for Wales because of the work that was done and the pressure that was put on the Government by the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government. Would that have happened without devolution? It might have done, but I doubt it. A sitting Government in Cardiff and a sitting Parliament could address these issues in detail and then negotiate with the United Kingdom Government. Therefore, the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to is best addressed in the context of a restored Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that we could exist without an Executive and an Assembly in Northern Ireland. If we completely forget about the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, with a Parliament in Edinburgh and a Senedd in Cardiff, it would be impossible not to have a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland, irrespective of the peace process. We must live with that, and we should, because it is the only answer to the problems of Northern Ireland. Every time a Member from Northern Ireland gets on their feet in the Commons or in this House, ultimately it is not good enough. Those people in the Assembly in Belfast are elected directly by the people of Northern Ireland to address the specific issues which are devolved to Belfast. The Minister knows that there are dozens and dozens of huge decisions which cannot be taken by civil servants. It is totally unfair, in a modern democracy, to put on the backs of people who are unelected the burden of having to make huge decisions which only politicians can decide, particularly regarding finance.
Obviously, we still understand the problems that the Democratic Unionist Party has with the settlement in Northern Ireland regarding the European Union. However, the Windsor Framework is a real step forward and should be the basis of proper negotiation to arrange a settlement. This morning I was looking, yet again, at Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act1998, which I had the privilege of steering through the House of Commons a quarter of a century ago. It says specifically that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and will only cease to be so if the people of Northern Ireland so decide by a majority. I cannot see that happening for some time to come—who knows?—but that is what it says. The principle of consent—
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way and I agree with that part of the 1998 Act. I am sorry for going on about a very simple thing, but it is the kind of basic thing that makes people in Northern Ireland feel very left out: duty-free. Why can people flying from Belfast to anywhere in the EU not get duty-free, when you can fly from the rest of the United Kingdom to anywhere in the EU and get it? I got an answer recently which almost implied that part of the reason was because you could fly from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, you cannot fly from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, but that is just a simple thing that sets us apart.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I do not think that in any way alters the position that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness will recall, because she comes from Northern Ireland and lived the early part of her life there, that there has always been a difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain in certain respects. For example, livestock and agriculture have always had to be checked as they came across the Irish Sea, for various reasons. There was a separate Government for decades in Northern Ireland which imposed various restrictions, but that in no way affected the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so long as the people in Northern Ireland decide it should be. I do not underestimate the problems that have arisen, frankly because of Brexit. Without Brexit, this dilemma would not be in front of us, but we have to live with it. It seems to me that the Windsor agreement is a good start.
There are elections today in Northern Ireland. We will not know the outcome for another day or so. The marching season will soon be upon us. The recess is not far away. However, that should not stop the Government from planning for proper structured negotiations with the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, so far as they affect the agreement. There should be a big role for the Prime Minister in the weeks and months ahead to work with parties in Northern Ireland to get a settlement. Despite the problems which we have had in Northern Ireland over the last two years regarding the protocol and the difficulties about the suspension of the institutions, there is no doubt from when we celebrated the Good Friday agreement some weeks ago in Belfast and elsewhere—and I do mean celebrated—that there has been a huge change. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said quite rightly that, tragically, there have been 150 deaths in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years, mainly as a result of terrorism. However, that must be set against the 3,500 people who perished in the 25 years before the Good Friday agreement. That is the real measure of where we are in Northern Ireland.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate, which was relatively short by our recent standards. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about my late colleague, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and for their general support for this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to the title of the Bill including “Interim Arrangements”. When we were discussing this, I was very keen to avoid calling it “temporary arrangements”, given that everything in Northern Ireland that has had “temporary” attached it over many years has assumed an air of permanence.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord Murphy of Torfaen for reminding the House of Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which makes clear that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and will never cease to be so without the consent of most of its people. Speaking for this Government, I would not want the current constitutional position to change. Regarding his point about the restoration of the institutions, and echoing other noble Lords across the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I assure all noble Lords that, irrespective of the calendar, our focus will remain very firmly on restoring those institutions which, as I said at the outset, are in the best interests of the union and of the people of Northern Ireland.
I politely disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who argued for the strengthening of local government and effectively the abolition of Stormont, which would be a fundamental change to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is not a position that the Government can support. We remain firmly committed to the agreement and to the institutions across all three strands that the agreement establishes. Our priority is to make the agreement and the institutions work for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.
Unsurprisingly, a number of noble Lords focused on the current budget situation in Northern Ireland. As I said in my opening speech, if there is no restored Executive, it will be our intention to bring forward a Bill at the appropriate time to put the current budget allocations on to a legal footing. We will have a further opportunity to discuss the budget at that stage. However, picking up on one or two points, we recognise that the current situation is unsustainable and that Northern Ireland departments, in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, will have to face very difficult decisions to live within their budget, but these are unavoidable.
I heard my noble friend Lord Rogan and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, refer to the “punishment budget”, as some people have described it—but it is not a description that I accept for one second. The budget reflects the reality of the fiscal situation in which Northern Ireland currently finds itself.
It is for that reason that, over many years, the Government have recognised the unique challenges that Northern Ireland faces. I recall that the spending review in 2021 was the most generous since the restoration of the devolved Government in 1998-99. It gave Northern Ireland the possibility of multiyear budgets, as opposed to the single-year budgets that have bedevilled us over a number of recent years. Sadly that proved not to be possible.
In addition, we have seen billions of pounds of extra spending through the Stormont House agreement, the fresh start agreement, the confidence and supply agreement, and New Decade, New Approach. It is difficult to sustain the argument that Northern Ireland has been systematically underfunded by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, reminded us, public spending per head in Northern Ireland is still running at about 20% higher than the United Kingdom average.
However, I recognise that there is a discussion about the funding formula, which the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, raised in some detail. To echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, that discussion would be far better taking place between the United Kingdom Government and a restored Northern Ireland Executive. In the spirit of openness, I am of course more than happy to have a conversation with the noble Lord about these matters. Likewise, I am happy to respond positively to the invitation from my noble friend Lord Rogan to meet the pharmacists in Northern Ireland.
A number of noble Lords again raised issues with the Windsor Framework. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, feel very strongly about this. I gently remind noble Lords that the House of Commons approved the Windsor Framework by 513 votes to 29, and your Lordships by 227 votes to 14. It clearly represents the settled will of Parliament that the framework be carried forward and implemented. In our view, it delivers stability for the people of Northern Ireland, protects Northern Ireland’s place in the union and restores the balance of the Belfast agreement.
I agree with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who made a powerful case in saying that the framework increases Northern Ireland’s agency. He referred to the role of the Stormont brake; it gives the Assembly a very powerful role in determining future EU legislation and regulations. For that brake to be effective and to be operated, we need a functioning Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. I referred also to the institutional reforms raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
The issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, reflected a number of amendments that were put forward in the other place in the name of her sister party, the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. She raises important points, such as the costs of division in Northern Ireland, which are substantial and need to be addressed, and the transformation funds. I will write to the noble Baroness in more detail, but my initial reaction is that it is wrong to commit the Secretary of State to exploring any particular options at this stage. The Bill gives my right honourable friend a degree of discretion around this and it would probably not be right, as the Alliance Party was trying to do in the House of Commons, to put some of these things into legislation. But I am very happy to discuss these issues further and to write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, also referred to the position of civil servants under the legislation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I agree that it puts them in a very difficult situation, and these concerns have been voiced within Northern Ireland itself. We are asking a lot of civil servants under this legislation. In our view, this approach is unfortunately necessary. It strikes the right balance between ensuring that governance can continue while giving parties in Northern Ireland the time and space to form an Executive. I entirely agree that this is not a long-term fix; it cannot be a long-term fix or a substitute for the proper re-establishment of a functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland, in line with the Belfast agreement. On that note, I beg to move.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Thursday 18th May 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-XIV Fourteenth marshalled list for Committee - (18 May 2023)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Madam Deputy Chairman, we spoke to our amendments in the previous session, so we move on to the debate on the other amendments.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
In the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, I will begin this debate with specific reference to Amendments 332, 333 and 341.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
I remind the Committee that we are still debating the group beginning with Amendment 313, if any noble Lord wishes to speak on amendments within that group.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to move ahead of my noble friend. The amendments in this group go to the heart of an issue that has been of much concern among providers of social housing: will the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill lead to more affordable housing—in particular, more social rented housing—or will the replacement of Section 106 agreements with the new infrastructure levy mean fewer new affordable homes? As the Minister has noted, the Government hope and expect the new infrastructure levy regime to result in
“at least as much, if not more”—[Official Report, 17/11/22; col. 1076.]
social housing. Most of the amendments in this group are trying to make sure that this aspiration becomes a reality.
The big picture is that the Government have maintained their overall target of 300,000 homes per annum, and repeated studies maintain that about a third of this total should be social housing—that is, housing affordable to the half of the population on average incomes and below. At a time of widespread concern that poverty and health disparities have worsened, housing policies can cause wider inequalities in society or be a means of reducing them.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 332, 333 and 341. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for co-signing them. I entirely agree with much that the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. A whole variety of the amendments in this group are aimed at the same principle: how best to increase decent and affordable housing, particularly social rented housing, for those who so badly need it.
Amendments 332 and 333 concern the setting of infrastructure levy rates under new Section 204G of the Planning Act 2008, to be inserted by Schedule 11 to the Bill. Currently under that provision the only requirement in setting the infrastructure levy rates is to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the level of affordable housing funded and the level of funding provided by developers is not less than before. That is simply not good enough.
As we all know, there is a critical shortage of affordable social housing. The Minister acknowledged this, most recently when answering a Question in the House on 25 April concerning the National Housing Federation’s report, Overcrowding in England, published on 19 April, particularly its finding that one in six children lives in overcrowded conditions. Shelter has reported that over 1 million households are waiting for social homes, and that last year 29,000 social homes were sold or demolished and fewer than 7,000 were built. It also says that there are now 1.4 million fewer households in England in social housing than there were in 1980. These are shocking facts and statistics.
Amendment 332 provides, as noble Lords will see from the Marshalled List:
“A charging authority must prepare and publish a Strategic Housing and Market Assessment specifying what affordable housing is needed within the area of the charging authority … The charging authority must publish a new Strategic Housing and Market Assessment every three years”.
Amendment 333 provides:
“A charging authority must set rates of IL at a level which, in conjunction with the exercise of such other powers as it possesses, is likely to provide not less than the amount of affordable housing specified in its Strategic Housing and Market Assessment over a three year period”.
The Bill would then continue as it currently does, ensuring that there is no lesser level of funding than before. I have specified a period of three years but would be very happy to discuss with the Minister and others whether that would be appropriate.
It would then be necessary to amend new Section 204N, which requires the charging authority to apply the infrastructure levy in funding
“the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure”,
which is a term defined to include a wide variety of things, from schools and medical facilities to open spaces and the mitigation of climate change. Those are all very worthy causes, but affordable housing is only seventh out of the 10 matters in the definition of “infrastructure”. There is no provision for prioritising one type of infrastructure over another, while the greatest need is plainly for decent and affordable social housing. To have the right and ability to live in a decent home is one of the most basic human rights. Giving priority to the need for affordable housing—more particularly, affordable social housing—is the purpose of Amendment 341, which would introduce into new Section 204N a cross-reference to new Section 204G as we propose that section should be amended.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I add my voice to Amendments 332, 333 and 341 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, concerning affordable housing, which lies at the root of the Government’s responsibility to their citizens. As we have just heard, it is the duty of government to provide safety and security to its citizens and a roof over their heads. That responsibility includes, at the very top of the list, the needs of the homeless. It is important to remind ourselves that the definition of homeless here includes many of the most vulnerable in our population. They are citizens too, but current circumstances may cause them to question that.
Successive Governments have repeatedly failed to replace council houses sold into the private sector, and this reducing inventory of low-cost housing, however defined, continues against a background of increasing homelessness and need. The Government must somehow finance more affordable housing. These amendments, taken together, will assist in that objective.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I declare my rural interests.
My particular angle of support relates to the importance of the provision of sufficient rural affordable housing, which is a huge gap in housing provision, as identified in two reports from the APPG for Rural Business and the Rural Powerhouse, of which I declare my membership. These reports concentrated on levelling up in the countryside and the impact of the cost of living crisis in rural areas.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Forgive me; I may be mistaken, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was here at the start of this debate on the last occasion.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I apologise; the noble Lord is not in my notes. I will accept his word that he was.
Lord Carrington (CB)
Citizens Advice and others have pointed to provision of rural housing being a growing problem and a significant barrier to the rural economy, as the average house price can be up to 10% of average earnings, compared with 7.4% in urban areas, excluding London.
Navigating the planning system has always been a problem in rural areas, and larger building providers have been the most successful. CPRE, the countryside charity, has pointed out that successful housing applications tended to be in a very narrow segment of the market—the upper to middle end, which does not favour renters, first-time buyers and affordable housing.
The Government are prioritising the development of brownfield sites, which is certainly laudable, but 87% of these are in urban areas and often in the south-east. However, the economic impact of small developments and, in particular, affordable housing in rural communities can make a huge difference in supporting businesses and communities in terms of employment and other activities. It would also assist with the growing problem of rural homelessness, as identified by Shelter and other charities.
These amendments make strategic housing and market assessments of affordable housing compulsory, and influencing the rate of the infrastructure levy would be of great benefit to the sensible provision of affordable housing in rural areas.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I want briefly to refer to the clause stand part notice tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and I for a probing purpose. Clause 126 has the effect of retaining the community infrastructure levy in London and Wales, but I will not talk about Wales. We are leaving Wales out of it for these purposes. The clause retains the community infrastructure levy in London, alongside the introduction of the infrastructure levy. I understand that that is essentially because the mayoral CIL has been used for the provision of Crossrail and is expected to do so for years to come.
However, it has raised in our minds a question to ask my noble friend the Minister about whether the community infrastructure levy, which of course does not provide for affordable housing, can live alongside the infrastructure levy for a number of years. The technical consultation, which is to be concluded on 9 June, does not explain how the respective contributions are to be assessed in a combined fashion because they apply to different parameters of the development. That leads to the assumption that with a 10-year transition we are looking at many places across the country with a combination of community infrastructure levy obligations that have arisen in relation to developments over a number of years and past developments, alongside the introduction of the infrastructure levy. The technical consultation, to my reading, does not help us understand how these two things are going to be meshed together. Of course, many noble Lords tabled their amendments in this group before the technical consultation was published. It answers some of the questions, but not all of them, and I think this is one question that it does not quite answer.
Another question occurred to me while reading the technical consultation in relation to affordable housing. It does not yet provide certainty about whether contributions under the infrastructure levy may be regarded as an improvement on the situation where developers are able to negotiate or renegotiate their liabilities under Section 106. Developers are not engaging in negotiations simply because they can and therefore they do and local authorities do not give way simply because they ask for it. Circumstances change.
I am always burned by the fact of the October 2008 crash. In the space, literally, of weeks, the economic viability of many large-scale development projects changed dramatically. If you look at any system, including this system, and it cannot meet the test of what you would do under those circumstances, I am afraid it does not help. Renegotiation of the contributions is one solution. It might be said that if the market price and the gross development value of a large site crash in the way they did in October 2008, the infrastructure levy crashes as well. The problem then is: how is the affordable housing going to be funded? How is the other infrastructure to be funded?
I do not have answers to all these things, but my noble friend and I will perhaps have an opportunity in the next group to talk a bit more substantively about the infrastructure levy and what we might do about it, but that does not answer the question. If affordable housing presently often suffers by being a residual after other Section 106 obligations have been met, and if under the infrastructure levy it becomes, in effect, a right to require and it is elevated above other requirements, there will be a great deal of difficulty in local communities about the fact that there are many other obligations that the infrastructure levy has to meet that may not be able to be met if the gross development value comes down or if, for example, the affordable housing right to require and the tenures that have to be provided lead to a much higher cumulative discount needing to be paid. We have to have some flexibility built into the system, and the risk at the moment is that that is not presently available in the way that we have understood it in the past. We can strengthen local authorities, and in the next group I hope we can talk about how that might be possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 313 and 317 propose to make the levy voluntary for local authorities or to introduce it through a pilot system. I acknowledge that the reforms we are proposing will need to be implemented in a sensible manner. There are problems with the existing system, but it is important that we do not introduce new issues. We want to ensure that the new levy delivers at least as much affordable housing as the existing system, and that is why we are currently consulting on the levy and intend to consult again on the draft regulations. We want input from across the private and public sectors, and we will consider the feedback carefully as we proceed. As I mentioned previously, the new levy will be introduced through a process of test and learn and a phased-out programme. I hope that this will provide the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the reassurance that further piloting powers are not needed.
In terms of introducing the levy as a voluntary system, we are seeking to create more certainty across the whole system of developer contributions. We recognise that the levy must be introduced carefully to ensure that it will deliver the intended results. That is the purpose of the test and learn. However, if we do not aim for a unified system, we will dilute the potential benefits. I hope this provides the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, with sufficient reassurances to withdraw Amendment 313.
Amendments 364 and 364A are concerned with how the Government will assess the delivery of affordable homes under the new infrastructure levy. Given the length of time of the proposed rollout, requiring an assessment of the levy 120 days after the Bill is passed, as proposed in Amendment 364, provides an insufficient amount of time meaningfully to assess the impacts of the levy, but I reassure the Committee that during the rollout the Government will work closely with stakeholders to monitor the impacts of the levy. That includes monitoring our commitment to deliver at least as much, if not more, affordable housing.
In addition, the department has commissioned a scoping study to develop an approach to the evaluation of the planning elements of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill, which we expect to report following Royal Assent, and the full evaluation informed by the findings of the scoping study will then be commissioned. I hope this gives reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and that she will feel able not to move her amendment.
On Amendment 364A, first homes were a 2019 manifesto commitment and are already successfully established in the market through a grant-funded early delivery programme. Outside that programme, the first homes discount is funded by developers as part of their contribution through planning obligations. The Government currently publish information about the delivery of first homes through both the early delivery programme and planning obligations in our annual affordable housing supply statistical release, and I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that we will continue to do so. We will work closely with local authorities throughout the phased test-and-learn implementation programme to monitor the Government’s key objective to maintain affordable housing supply. This will include but will not be limited to first homes. I hope I have provided the noble Baroness with sufficient reassurance not to press that amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. She has given a number of examples. Will the biodiversity net gains required in the Environment Act 2021 be included in the exceptions she has just listed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think I have just said that we are currently consulting on what will be in those. I would prefer to wait until after that consultation and then we will know what is going to be in them.
Amendments 332 and 333 seek to require a local authority to prepare an assessment of its affordable housing need and for the infrastructure levy rates to be set at a level that will meet this need in full. We must recognise that the total value that can be captured by the levy, or indeed any system of developer contributions, will not necessarily match the costs of meeting the entire affordable housing need of an area. Revenues will depend on the value of development that comes forward, and that will not always match need.
Nevertheless, new Section 204G(2) in Schedule 11 requires that charging authorities, when setting their rates, must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that affordable housing funded by developer contributions equals or exceeds present levels. That will ensure that affordable housing need is accounted for when levy rates are set. Furthermore, charging schedules will be subject to scrutiny by public examination to ensure that it does.
I want to make it clear that the list of infrastructure issues is not in priority order. Although affordable housing may be seventh on the list, that does not make it a priority. That list is also not necessarily complete.
As noble Lords will no doubt be aware, strategic housing market assessments or similar documents are currently part of the evidence base used to prepare a local plan. These are required as a result of national policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, rather than in primary legislation. Under the new system for preparing local plans, local authorities will continue to be required to prepare evidence regarding different types of housing need, including affordable housing. That will inform not only the local plan but the infrastructure delivery strategy.
I agree that it is important that the levy is based on up-to-date evidence of affordable housing need. It is the intention that local plans, charging schedules and infrastructure delivery strategies are prepared together. However, during the transition period, this may not always be possible. That is why our preferred approach is to use regulations and guidance to set out how evidence-based documents, including evidence on different types of housing need, should be considered. I hope I have given reassurance to the Committee that the provisions in the Bill will enable levy rates to be set with proper regard to affordable housing need, and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, will feel able not to press his amendment.
Amendments 334 and 334A have the commendable purpose of ensuring that the levy meets its aims of delivering at least as much affordable housing as the current system, if not more, or otherwise addressing locally identified need for affordable housing. The Bill allows regulations to make provision about matters to be considered by charging authorities when setting rates, including the desirability of ensuring that affordable housing funded by developer contributions equals or exceeds present levels. This will ensure that affordable housing need is accounted for when rates are set but, if the Government are overly prescriptive about requirements, the development of an area could become unviable. That is because affordable housing need may exceed what can be captured through the levy. In such circumstances, rates would need to be set at such high levels that neither affordable housing nor market housing would come forward.
The Bill has been drafted carefully to enable local authorities to find the right balance when setting rates and capture as much value as they can while maintaining viability. As I have said, local authorities’ infrastructure levy charging schedules will be subject to public examination, meaning thorough scrutiny of how and why levy rates are set at a particular level. The infrastructure delivery strategy will also be subject to examination, alongside either a local authority’s charging schedule or its local plan. We envisage that the infrastructure delivery strategy will set out the proportion of levy payment that an authority will require to be delivered in kind as affordable housing. I hope that this provides the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Taylor, with sufficient reassurance not to press these amendments.
Amendments 340, 341, 344, 344A, 349 and 350 are all concerned with how local planning authorities should spend levy proceeds. With regard to Amendment 340, the infrastructure levy is an important tool to support sustainable development objectives at the local level. There is an existing requirement for local authorities, when exercising any function in relation to local plans, to do so with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. This is set down in Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and will remain in the new plan-making system.
To create sustainable development and successful places, it is important that the infrastructure is appropriately planned for. Contributions from developers are a key tool in mitigating the impacts of new development, alongside wider government funding. The Bill provides a flexible framework to allow local authorities to decide which infrastructure projects they spend the proceeds on. When making such decisions, the Government expect local authorities to fulfil their functions by having regard to all their legal requirements in the round—for example, contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
I turn to Amendments 341 and 344. As I hope that I have impressed on the Committee, we have designed the levy with the aim of delivering at least as much affordable housing as the current system of developer contributions, if not more. Should the levy generate more revenues than at present, local authorities would be able to choose to direct those additional revenues to meeting their local affordable housing need. Nevertheless, local authorities will need to balance this objective of affordable housing delivery with the levy’s other objectives, such as supporting the development of new roads and medical facilities. We think it is right that local authorities, which know their areas best, are best placed to make local decisions in balancing funding for matters such as affordable housing and other local infrastructure need. I hope noble Lords will therefore feel able not to press these amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate—over two days, because we had a previous day on this group. When I introduced our amendments, I said that a number of issues remain in relation to the provision of affordable housing with the infrastructure levy, and that a great deal more clarity was needed about how the infrastructure levy, Section 106 and CIL will fit together to deliver the affordable housing we all know we will need. I am not sure we have that clarity yet.
I am grateful to the Minister for, once again, giving a detailed response to this group, but it is clear that we have not yet got to the point where we understand the relationship exactly. The Minister referred to consultation, but some of us find it difficult to understand why that is taking place while the Bill is going through the House. Had we known the outcome, it would have provided the evidence base needed to back up what is in the Bill. So we will wait to see what the consultation says.
The redefinition of “affordable housing”, which was referred to time and again in this and other groups—the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to it—is an important point and I hope we will come back to it. The Minister mentioned the juggling or balancing act that local authorities will have to perform with housing and other infrastructure. It has always been incredibly difficult, but with the housing crisis being where it is, I suspect it will get ever trickier. So there is still a lot for local authorities to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, made a key point about implementation of the infrastructure levy over a long period, so I hope we can get some clarity before Report on what that means. How long will it take and what will the relationship be between Section 106, CIL and the infrastructure levy? Will they taper off or will they be switched off on a certain date?
In the earlier debate on these amendments, my noble friend Lady Warwick made a powerful speech about the housing element. She pointed out that 4.2 million people are in need of social housing, and gave the startling fact that
“nine in 10 local authorities failed to build a single council house last year”.—[Official Report, 3/5/23; col. 1656.]
This threw into sharp relief the challenges associated with the infrastructure levy.
My noble friend also spoke about the delivery mechanism for Section 106 and the “right to require” commitment from the Government. The Minister has given us a bit more detail about that today, which is helpful, but we will want to carry on looking for that. Since my noble friend had raised it, I was very grateful to hear from the Minister about the exemption where sites have 100% affordable housing.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, we remain with the question of the infrastructure levy in this part of the Bill. The purpose of debating the question of whether Clause 124 should stand part is to allow for a debate on the principles of the infrastructure levy. Curiously, it seems we will have a debate on the principles after we have discussed some of the detail—but let us not worry too much about that; we will no doubt return to all these subjects on Report anyway.
Although this is the levelling-up Bill, this clause is the not-levelling-up provision in it, since the Government’s technical consultation said that the infrastructure levy could lead to a possible increase in
“geographic inequalities already evident in the current system”.
We therefore cannot treat the infrastructure levy as tackling one of the central issues we face: that, while there is a large amount of development value being created in some parts of the country that can fund infrastructure and affordable housing, whether it does or does not, in other parts of the country it is not available at all.
That is exacerbated by the gross development value as well as the simple fact that, in some parts of the country, there is a relative dearth of brownfield sites—for example, in the east of England, my own area. That means that when development takes place on greenfield sites, the gross development value—netting off the build cost and existing use value—can be large. In many other parts of the country, there are more brownfield sites and, by the time you have calculated a lower gross development value and taken off the build cost and existing use value—both often higher for a brownfield site—you are left with very little of the gross development value available for the infrastructure levy.
There will, I am afraid, be a serious potential conflict between the purposes of the infrastructure levy. The community will look at it and say, “This will provide our schools, healthcare infrastructure, flood defences, open spaces and sport and recreation facilities” and all sorts of other potential benefits, looking at the amendments, as opposed to affordable housing. Under the existing system, two-thirds of developer contributions go to affordable housing. We do not know, but the pressures will, if anything, be higher rather than lower. That may lead to a very serious constraint on the amount of infrastructure levy available for the purposes that the infrastructure delivery strategy sets out.
I do not pretend that there is a completely different and better answer than what the Government are proposing. However, I am a bear of very simple brain; at Second Reading, I referred to the simple proposition that, on one hand, you have Section 106, by means of which developers are required to provide the infrastructure—in my view, they should also provide the affordable housing that is to be integral to the site they are developing or that is consequent directly upon that site—and, separately, there should be an infrastructure levy or community infrastructure levy.
I find it slightly surprising that the Government, having addressed the problems associated with the community infrastructure levy—it is not country-wide and it is based on pounds per metre squared, or a floor-space calculation, rather than on gross development value—did not do what struck me as the sensible thing: to rewrite aspects of the community infrastructure levy while retaining its basic structure, and make it mandatory for local authorities to introduce one. Instead, they are sweeping it all away—but not entirely. All sorts of definitions of the community infrastructure levy will be retained. The CIL will go on for years in relation to all the developments that receive planning permission before the infrastructure levy comes into place, as we just heard.
The infrastructure levy also does not sweep away Section 106 at all. This is supposed to be transparent and streamlined; I am sorry, but I do not find it to be that. There are three routes. There is the core levy routeway but, when you delve into that, there is a delivery agreement within it that is, to all intents and purposes, Section 106 retained. The infrastructure levy is not sweeping away Section 106 or the negotiable aspects. If the Government really want to set—I understand why they would—what is effectively a minimum level of contribution from developers in relation to a development that goes towards integral infrastructure as well as wider infrastructure requirements, why not just do that and directly relate the Section 106 contributions to the total of the infrastructure levy—or the community infrastructure levy under the current system?
We have a series of difficulties. The current system, with gross development value, will have serious potential issues. For example, how will these viability assessments be done, by whom and how many times? The Government themselves are contemplating a viability assessment at the application stage—the indicative one—then another provisional one post commencement but prior to the completion stage, and then a final adjustment. Reading the documentation, the implication is that each of the viability assessments is an incremental change on the previous ones. What we know, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, kindly agreed with me on this, is that the viability assessments can change dramatically. There is nothing in the structure of this that looks yet at what those implications might look like.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this may be the third occasion on which we have discussed the infrastructure levy, which simply illustrates how important a part it will play in future development if it is passed. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the proposal for an infrastructure levy. It seems to me that there are too many variables in the infrastructure levy to give certainty to local communities, planning authorities and developers.
Growth development value on large-ish or medium-sized sites which are going to be developed across a number of years—300 houses over eight years, maybe—can significantly change in that period, as can the viability of the developer, because of lots of external factors. I had a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, when he asked why we have this complicated system where viability assessments take place at various stages during the development. How can the change that will inevitably happen during a development period provide with some certainty the affordable housing a local area needs, for instance? One of the huge risks of the infrastructure levy is that, rather than increasing the number of affordable homes that are built, it will reduce it, because of the risks to local communities and councils, and to developers, across the planned period.
From what I have heard from the Minister, the purpose of the infrastructure levy is to provide more certainty for developers and to take away the requirement to sign legal and Section 106 agreements. However, it does not—we heard in the earlier group that we are retaining Section 106 for some aspects and deliveries. At the heart of this issue is the challenge of how local infrastructure, as part of a new development, is funded, who funds it, and what qualifies as infrastructure. Planning authorities will have the unenviable task of determining the proportion of infrastructure levy to subsidise housing against mitigating the impact on the community for school places, GP surgeries, open spaces, biodiversity, green spaces, play areas, and so on, all of which will have to be funded through the infrastructure levy.
I have said already that one of the risks of the infrastructure levy is the uncertainty that will be created. As I understand it, and maybe the Minister can help explain it, when a local plan is being developed, the infrastructure delivery strategy will have to be determined at the same time. That leads me to some questions. Where does the infrastructure delivery strategy fit in relation to local plans that have been agreed and are being implemented? Does a new one have to be developed on the back of the long and painful process of developing a local plan? Do we have to have another infrastructure delivery strategy on top of that, bearing in mind that local plans are in existence for 10 years? How does that fit in, because when local plans are developed, they will have had in mind a previous regime for funding infrastructure?
I have another pertinent question. As rates are going to be set by local planning authorities and councils, they will inevitably reflect local economic circumstances. The example of the rates agreed for community infrastructure levy—albeit that excludes Section 106—is informative in this regard. In a Yorkshire metropolitan authority that I will not name, of the charges for CIL that were calculated, the charge per square metre for the highest of the three tiers was £80. I then looked at a district council in Hampshire, where financial circumstances are better, and the highest tier there was £235 per square metre. It concerns me greatly that there should be a huge differential between a relatively poor Yorkshire metropolitan council area and a relatively well-off area towards the south of the country.
The differential rate is so large that I do not see how councils in the north, or areas where it is more difficult to extract funding from developers because of land values, will be able to fund the levels of infrastructure that are required. The risk is that those areas have less funding from the levy to implement affordable housing and all the other public services that normally come out of development, whereas better off areas could provide better facilities. That is one huge risk, and a worry for me.
I have some questions on that for the Minister—I hope she will be able to answer them. I read through the technical paper on the infrastructure levy but I could not see anywhere where the department had done some calculations as to what the rates are anticipated to be in different parts of the country. I am sure the department will have done that, otherwise you would not make this transformational move. It would be good to hear from the Minister what those acceptable estimated rates are. Currently, as we know, about 66% of funding from CIL and Section 106 goes on affordable housing. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what proportion of different rates across the country it is anticipated will be spent on so-called affordable housing.
I come to my third question. Developers are interested in maximising their profits—quite rightly, as they have commercial interests. They will find ways, as they do with Section 106 and CIL, to challenge the requirements through viability assessments. The best thing that could happen is that those assessments disappear. Perhaps the Minister can talk a bit about that. If all this is to be dependent on viability assessments, the prospect of raising more funds for subsidising housing and community benefits out of development schemes is more pie in the sky than reality.
The trouble with all this is that, as with many other parts of the Bill, there is insufficient information to make judgments about whether the efficacy of the new powers as against existing schemes—which are known, tried and tested—will work.
The big question for me is that the Government are hoping that the infrastructure levy will fund more so-called affordable housing, which, certainly in my authority, is now required to be in perpetuity: the 20% reduction in market value has to be passed on by a covenant on the house in perpetuity. You get a better bang for your buck from that, so I ask the Minister whether this, too, could be a requirement of any infrastructure levy subsidy of affordable housing. There are more questions than answers, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for initiating this clause stand part debate, because in the way we do business in your Lordships’ House, amending existing Bills, it is always worth taking a step back and asking whether we need to do this at all. He has generated a very interesting debate, and in the other groups on the infrastructure levy, it has always been worth holding in our minds whether this is the right way to do it, or whether we should go back to what we have already. That is always worth doing.
The local government community would welcome some clarity on the whole issue of developer contributions. The LGA has been quite supportive of the infrastructure levy, with some qualifications, but wants clarity on what quantum we are expecting to get from it, as well as what is expected to be achieved by it, because we are in danger of making it into the motherhood and apple pie of local government funding, and it certainly will not achieve that.
This is even further complicated in two-tier areas—I have the scars on my back to prove it—where the district council is the housing authority and is looking for substantial contributions to housing, but the upper-tier authority has a duty to press for funding for education, highways, flooding and all the other things that upper-tier authorities look after. It is important we understand the weighting of those various voices in the infrastructure levy process, because otherwise all the pressure on infrastructure will raise viability questions once again. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, who is not in his place today, previously raised issues about emergency services and whether they warrant consideration for infrastructure levy. These are questions we are rightly looking at as we go through the Bill.
Our provision in the first group was for pilots, and we would have preferred that they were carried out before the Bill came to the House, which would have enabled some testing of the efficacy of the infrastructure levy before we went down this route, but that is shutting the stable door. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s responses on how long the transition period will be and what will be done to test this out as we go through the process.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked why, if what the Government are trying to achieve is a minimum contribution levy, they do not just do that. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s answer to that question. It is a really good point that, if we must assess this at planning, post-commencement and at final adjustment, what happens if there is significant inflationary pressure, a market crash or whatever between those stages? If it works one way and the final adjustment ended up being a further contribution in cash from developers to make up the difference, that is one thing; if it goes the other way, however, and the viability at the planning stage is greater than what is achieved at the final adjustment, what happens then to the difference? There is quite a lot still to be thought through on this.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for raising the question, but the local government community is quite keen now to have the issue of developer contributions resolved. If the infrastructure levy is going to do that, that would be a good thing, but there are many more questions to answer before that happens.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for tabling these amendments.
As we have discussed, infrastructure delivery strategies will help local authorities to plan for the vital infrastructure that is needed to support sustainable development in their area. The infrastructure levy is designed to be a more effective and streamlined system than CIL and planning obligations. Unlike CIL, the new levy will be a mandatory charge which all relevant authorities will be required to adopt. This is an important step in reducing the complexities of the existing system and ensuring uniformity. Also, it ensures that all local authorities benefit from the levy receipts for their local area over time. The levy will be designed to be responsive to market conditions, meaning that local authorities get a fairer share of the uplift in land value that often occurs between the grant of planning permission and site completion to fund local infrastructure.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked what happened if there was a 10% reduction in GDV which resulted in a 40% reduction in developer profit. As the final liability is based on the gross development value, if the sales value falls, the levy liability will also reduce—that happens similarly at the moment anyway.
The infrastructure levy will be able to fund the provision of affordable housing, largely replacing the operation of the Section 106 agreement. At the moment, the Section 106 agreement is what delivers most of the affordable housing and is often hard fought by local authorities. This will be a much more stable way of delivering affordable housing. The new right to require will mean that local authorities can stipulate the affordable housing that they require to be delivered in kind as part of that levy liability.
My noble friend Lord Lansley also asked about regional inequalities. We can only capture the land value uplift that is there. We expect to capture more in high-value greenfield areas, obviously, and this is what happens in the existing system—you cannot do that any other way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also brought in the point about the infrastructure delivery strategy and existing local plans, which is an important issue. We must accept that we are making a big change here. An assessment of infrastructure need will be undertaken alongside the local plan. In the long term, we expect these two parts of the delivery strategy will be brought together, but during transition they may have to be undertaken separately. We are talking about long-term here, and we expect those two plans to be together eventually and as soon as possible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The issue about regional inequalities is really important. This is supposed to be a levelling-up Bill. If there will be more inequalities in the infrastructure levy in different parts of the country, then it is hard to see how it will help the Bill to do its job in terms of levelling up. It will exacerbate inequalities, not help to level them up.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am not sure that is right. To take affordable housing, in an area with lower housing-cost needs and where housing is of lower value, you cannot expect the same infrastructure levy for houses and land of £150,000 to £350,000, so you must get that balance right. However, with levelling up, we would expect the values to come up and level as we go through the levelling-up procedure.
Lord Stunell (LD)
The noble Baroness makes a very interesting point, but the problem is that construction costs are not as widely differentiated as land costs. This means that an area with a low level of levy will not be able to build an equivalent number of homes to an area with a high levy. The mismatch between costs and income will be the problem.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I take that point. We have talked about the different rates from different development typologies, and we expect local authorities to set different rates. As the noble Baroness said, they do that with COUNCIL for different development types. We have published research that shows the range of possible rates for different case study areas, and I have put the results of that research in a letter.
For all these reasons, the Government are introducing the new infrastructure levy through the Bill and it is the correct thing to do for the country. There are too many local communities that, with the CIL system and the Section 106 system, are not getting what they deserve from the developments in those areas. So a new system, however difficult it is or however long it takes to deliver, has to be the right way to go.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
The Minister makes a very important point about the infrastructure levy, as opposed to Section 106 and CIL. Could she provide us with some evidence that the infrastructure levy will raise more money than the existing system?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will look to the evidence but, as I have clearly stated many times, we are expecting the same if not more housing, particularly affordable housing, from this infrastructure levy. I just say to my noble friend Lord Lansley, as I have said before, that we are not getting rid of Section 106 agreements, but will use them only in very restricted circumstances. The main issue from this is that affordable housing comes out of the Section 106 system and into the infrastructure levy system. When the whole country moves to the infrastructure levy, it will make affordable housing a much more important issue when it comes to how we use developer contributions in the future.
I move on now to government Amendment 361A. This makes three consequential changes to other Acts of Parliament to ensure that the new infrastructure levy will be treated in the same way as CIL in relevant legal contexts. First, Section 101(6) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that a local authority’s functions in relation to levying rates may be exercised only by that authority—in other words, those functions may not be delegated—but CIL is not a “rate” for this purpose. This means that a local authority may delegate its CIL functions.
Amendment 361A replicates this approach in respect of infrastructure levy functions. I emphasise, however, that the Bill contains important safeguards for democratic accountability. For example, new Section 204K(6) makes it clear that a local authority may approve its infrastructure levy charging schedule only at a meeting of the authority and by a majority of the members present.
Secondly, Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that “local finance considerations” can be a material consideration when determining planning applications. Local finance considerations include CIL, which can therefore be a material consideration when a planning application is determined.
Government Amendment 361A treats the infrastructure levy in the same way, allowing infrastructure levy receipts—anticipated and received—to be taken into account when determining planning applications. This does not override the primary aims of the infrastructure levy to support the development of an area by providing infrastructure, including affordable housing, or its meeting of other purposes, as set out in regulations, in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(ea) may make provision treating CIL as if it were IL,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables IL regulations made under new Part 10A of the Planning Act 2008 (as inserted by Schedule 11 to the Bill) to make provision treating the charge known as the community infrastructure levy under section 205 of that Act to be treated as if it were the charge known as the infrastructure levy.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables IL regulations made under new Part 10A of the Planning Act 2008 (as inserted by Schedule 11 to the Bill) to make provision about the use of the power under section 106(1)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to obtain sums for use in connection with IL.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Local Government Act 1972
1A In section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities), after subsection (6) insert—“(6ZA) Infrastructure Levy under Part 10A of the Planning Act 2008 is not a rate for the purposes of subsection (6).”TCPA 1990
1B In section 70(4) of the TCPA 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations), in paragraph (b) of the definition of “local finance consideration”, after “payment of” insert “Infrastructure Levy or”.Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994
1C In section 71(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (functions excluded from sections 69 and 70), omit the word “and” at the end of paragraph (h) and after that paragraph insert—“(ha) sections 204R and 204S of the Planning Act 2008 (Infrastructure Levy: collection and enforcement); and”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes amendments to a number of Acts in consequence of new Part 10A of the Planning Act 2008, inserted by Part 1 of Schedule 11 of the Bill, which makes provision for a new Infrastructure Levy.
Member's explanatory statement
This means that the objective of CLA is to support ‘sustainable’ development.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we move on to Part 5, “Community land auction pilots”. This was not in the Bill when it went through Committee in the other place so it has not really had any proper scrutiny.
We are asking: why legislate for pilot schemes? Once again, as I mentioned under the part of the Bill concerned with the infrastructure levy, surely it makes more sense to run pilot schemes before legislation is brought forward, not to put them in the legislation. For example, although we on these Benches were very unhappy with the introduction of voter ID, as the noble Earl the Minister knows, at least the Government spent a couple of years running pilot schemes on it before bringing the legislation forward. Can the noble Earl explain the thinking about the process that is being followed, in this case, of putting pilots in the legislation instead of running them before the legislation comes before us?
As we all know, currently, when planning permission is given for new homes, the land in question can increase in value by over 80 times. The vast majority of this goes to the landowner and other players, with very little being captured by the local authority. Community land auctions would give councils the tools to capture much more of the value uplift, which they can then spend on local priorities such as improved infrastructure and better public services. In theory, this sounds like a really good idea but, as always, the devil is in the detail. We need to understand properly how this would work in practice. What will the impact be on developers and how will they react? What consultation took place between the Government, local authorities and developers before this proposal was put in the Bill?
Under Amendment 362, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, the objective of community land auctions would be to support sustainable development. I am not going to go into all the reasons for that again now. We have had lots of discussions about why it is important that the Bill focus all the time on the sustainability of the development that will take place as a result of some of its provisions, so I do not need to highlight that any further.
Under Amendment 365, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, any relevant combined authority would be given the report to scrutinise. It is very important that we enshrine liaison with local authorities as part of the Bill, and I hope we will be able to do that.
There is also a stand part debate on Clause 127. I will be interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, discuss the purposes and mechanisms of community land auctions. It would be useful to hear about the relationship between community land auctions and the plan-making process, and how they will fit in as the process takes place. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the proposition in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley that Clause 127 should not stand part of the Bill. My noble friend and I are job-sharing for much of this section of the Bill.
This clause deals with pilots for community land auctions, which aim to give local authorities the ability to benefit far more greatly from new development than they do under the current system, even as proposed in the Bill. Basically, it takes the principle behind Section 106, the new homes bonus, CIL and the infrastructure levy a stage further, but in doing so it risks compromising the integrity of the planning system by moving more towards the sale of planning consents.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill are normally quite helpful, but the 10 lines on the background to CLAs, on page 126, do not explain what is going to happen. As I understand the proposal, a landowner can name the price at which he is willing to sell his land to the council—it would probably be agricultural land, but it could be industrial land—which then has an option to purchase the land at that price. The price will be somewhere between the current value and the hope value with planning consent. The local authority then develops its plan, and if that land is deemed suitable for housing development, it buys it at the option price and resells it to the developer, pocketing the difference. I assume the Government hope that many landowners will take advantage of the scheme so that the local authority has a choice and the ability to choose best value. I think it clear from that scenario that the local authority has a financial incentive to designate land for development over which it has an option, in preference to land over which it has no option but which may be more appropriate for development. I will return to that in a moment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I cede everything to my noble friend Lord Young when it comes to experience and wisdom in this matter, but I am very attracted by the idea of running the pilot proposed by the Bill. It has long seemed to me deeply inequitable that when it comes to property development, the landowner gets so much for the uplift and the community gets so little. We very much need to explore and try out ways of setting that right, and this seems an excellent thing to try. I share my noble friend’s reservations that aspects of it may turn out not to be right, but that should not prevent us having a go. My amendment just says that if it proves to be a success, and I shall keep my fingers firmly crossed that it is, it would seem foolish to let it die after 10 years without giving Parliament the opportunity to let it continue.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, very much for the best explanation of community land auctions that I have heard. I have searched the internet to find a good explanation but have heard the best one this afternoon from him.
The issue is how we capture for local communities the uplift—a very large uplift in many cases—in land values once planning consent has been given to a site. This is one way in which it could work and it has some attraction to it. However, living as I do in West Yorkshire, where land values are not like those in Surrey, Hampshire or Berkshire, the inevitable consequence of community land auctions is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said: to the well off, more shall be given while to the least well off, little shall be given.
As far as I can tell, this will exacerbate regional inequalities. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, this is a levelling-up Bill. Living where I do, I was really looking forward to lots of proposals in it to reduce regional inequalities, but this is one example of where it will do the opposite. Somehow we have to find ways of extracting the very considerable uplift in land values once planning consent is given for housing.
Where I live, we still have many former industrial sites in need of costly remediation, and those land values will not be there for a community land auction. The provision will work only on greenfield sites, which is contrary to what we are trying to achieve. It will increase regional inequalities, which is contrary to the purpose of the Bill. If we can find a better way of extracting land value once planning consent or planning allocations have been given, that is where we should go. I am not convinced that this is the way, interesting though the proposal is. “Let us see the evidence” is what I would like to say. I know we are going to do a pilot, but somebody somewhere in the department has done some thinking and provided some evidence. Let us see it before we make a decision on this, because otherwise it is a dive into the unknown.
My last point is that there have not been good examples recently of local authorities getting involved in commercial practice—in fact, the contrary is the case. That is where this would take us: local authorities bidding for and buying land at a certain value and then hoping that, once they sell it on with planning consent, the extra can be extracted. That is putting a lot of faith in the commercial expertise within local authorities, which I am not sure they have. If I was putting a bet on developers and landowners against local authorities, I know which one would win.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the levy we have been debating, the Government are interested in testing other mechanisms that could improve land value capture.
Community land auctions are an innovative process of identifying land for allocation for development in a local planning authority’s area in a way that seeks to optimise land value capture. Their aim is to introduce transparency and certainty by allowing local planning authorities to know the exact price at which a landowner is willing to sell their land. The crux of our approach is to encourage landowners to compete against each other to secure allocation of their land for development in the local plan by granting a legally binding option over their land to the local planning authority.
The competitive nature of community land auction arrangements incentivises landowners to reveal the true price at which they would willingly part with their land. If the land is allocated in the local plan upon its adoption, the local planning authority can sell the CLA option, keeping the amount that the successful bidder has paid and capturing the value that has accrued to the land as a result of the allocation. The successful bidder must then pay the price set out by the original landowner in the option agreement to purchase the land. The detailed design of community land auction arrangements will be set out in regulations that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In a moment, I will address my noble friend Lord Young’s clause stand part notice but, for now, I hope that that is useful background, by way of introduction.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, maybe it is because it is Thursday afternoon, but I am slightly more confused now than before my noble friend gave his reply. He said that the land would be within the development plan, but he also said that it is an innovative way of identifying land for development. Those two statements do not seem to agree; there is a contradiction. I do not think that my noble friend answered my noble friend Lord Young’s point about the distortions that this can cause to a potential development plan.
It is perhaps true more in the south of England than in the north, where land values are cheaper, but if a landowner gets in cahoots with the local authority and says, “I will sell you my land at X”, knowing very well that his chances of getting planning permission are zero, would that not encourage the local authority to alter the development plan to benefit itself and the community rather than doing planning in the old-fashioned way, which was to develop with a holistic view of the area?
One thing I am not certain about is where local authorities will get the funds from to buy that land, particularly in the expensive south-east. I wonder whether my noble friend can help me on that.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the process will not be as my noble friend has described. The simplest way I can describe this is that community land auctions will be a process of price discovery. In the current system, local planning authorities have to make assumptions about the premium required by a reasonable landowner to release their land for development. For Section 106 agreements, this manifests itself through viability negotiations between the local planning authority and a developer. As these can be negotiated, there is a higher risk that, in effect, higher land prices lead to reduced developer contributions, rather than contributions being fully priced by developers into the amount that they pay for land.
For the community infrastructure levy and the proposed infrastructure levy, a levy rate is set for all development within certain parameters. When setting rates, the local planning authority has to calculate how much value uplift will occur on average, and has to make assumptions about landowner premiums and set a levy rate on that basis. The actual premium required by individual landowners will not be available to local planning authorities and will vary depending on individual circumstances. If the local planning authority makes an inaccurate assumption about landowner premiums, they may either make a lot of sites unviable by setting too high a levy rate, or else they will collect much less than they might have done otherwise by setting too low a levy rate.
Under the CLA process, landowners bid to have their land selected for allocation in an emerging local plan, as I have described, by stating the price at which they would willingly sell their land to the LPA for development. The offer from the landowner, once an option agreement is in place with the LPA, becomes legally binding. The LPA can either exercise it themselves, thereby purchasing the land, or auction it to developers. The competitive nature of CLAs incentivises landowners to reveal the true price at which they would willingly part with their land. If they choose to offer a higher price, they risk another piece of land being allocated for development, in which case they will not secure any value uplift at all.
I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, so I will respond to my noble friend in writing on the other questions I have not covered.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the very patient way he dealt with the argument I put forward. I will take him up on two points. First, he said that the Government will consult local authorities about this. Surely, before introducing primary legislation on a major planning system, they should consult the local authorities first, rather than after the Bill has gone through. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I think he said that when the local authorities were drawing up the plan they could take into account the financial benefits. I think that is moving towards what he subsequently deplored: namely, the sale of planning permission.
Earl Howe (Con)
The extent to which those financial benefits can be taken into account will be set out, as I mentioned, in regulations. My noble friend makes a fair point, but parameters will be set around this. On the issue of prior consultation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, also raised, one can take two views: one is to go through the process that my noble friend advocated, and the other is to say that the integrity and workability of the scheme is such that we can afford to come to this House and the other place first before launching a pilot. Our view is that it will be perfectly satisfactory to take that course.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting discussion. This is probably one of the cases where there is less clarity at the end of the debate than there was at the beginning. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for once again giving a very forensic and detailed analysis of the subject and for raising all the key issues that sit within it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it was a very clear description of community land auctions.
On the issue of consultation, I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, in answer to an Oral Question earlier today, said that we are in danger of doing too much consultation. In this case, it would have been helpful if councils had been consulted before this proposal was put forward in primary legislation, because some of the issues raised in the debate would have come up immediately—they are quite obvious to those of us engaged in local government.
I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said. There is a queue of things that many of us feel should be in this Bill, including renters reform, leasehold reform, repealing the Vagrancy Act and so on. They did not get across the line and put into this primary legislation; yet here we have a fairly unformed idea, which has not been tested, which is in the legislation. That process is a bit mysterious to some of us.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that climate and other key environmental considerations, including the need to improve the condition of protected sites, will be included in the new EOR regime.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I will not go into detail on all of them but will talk about our concerns about this part of the Bill and home in on a number of them.
Part 6 gives Ministers the power to amend or replace 17 systems of environment assessment with a new environmental outcomes regime. Changes to these technical systems will have significant environmental impacts on the ground. Environmental assessment provides the critical processes that ensure that nature, climate and heritage considerations are properly considered in the planning system and that help protect sensitive sites from damage. Given the potential for environmental harms—or benefit, of course—to arise from these changes, we believe that detailed parliamentary scrutiny is essential. We are concerned that, as drafted, Part 6 largely freezes Parliament out from shaping the process that is going to have significant impacts for net zero and for nature’s recovery.
The bulk of the detail of the environmental regime, including the outcomes that it will be built around and which actual projects it will apply to, are all going to be set by secondary legislation. In the words of the Office for Environmental Protection, the body set up by the Environment Act to scrutinise environmental policy,
“its potential environmental implications will only become fully apparent through ‘EOR regulations’”.
We believe that giving the Secretary of State Henry VIII powers to reshape all systems of environmental assessment is unsatisfactory and inappropriate, considering the climate and ecological emergency that we are living through. My amendments would require Ministers to set higher environmental ambitions in primary legislation and allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny of any subsequent EOR regulations. This would enable parliamentarians to ensure that the new processes lift rather than lower environmental standards, something that Ministers have often declared they want to see.
My Amendment 372 would ensure that the central aspect of the EOR regime—the nature of the environmental outcomes it will strive to deliver—is fully set out in primary legislation. Currently, the lack of detail in this area is such that climate is not in fact mentioned at all within the EOR scope set out in Clause 138. Perhaps the Minister will explain why. Friends of the Earth has observed that we
“are left to hope that Government will, at some later stage, include the protection of the climate as an environmental outcome”.
A consultation on the EOR published by DLUHC in March sheds little further light on this baffling omission of climate from this Part of the Bill. The consultation suggests that climate change will be inherent in the consideration of the factors listed in Clause 138 and adds that Ministers can always use secondary legislation to update it if required. Does the Minister agree that such a relaxed approach to the consideration of climate impact within environmental assessment is inappropriate in a climate emergency? My Amendment 372 clarifies that protection of the climate from the effects of human activity should be a core environmental outcome, set through primary legislation.
My Amendment 371 adds further essential details to the description of other outcomes—for example, the need for natural environment outcomes to include improvements to the condition of protected sites. Adding these core environmental aspects to the Bill will then embed them into the EOR regime right from the start and allow their detailed application to be further considered through proper scrutiny.
My Amendment 377 would strengthen the non-regression safeguard in Part 6 and ensure that the EOR regime will not be weaker than current systems of environmental assessment. The current safeguard set out in Clause 142 is far from robust, because it gives the Secretary of State the power to actually weaken standards in the EOR regulation, as long as they are satisfied that the overall level of environmental protection will not be less than before. The Office for Environmental Protection has highlighted that this “overall” wording allows for highly subjective assessments to be made by Ministers, with declines in crucial standards potentially being offset by strengthening of standards that a Minister alone feels has the same weight. For example, a Minister could balance weakened standards for the condition of protected sites with improvements in standards for environmental data collection, allowing the weakening of protected sites to proceed, to the detriment of nature.
My Amendment 377 replaces this weak safeguard with a stricter legal test, requiring no diminution of environmental protection in any one area. This provides a higher bar to shape EOR regulations and for parliamentarians to assess them against. It also echoes the wording of the non-regression clause—Section 20—in the Environment Act 2021. This robust non-regression test should also be applied to this Bill. I hope the Minister agrees. The Government have already responded positively to one set of amendments to Part 6, and we thank them for that.
My Amendment 369 and Amendments 375 and 376 tabled by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage highlight that, due to confused drafting, Clauses 139 and 141 would undermine the mitigation hierarchy, which is a keystone in environmental protection in the planning system. We very much welcome government Amendments 373A, 373B, 373C, 373D, 373E and 373F, which were tabled in March to address this. Will the Minister and her department look again at how this responsive approach could be extended to ensure that the EOR regime has climate considerations and that there is a robust non-regression clause built into it?
The process for scrutinising the regulations that will implement Part 6 needs to be enhanced. Currently, the Bill sees EOR regulations subject only to the affirmative procedure, which, of course, precludes amendment and almost always leads to the regulations being passed. Given the significant environmental impacts that EOR regulations will have, we believe that a more thorough and constructive form of scrutiny is required. My Amendment 388 will achieve this by requiring EOR regulations to be made under the super-affirmative procedure. This means we have an additional 60-day period for amendments and will allow for meaningful input into the detail of the new system.
It is important to highlight that a number of the environmental assessment systems that EOR could replace were originally set through primary legislation. Detailed parliamentary scrutiny and potential amendment of replacement regulations are clearly appropriate and commensurate with the need to get right the detail of vital climate and nature policies. In a letter to Peers following Second Reading, the Minister suggested that scrutiny concerns were unfounded, as the Government’s EOR powers were tightly constrained by their commitment to consultation with the public and public authorities. Public consultation is welcome, as long as it is for longer than 10 days, as I said earlier, but it does not provide a constraint on ministerial power. It is also no substitute for proper parliamentary debate.
Together, my amendments constitute a repair package for the EOR proposals. Currently, they constitute a ministerial power grab, with the Government asking us, once again, to trust they will do the right thing with the considerable powers that Part 6 confers. These amendments will provide a legislative underpinning to limit this leap of faith, embedding high environmental ambition in the Bill and enabling meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of any additional detail. I urge the Government to carefully consider the case for these improvements to Part 6 of the Bill, so that it meets the minimum scrutiny standards we expect of such significant policy changes. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 384. Before I start, as there has been some gap between my appearances in this Chamber due to health issues, I remind the Committee of my conservation interests as laid out in the register. My amendment is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I was very grateful to those noble Baronesses for moving some amendments in earlier stages of Committee when I was not able to because of health issues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and I am sure the entire Committee will join me in saying that we are delighted to have him back with us. I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for the huge amount of work that has gone into this. So much is having to be filled in from the Opposition Benches and indeed the Back Benches on the other side, because this is such a skeleton Bill.
We have not only a shortage of birds, mammals and insects, but we are running into a shortage of Henry VIII metaphors. We have Henry VIII on steroids with rockets strapped to his boots—I have run out of additions to that one. The Bill as before us now would put into law an extreme right to Ministers to do whatever they would like. It is interesting to be having this debate in the context of the just-completed Report of the retained EU law Bill, because then your Lordships’ House expressed very clearly a desire to see non-regression in environmental regulations, but we need amendments such as these to the Bill to deliver the will that the House has expressed.
This group also made me think of debate on the economic crime Bill, where we were recently discussing the issue of freeports. There is a great deal of fear and concern in the community that these are places of open slather, where businesses will be allowed to do whatever they like and destroy whatever they like, where all the rules are taken away. As the Bill is written, that is what environmental outcome reports will effectively be doing: taking away EU-derived protections and leaving nothing written down in their place.
I will not run through it in detail, but if any noble Lords have not seen it, I point them to Wildlife and Countryside Link’s excellent report going line by line through a number of the amendments and explaining their importance. I pick out a couple of points. Amendment 372 concerns the climate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, we are in a climate emergency, and how can that be missing from this crucial Bill? We are supposed to be talking about a levelling-up Bill. These changes to environmental protection around the country seems a long way from levelling up, but that is where we are. If we think about the protection of nature and the impact of the lack of nature on public health, people’s well-being and communities, it is of particular interest to communities generally seen to be in need of levelling-up support.
I particularly pick up one element of Clause 141: the fact that it destroys the mitigation hierarchy. The environmental mitigation hierarchy starts with “avoid”: do not trash things in the first place. We are one of the most nature-deprived corners of this battered planet and should be absolutely avoiding environmental damage. At the moment, we are doing the opposite. I think of how often my social media feed and my email queue are full of desperate people saying, “How can we be cutting down this ancient tree to build one house?” or, “How can we be destroying this hedge when, with a bit of initiative and creativity, we could leave the hedge and build some houses as well?” There is so much we are not doing, and the way the Bill is written allows open slather to that.
I just note one point on Amendment 388, which introduces a super-affirmative procedure for regulations. It is an inadequate backstop: it is a backstop, but not nearly good enough. We need to write the essential protections into the Bill. That would mean that the Committee is following the desire that the House expressed at Report on the retained EU law Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in my name in this group: Amendments 378A, 378B and 386A. They are designed to try to ensure that this part of the Bill works effectively, and I hope will be regarded as helpful by my noble friend on the Front Bench. Not everything I have had to say has always been helpful, but I hope this is—it is all intended to be helpful, of course.
I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. In that context, members of the forum from BDB Pitmans helped me with the construction of these amendments. Amendment 378A relates to Clause 142(3), which provides for informing the public and for “adequate public engagement” to take place in relation to the exercise of functions under this part. The effect of this new provision could be to extend public consultation requirements to the exercise of permitted development rights, because of the use of “proposed relative consent”. These are consents.
The present situation does not require such consents to be the subject of such a consultation requirement. In the legislation as it stands, adequate public engagement does not imply no public engagement. This would therefore increase the burdens on utilities, for example, in exercising a consent for a permitted development right in relation to telecommunications, highways, rail, et cetera. Amendment 378A would enable the Secretary of State to disapply the requirement where it would impose a disproportionate burden on development. Alternatively, page 174 mentions
“proposed relevant consent or proposed relevant plan”
in relation to “adequate public engagement”. If “proposed relevant consent” was replaced with “EOR regulations”, it would serve the purpose perfectly well, and save the problem that might otherwise arise.
Amendment 378B relates to Clause 142(1) on non-regression. It is a pleasure to welcome back to his place my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. We have heard from him about the
“overall level of environmental protection”.
This is defined by reference to the European Union law when this Act is passed. My Amendment 378B would enable the Secretary of State to take into account, in exercising this responsibility to maintain the level of environmental protection, any urgent need for energy resilience. It is worth remembering that Section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 provides for environmental legislation to be introduced with a statement that
“will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law”.
There is then in that section a statutory provision enabling the Secretary of State to make
“provision that is different from existing environmental law”
and
“might provide for the same or a greater level of environmental protection”.
Why then is there no equivalent provision in relation here to the making of EOR regulations? The inflexibility of this provision is particularly illustrated by the prospect in the European Union of the introduction of a streamlined environmental assessment process for low-carbon technologies. I have reflected this in the phrase
“urgent need for energy resilience”.
This would enable Ministers to take account of such a process to advance low-carbon technologies and not be tied specifically to a level of environmental protection defined by current environmental law. I encourage my noble friend to consider either my amendment or something similar to the provision in Section 20 of the Environment Act 2021.
Amendment 386A refers to Clause 150, which makes the consequential amendments to this part. It is about the proposed repeal of Section 71 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is what provides for environmental assessments. As it stands, that section will be repealed two months after this Bill passes into law. Existing environmental impact assessment regulations will then subsist from that moment until such time as the EOR regulations can be made, following the entry into force of those regulations.
But how long is the gap? How long will it be between this Act coming into force and the making of the EOR regulations? It could easily be well over a year and possibly two. For the greater part of that period, no power would remain to amend the environmental impact assessment regulations, pending the environmental outcomes reports regime. The EOR power is not able to amend the EIA regime until that stage.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 372A in this group. Previous speakers have invested a huge amount of time in devising alternatives and improvements to the existing legislation, and I support their efforts very much. My amendment is much more basic and straightforward, and based less on research and more on intuition. It says that no new standards should be set lower than those in force at the time that the Bill comes into law. It is just a very basic, no-steps-backward amendment.
I am well aware that Clause 142 is, at least in essence, saying the same thing, except that it has a get-out clause, which has already been spoken to. It balances one sort of harm offset by another sort of good, all to be decided by a Secretary of State. That is not a no-steps-backward provision at all.
This kind of issue, the discretion being given to Secretaries of State, has come up on several previous days. We have had many earnest assurances from noble Lords on the Front Bench that there is every intention of maintaining, indeed increasing, the level of protection. It was said just this morning in relation to council houses; we are going to have more social provision, not less, as a result of the changes, and we are to trust them. Well, I am sorry to tell noble Lords that there is still a degree of uncertainty in the minds of many of us about how those promises will be delivered.
I have to say that Conservative Governments have proved quite transient things. We have had four Secretaries of State since this time last year and at least three fundamentally different approaches to housing targets and the levelling-up Bill. At least one key feature of the levelling-up mechanism set out in the White Paper was scrapped only this week—the regional levelling-up director posts—at, apparently, a saving of £144,000 a year for each of them.
There is a right royal battle under way, on and off stage, among senior Conservatives, aimed at setting our country free of all the enveloping red tape that stifles innovation and money-making. That is a paraphrase, but I hope not an unfair one. Mr Rees-Mogg, Mr Redwood and the Home Secretary are all hoping for a return to one or other of the alternative models of levelling up that Conservative Governments have played with over the last 12 months. Those versions have had lots and lots of levelling up, none at all or several mixtures in between.
So I ask noble Lords and the Front Bench Ministers opposite: what is the future of environmental outcomes reports? What guarantee is there that standards will not be allowed to drop, or perhaps even required to drop, in future, as red tape is cut and industry set free to make money and innovate? The current safeguarding guarantees are time-limited, fundamentally, to the assurances given by Ministers in Hansard. Based on the last 12 months, that level of protection is somewhat transient, and Clause 142 has its own get-out, as has already been pointed out.
If you look out of the window and see big clouds rolling in, you know that it is sensible to take your umbrella with you when you go out. That is common sense, not paranoia. If you look out the window and see big blue clouds rolling in from Bournemouth, or this weekend from Westminster, it makes even more sense to have your umbrella with you. My Amendment 372A is that umbrella. Yes, I want to see the other amendments in this group adopted, but surely we have to secure in the Bill the standards that we already have. That is why I have tabled Amendment 372A.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment, which has been coupled with this group. We are now moving on to Part 6 of the Bill, which involves Scotland. We have heard about all these doubts and areas that need to be cleared up, which are even more worrying for devolved Administrations.
My amendment is to Clause 143, “Requirements to consult devolved administrations”. I declare my family’s interest, as noted in the register, in that we own land in Scotland. We are fortunate; it is not a big area in Scottish terms, but it includes part of a national park, a nature reserve, a site of special scientific interest and special protection areas. As the Minister pointed out in an earlier debate, this is the section of the Bill that is most likely to affect devolved competencies. There can be no doubt that the Bill is causing much concern in the UK’s devolved Administrations, and we have just been hearing about the extent of the existing Henry VIII powers. Anyone who has spent any time in this Chamber knows that we are allergic to Henry VIII powers, and I hope that my noble friend can assuage us on the extent to which they will be included.
In the earlier debate on Clause 83, my noble friend rejected my proposed amendment. That issue only involved powers regarding planning data. Clause 143, as drafted, is a mirror of that text:
“The Secretary of State may only make EOR regulations which contain provision within Scottish devolved competence after consulting the Scottish Ministers”.
My Amendment 382 provides that, following the consultation, the Secretary of State must report the outcome and provide reasons. This is surely a necessary step for transparency and to maintain the trust between the parties on an ongoing basis. Consultation implies that all will put their cards on the table; agreement, as we all know, is harder to achieve. My noble friend may like to say that we would carry out these steps anyway. This amendment as drafted does not give any more power to devolved Assemblies but just gives them the comfort of knowing exactly where they stand.
It was further encouraging to hear my noble friend say, in his reply to an earlier debate, that
“the Government are continuing to work with the devolved Administrations to understand whether there is scope to extend the EOR powers to provide a shared framework of powers across the UK. Once those discussions have concluded, the Government will bring forward any necessary amendments to both Part 6 and Part 3 to reflect the agreed position between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations”.—[Official Report, 22/3/23; col. 1803.]
A shared framework of powers is precisely what this amendment is aiming to achieve. There is always the danger that, without achieving this framework, and with one party withholding consent, the outcome might go against any changes at all.
The Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent Motion for this measure was tabled on 27 July 2022. As I mentioned before, the main one of the three committees to give it consideration was the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. In its report, brought out on 22 December, it could see some elements of the Bill that it welcomed. But, after taking evidence, it concluded that:
“Environmental Outcome Reports would lead to a significant change to environmental assessment in Scotland. However, the UK Government has not provided sufficient clarity around how they will operate in practice.”
Similar concerns were also highlighted by both the other committees in the Scottish Parliament. After consideration, all were still not prepared to grant approval.
The Government have introduced quite a raft of amendments to the Bill already. It would be interesting to know whether some of these are the fruits of their intergovernmental discussions, but we are still a long way short of achieving an agreed framework. Can my noble friend say whether that is still their aim?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 384, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and to which I, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Willis of Summertown, have added my name. It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord in his place once again. He has set out his case for this amendment extremely well, as always.
Environmental outcome reports are key to monitoring our environment and the effect that we, the population, are having on it. We have had debates during the passage of the REUL Bill on the habitats regulations and the importance of ensuring that the regulations surrounding habitats are protected and would not run foul of the sunset clause on 23 December 2023, which has now, mercifully, been removed.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, having listened with care to what has been said on these amendments on this important part of the Bill, I will make a couple of comments.
I listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge said on habitats. These are hugely important areas. There are two points that I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will take into consideration. The first is that land varies very quickly, within a matter of feet in some instances. Although one wants the designation, one also wants the flexibility within that designation to get different solutions where things, and farmers, are slightly different. That flexibility within the overall framework is terribly important.
There is one aspect of the habitats directive that I hope my noble friend will look at in particular. Under the directive as it stands, no experimentation can take place within that area. On upland heather, it is hugely important that we do experiments, strictly controlled, in order to determine which is the best way of managing that fuel load. If we cannot do that within an area subject to the habitats directive—the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust has had an application to do an experiment turned down by Natural England because the habitats directive will not allow it—we are putting at risk areas within that directive and the wildlife within them. I hope my noble friend will look at that in particular.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on her Amendment 374, but I would wish to make one small alteration to it, if my noble friend were to accept it: it should be “scientific data”, not just “data”. That is hugely important.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, will agree with me on this next point. The definition of environmental protection relates to the level of activity, but what about the level of inactivity? The noble Baroness spoke at length recently, and quite correctly, about flooding, and I spoke about wildfires. Both of those can be caused as much by activity as inactivity, so could my noble friend tell me whether, within her definition, action can be taken where there is no activity, because that also puts wildlife and habitats at threat? I hope my noble friend can answer me on those points.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration and hope that, in addressing the points raised, I can demonstrate how the new system of environmental outcomes reports offers a real opportunity to protect the environment.
On Amendment 367, I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for the setting of outcomes, but the proposed amendment would have unfortunate consequences. Changing a discretionary power to specify environmental outcomes in regulations to a mandatory requirement would require each regime to set environmental outcomes for every element of the definition of environmental protection.
Perhaps I should add a bit of detail as to how the outcomes will be set. The Government have committed to public consultation to ensure that the public and stakeholders have the opportunity to shape them. Regulations specifying environmental outcomes pursuant to Clause 138 will also be subject to parliamentary debate and scrutiny via the affirmative procedure. We will work across government and with key stakeholders to develop our outcomes, which will cover a range of environmental issues. In addition to the commitments in the 25-year environment plan, other strategies will be considered—for example, the clean air strategy, the UK marine strategy and the Government’s wider environmental targets.
We want to make sure that outcomes are deliverable by developing comprehensive guidance to demonstrate how plans and projects are contributing to the delivery of outcomes. As the current legislation covers a range of assessments with different environmental contexts, it would not be appropriate to require regimes to set outcomes for every area in the definition as not all would be applicable.
Amendment 368 seeks to include social outcomes as part of the EOR framework. As noble Lords will be aware, environmental assessment was originally established to provide an additional level of scrutiny to environmental concerns, which were often overlooked in decision-making on development. This need is greater now than ever before. It is important to remember that EORs sit within wider planning and consenting systems, which include extensive democratic processes, where social considerations are already well represented. Our current consultation includes questions on the role of EORs in considering impacts on local people.
Amendments 368A, 369A, 370 and 371 relate to the definitions of environmental protection and the natural environment. The Government are clear that the definitions in Clause 138, which draw on the definitions in the Environment Act 2021, will allow the Government to consider all matters considered in the existing assessment processes and are capable of capturing the substance of the proposed amendments. For Amendment 368A, the existing definitions already include cultural heritage. For Amendments 369A and 370, the definition of environmental protection includes “protection of people”, which would allow the Secretary of State to consider health-related matters.
Amendments 369A and 372 seek to include climate change in the definition. We are absolutely not relaxed about climate change. Our consultation sets out the challenges of addressing climate change through assessments, and reforming environmental assessment provides us with the unique opportunity to go further for the environment. These reforms allow us to consider the role that environmental assessment should play in addressing crucial issues such as climate change and the challenges of transitioning to net zero. Under the current system, these matters are often dealt with in a reactive, inconsistent and ineffective manner, generating paperwork but not the change we need to see. Additionally, climate change is not a single issue but a network of interconnected considerations. Subsection (3)(c) already includes
“natural systems, cycles and processes”
to ensure that matters such as climate change can be addressed. Many of the indicators to be used in the assessment will also relate to climate change.
Amendment 371 seeks to specify protected sites in the definitions. We are confident the definitions are sufficient to ensure that protected sites will form part of the new system.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for tabling Amendment 375, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for Amendment 369 on the mitigation hierarchy. For the first time, we have legislated to include the mitigation hierarchy in law. We have brought forward an amendment to bring the hierarchy more in line with current practice.
On Amendment 372A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and Amendment 377 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, we recognise the need to maintain the highest environmental standards, which is why we included a clause setting out our commitment to non-regression. The drafting of Clause 142(1) mirrors the provisions of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement to ensure that we abide by our previous commitments. We have also included significant duties to consult and given Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise regulations through the affirmative procedure. The Bill requires public consultation and regard to the environmental improvement plan when setting environmental outcomes. They will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure and to our overarching commitment to non-regression, so I hope that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose’s concerns are assuaged.
Amendment 373, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seeks to link EORs to baseline studies. Baseline studies will remain a key means of measuring the effect of development on the environment. Given recent catastrophes, such as bird flu, we intend to modernise the process to meet the challenges of the 21st century. For this reason, we wish to preserve flexibility in how we shape assessment. We will work with experts to agree methodologies and set these out in regulations and guidance.
Amendment 374, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would limit the power to make regulations on certain processes as these would need to be linked to “available” data. It would also limit the power to make regulations about the gathering of necessary data. This would be contrary to our commitment to non-regression in Clause 142.
On Amendment 378, the 17 UN sustainable development goals are crucially important. However, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the purpose of environmental assessment is to ensure that environmental issues are not overlooked in favour of the social and economic drivers of development activity. We feel it is important to maintain that focus to ensure that environmental issues are not sidelined exactly when they need our attention most.
Amendments 378A and 378B, proposed by my helpful noble friend Lord Lansley, seek to build greater flexibility into the new system. I reassure him that we intend the EOR process to be as streamlined as possible so that it is useful in informing decision-making. Although we indeed recognise the importance of energy security and resilience, it is vital that we fulfil our commitment to non-regression.
On Amendments 379 to 381, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and Amendment 382 from my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, which mirrors the position in Amendment 181, I assure noble Lords that, in bringing forward environmental outcome reports, the Government are committed to respecting the devolution settlements. We are in discussions with the devolved Governments on how these powers should operate, including extending them to provide a shared framework across the UK. Interoperability between different regimes and competences will be fundamental as we develop our regulations.
On Amendment 383 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I can confirm that greater accessibility is at the centre of our reform agenda. We want to ensure that everyone is better able to use these reports to understand the impact of development on the environment, including decision-makers. The Government will develop prototypes and templates to make sure that the reporting process is more accessible. These will be tested as part of our commitment to user-centred design.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thorough and detailed response. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and those who expressed support for my amendments and what I am trying to achieve with them. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Randall, back in his place; we wish him well.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked whether I agree with him on inaction and action. I absolutely agree.
My amendments are designed to ensure high standards and protection, including of the climate. If the Government are not relaxed about climate change, as the Minister said, I do not understand why this is not part of the Bill and cannot be included. Having said that, my main concern is the Henry VIII powers the Bill confers. We will read Hansard and consider whether we want to return to this issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Trenchard
“(e) protection for chalk streams in England so as to reduce the harmful impacts of excessive abstraction and pollution and improve their physical habitat”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that the impact on chalk streams of relevant projects is explicitly considered, avoided wherever possible, or mitigated.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I have not participated at Second Reading or earlier in Committee on this landmark Bill, but I am grateful for the opportunity to move my Amendment 372ZA, which seeks to secure greater protection for our wonderful chalk streams, which I believe play a uniquely important part in England’s landscape and natural environment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for adding her name in support of the amendment. I declare an interest as the owner of a short stretch of the River Rib, a chalk stream in Hertfordshire. I salute the hard work and commitment of my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Heald, Member of Parliament for North-East Hertfordshire. I declare another interest, in that I am the president of the North-East Hertfordshire Conservative Association, which has recently adopted Sir Oliver as its parliamentary candidate at the next general election. Sir Oliver’s work to improve the environment, particularly the quality of the eight chalk streams in his constituency, is supported by very many of his constituents, of all political persuasions.
In his speech in another place on 25 April, my right honourable friend observed:
“The Government have taken powers in the Environment Act 2021 and the Agriculture Act 2020 that would enable a catchment-based approach to tackling the range of issues involved in river quality. The water plan, which has been released recently, shows where the investment would be, with fines imposed and money reinvested in improving water quality. One of the main recommendations was to have some sort of protection and priority status for chalk streams”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/4/23; col. 619.]
Some of Hertfordshire’s chalk streams are in a worse state than others. I am fortunate in that the Rib, where it runs past my house, has never run dry, although abstraction undoubtedly contributes to a worryingly reduced flow in midsummer. Some 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England, and the remainder are in northern France and Denmark. Many of the rare and beautiful habitats that our chalk streams undoubtedly provide suffer a daily onslaught of pollution and over-abstraction.
I welcome the Government’s decision to support the chalk stream restoration strategy published by Catchment Based Approach’s chalk stream group. CaBA is supported by and works with all the major stakeholders, including environmental NGOs, water companies, local authorities, government agencies, landowners, angling clubs, farmer representative bodies, academia and local businesses. Its chalk stream restoration strategy, published in November 2021, sets out how England’s chalk streams can be restored to a near-natural state.
A 2014 review of England’s chalk streams found that 77% failed to meet the required classification of good ecological status as assessed by the Environment Agency, 75% had been significantly modified from their natural state and 55% were at risk from over-abstraction. The primary recommendation of the chalk stream restoration strategy, entitled the “one big wish”, which is supported by all the organisations, companies and agencies involved in the report’s development and by the consultation responses from stakeholders, is for
“an overarching statutory protection and priority status for chalk streams and their catchments to give them a distinct identity and to drive investment in water-resources infrastructure, water treatment … and catchment-scale restoration”.
The Government’s response so far to the one big wish reads:
“Defra is currently looking for opportunities to deliver on this recommendation. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill provides an opportunity to consider how stronger protections and priority status for chalk streams can fit into reformed environmental legislation”.
In addition, chalk streams have been given priority status in the stormwater reduction plan. Is the intention still to use the REUL Bill to achieve this goal? Does the Minister agree that, as this Bill already deals with the reform of some relevant retained EU environmental legislation affecting planning decisions, my amendment provides a good opportunity for the Government to achieve their stated objective of protecting chalk streams? It would ensure that the impact on chalk streams of relevant projects is explicitly considered, avoided where possible, or mitigated.
An enhanced status for chalk streams, including within the planning framework addressed by the Bill, would drive the investment and resources that have been severely lacking, not only for chalk streams but, as the report by the Environmental Audit Committee of another place made clear, for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity more broadly. It could mobilise resources from several sources, including the option contained within the ELM scheme for chalk stream investment.
Noble Lords may wonder why my amendment covers only chalk streams, as other types of rivers and streams are also in great need of investment. An integrated approach to restoring all types of habitat and associated species through the restoration of natural ecosystem function, particularly natural catchment function, helps to deliver multiple biodiversity benefits alongside a wealth of natural capital associated with restored aquifer recharge, tackling pollution at source and natural flood management, as argued in a Natural England report in 2018.
Nevertheless, the chalk stream restoration strategy argues that the global rarity of English chalk streams provides a potent justification for singling out this river type among others. There are other justifications—for example, the fact that chalk streams are under particular stress because many of them flow through a highly developed landscape; they have been particularly stressed by the myriad ways in which their channels have been modified over time; they have distinct biodiversity, cultural and heritage value; and, for hydrological reasons, they are far less capable of self-repair than higher-energy rivers. Very few chalk streams enjoy protected site status, and an additional degree of protection would act as an exemplar to show how such an integrated approach can be used for these streams, ultimately showing the way for natural recovery of all rivers, streams, fens, lakes and other freshwater habitats.
There is a wide divergence of outcome to be shown with abstraction. All the designated chalk streams have abstraction targets within the CaBA chalk stream group target of no more than 10% of catchment recharge but, on the most extreme examples of the “ordinary” chalk streams, over 50% of the effective catchment recharge—in other words, the rainfall that sinks down into the aquifer—is abstracted, and in dry years that becomes all the effective recharge for those aquifers.
To take another example: on the few designated chalk streams, between 75% and 90% of sewage works remove phosphorus through advanced tertiary treatment. That proportion falls to between 18% and 30% on the ordinary chalk streams. This is why all the partners in the CaBA chalk stream group identified a higher status of protection as key to delivering the aims of the strategy.
The chalk stream restoration strategy sets out a comprehensive and interconnected series of recommendations, covering a range of actions across the catchment needed to restore chalk streams to ecological and functional health. They encompass abstraction reform, water quality, species and habitat improvements in both variety and abundance, land management and development. The Government have shown a commitment to support the recommendations of the report, subject to consideration, and to the suggestion of a specific category of protection. There is a need to ensure that the Government deliver on those commitments. Incorporating my amendment into the Bill would support that aim. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support what my noble friend has just said, having grown up in that part of the country and spending many happy decades fishing there. I just ask my noble friend the Minister, if he is going to give special consideration to chalk streams, to end the discrimination against Sussex. In particular, my local chalk stream should be included in the list, which it is not at the moment. The fact that it is called the Lottbridge Sewer should not be enough to exclude it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support every word that the noble Viscount has just said—a rare event.
I have recently joined a group of people who meet monthly to assess the health of the chalk stream that runs through their village by counting river flies, and the experience has been a real pleasure. There is nothing as satisfying as seeing a healthy ecosystem, and luckily theirs is.
However, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, chalk streams are extremely vulnerable. In fact, the amendment should not be necessary at all because we should automatically be protecting the health and well-being of our chalk streams. So I very much support the amendment. I hope it comes back again and again and we vote on it—or perhaps the Minister will snap it up as a good thing to do.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I too am not always in agreement with the words of my noble friend, but I strongly support the amendment.
The key point is that chalk streams are more vulnerable than almost any other water because they are concentrated in areas of considerable development and they are subject to considerable abstraction and the results of sewage disposal. There is therefore a particular reason for isolating them as opposed to other things.
The crucial reason is that we are fortunate enough to have the majority of the chalk streams in the world. Britain needs to be very careful about protecting those few things that we have almost uniquely. I have to say to the Government that, awful though the REUL Bill is, this subject is clearly not going to be part of it, so this is an ideal opportunity to make that statement.
I fear that I know precisely what the civil servants will have said to the Minister. First, they will have said: “First of all, we really need a wider range of things here. We need to apply this much more carefully because otherwise people who will not be covered by this will object”. Secondly, they will have said: “It’s very difficult to isolate chalk streams when we are not covering this, that and the other”. Thirdly: “There will be other opportunities to do this in other legislation”. Fourthly: “This is a very big Bill already and we don’t want to burden the system with anything more”. Fifthly: “This particular amendment doesn’t cover all the chalk streams that ought to be covered, and therefore it would be better to wait until we can cover them all”.
There may be other things that civil servants will have told my noble friend, but I suspect that those are the first five. I suggest to him that this is the moment in which he does not listen to, “Better not, Minister”, and puts in, instead of that, “Be off, civil servant!” We need to have this. It is not perfect, but if we wait for perfection, we will do nothing. I just hope that the Minister, in whom I have great confidence, will be able to say, “This is a sensible thing to do and I can’t really think of any good reason for not doing it”—and therefore will do it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I join all those who have supported my noble friend’s amendment. I think that if my noble friend the Minister were sitting on the Back Benches he would probably have added his name. We know he has a difficult task but we wish him well in his endeavours.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, how sensible it was of my noble friend Lord Trenchard to degroup this amendment from the previous group, which already had 29 amendments in it. This is far too important an issue to be wrapped up in a comprehensive debate.
We should not be in the position of having this debate today. One of the reasons why we are is that the NRA was abolished. When we privatised water—I had the privilege of taking the Bill through this House—we set up the National Rivers Authority. There is nobody better at protecting species or habitat than former poachers, so we put into the National Rivers Authority those who had been in the water authority; one day they were the enemy, and the next they were the best gamekeepers you could possibly have. Under the NRA, there were distinct improvements within the water industry and it was a pity that it got amalgamated into the Environment Agency. It lost its focus and its speciality, and then of course the Environment Agency’s funding was cut.
Having said that, I thank the Government for what they have done. Credit must be given to them: they have a water plan and a storm-water reduction plan, and they have now given powers to Ofwat to consider the environment, which is a huge step forward. They have supported the catchment-based approach and, in particular, they are supporting the national chalk stream restoration group.
We have been in a similar position many times before. There have been lots of reports and discussions, but maybe—just maybe—this time we might get it right. Everybody is on the same page and singing the same song. They are supported by the Government, who have said that the door is slightly ajar. Let us barge through it now and do something for these chalk streams.
The restoration group, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, is there to drive progress by government and regulators, water companies, landowners, NGOs, river associations and individuals passionate about their rivers. Are we not lucky still to have people such as Charles Rangeley-Wilson, who is chairing the group and has given hours of his life to chalk streams? The Government must make better use of this input. We are so lucky to have those individuals, and I thank them.
I reiterate what my noble friend said about the one big wish. This amendment is designed to help push that one big wish through into beneficial action for the chalk streams. They are hugely important. I have to admit that they were not important in my life until recently; I was much more concerned about the tumbling rivers in the north of Scotland than chalk streams. But how we manage chalk streams is the litmus test of how the Government are going to handle all the difficulties around improving the environment.
One of the big problems in chalk streams is sewage, which has been in the headlines nearly every day for many months now. We had a “sorry” from the water authorities yesterday on this. If you go to Dorset to walk along the banks of the River Lym, you will see notices saying to keep out, as there is E. coli in the river. That is unacceptable in this day and age but sewage is not the only problem. It will be quite easy, now that the cost-benefit analysis has changed, to put in tertiary sewage works at Evershot and at Toller Porcorum on the upper reaches of the River Frome. That is not a problem.
More of a problem is going to be the septic tanks. A lot of villages, as well as individual cottages, houses and farms, are still within the catchment area of chalk streams and all with septic tanks. Those tanks cause a huge amount of problems, particularly in dry weather. The summer months, when the water flow is low and sewage tanks which are not up to standard are disgorging into the drains or waterways, are the real problem. It is an underestimated problem but it will be a huge one for the Government to have to tackle.
Besides that, the Government will have to tackle us humans in a different way. They have to be prepared to say to us humans: “You cannot fill your swimming pools, you cannot water your gardens or do the abstraction that you did”, as this is only going to be compounded because of climate change. In parts of France—we have not even got to the really hot part of the summer—locals are being told that they cannot do things with water that they have always taken for granted. This is going to be a hugely difficult message to get across, but we need to change our habits for the benefit of the environment. I hope that my noble friend will continue to push on this, but he needs to get the message across that everything being done, which will be costly, is for the environment and we have to adapt to it.
My noble friend will have to take on farmers too. There cannot be, within the catchment areas, fallow fields for much longer. There cannot be maize or salad crops grown, unless there is an immediate crop coming along, because if there is a fallow field you will get run-off and sediment. Noble Lords may have seen the news recently from parts of Italy, where there has just been six months’ rain in one and a half days. The run-off from that has been horrendous. If run-off gets into water—into chalk streams—that causes huge problems. It causes sediment on the base of the stream, which makes it much more difficult for the trout to spawn. If the trout have spawned and you get sediment, you are going to suffocate the eggs. The farmers are another challenge that the Government have to take on.
Another challenge is the highways department, as an awful lot of sediment comes off highways. I see that one particular recommendation from the chalk stream restoration group is about highways, but it alarms me that it has a nasty red cross beside it, where it says there is no action at all yet. Can my noble friend tell me what action he is taking to berate the Department for Transport and local authorities, so that they make arrangements such that the sediment which comes off the roads does not go unfiltered into our precious chalk streams?
There might have to be arguments with those who support beavers. I am a supporter of beavers in the right place, but in most cases beavers and chalk streams do not go together. What the beavers will do will slow down the water, increasing the sediment. It comes back to the problems that sediment causes, which I have just been describing.
Then of course there is water abstraction in its widest sense; I have talked about that a little. The NRA was tackling that hard, and I pay tribute to more individuals: people such as Richard Slocock, who stopped the River Piddle in Dorset being a dried-up bit of river. He worked with the NRA and the Piddle has now become one of our classic chalk streams again. Sir John Betjeman, when he was at Marlborough, was filled with glory by the sight of trout in the River Kennet. When I was at Marlborough, the trout did not have quite the same effect on me. But very close to where Sir John Betjeman was filled with glory, my noble friend Lord Benyon on the Front Bench—Richard Benyon, as he then was as Minister for Agriculture—stood on completely dry land in the middle of that river and later remarked in the House of Commons that the Kennet
“was as dry as the carpet”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/11; col. 405.]
that he was then standing on.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There is an enormous number of amendments, and I somehow did not spot it. If I had spotted it, my name would be on it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
If I were a fisherman on one of the Dorset rivers now with the mayfly hatching, I would have caught a most wonderful trout at the end of my line.
I say to the noble Baroness that I was alarmed, because I know that, in her heart of hearts, she is very supportive of this. However, her boss Keir Starmer said that he wanted to develop on green land. As my noble friend Lord Deben has just said, our chalk streams are going through highly developed land already. Which side of the fence is the Labour Party on? I hope the noble Baroness will reply.
I will ask of both Front Benches the question I was going to ask of my noble friend the Minister. Are they prepared to give the commitment to our chalk streams that the chalk streams demand? To remedy the chalk stream problem, it is not a question of days, months or years, but of decades, and an awful lot of interests have to be tackled. Unless we can get reassurance that all the parties across the House have that commitment, our chalk streams will not be in the health they should be
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 372ZA in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, to which I have added my name. The noble Viscount has introduced his amendment and covered the subject fully, and I agree with all his comments.
Many in this Chamber will remember during the passage of the Agriculture and Environment Acts the debates on the importance of chalk streams, so ably led by my late noble friend Lord Chidgey. If he were here, he would certainly be taking part today. No doubt he is looking down from above on our deliberations today and wishing us well.
Chalk streams are a vital environmental resource and should be protected. Those noble Lords who watched David Attenborough on the “Wild Isles” television programme recently will know that 85%—I hope I have remembered that correctly—of the world’s chalk streams are in the UK. That does not mean that, because we have plenty, we can ignore them; quite the opposite. It means we must preserve them at all costs.
A year ago, my husband and I moved from our beloved Somerset to Hampshire, partly to be nearer our family. I have discovered, for the first time, the beauty and tranquillity of the county’s chalk streams—the crystal-clear water, the soft babbling sound of the water running over the riverbed and, often, the bright green watercress growing on the edge of the water and the riverbanks.
However, this idyllic description is not the sight that meets the eye in all parts of the country. Many chalk streams suffer from pollution, as the noble Viscount has said, making the waters discoloured and smelly. There have been numerous questions and debates about the effects of foul-smelling sewage discharging into our waterways. Many chalk streams suffer abstraction on a grand scale and the flow of the river is diminished as a result. As we all know, it is often the rate of flow of a stream that helps to keep its waters clear.
While there is currently a chalk river priority habitat in place which recognises their international rarity and biodiversity, this is not protecting them from sewage discharges. However, the chalk stream strategy also has an important part to play. Today’s announcement by the water companies that they plan to tackle the problem of sewage overflows by 2030 through massive investment in sewer upgrades is to be welcomed, but I fear it may be a little while before this is effective in protecting our precious chalk streams, especially from future development pressures.
Clause 138(c)(e) is the ideal place for this amendment to be added to achieve the desired result we are all looking for. I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this vital issue and I hope the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. All speakers have strongly supported this amendment and I agree completely with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Chalk streams are an invaluable asset and must be protected and preserved, so that future generations of children and adults can enjoy them to the full.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to see the Minister in his place because it gives him the opportunity to make me gruntled again. If he is doing the next two groups, I am beginning to think I should set him a weekly target to ensure that I am never disgruntled again with any of the things he is dealing with.
To be serious, this is a critical environmental issue. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for tabling this amendment and for his excellent introduction. I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in her tribute to Lord Chidgey. He was deeply committed to this issue, and I think we should recognise that.
As we have heard, England has 85% of the world’s chalk streams, and they are at risk. They are very, very precious, and I really do not think this should be a political issue; it is something we should all be getting behind, and we should all be supporting their protection. As at the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, they are more vulnerable than other waterways. There are many reasons for that, and we have heard many during the debate: agricultural pollution; sewage pollution; the decline of native species, particularly invertebrates; the introduction of non-native invasive species; development; population growth; and the fact that we simply use and waste far too much water. On average in Britain, we use more water per head per day than most other European countries. Most pressing are the low flows and the chronic abstraction, which noble Lords have talked about. We have also had issues in recent years with not having enough rainfall to support the levels of abstraction, even though people have been given warnings about the damage that that can cause.
As noble Lords have said, we support the reform of the abstraction licensing system, which is currently allowing too much water be taken from our chalk streams. We need to look at more robust infrastructure to support that, dealing with the ongoing strain of an unpredictable climate and rising populations. We need greater investment in storage capacity, and water metering needs to be managed more and developed.
One of the recommendations of the chalk stream restoration group—it is really good that the Government are getting behind it and supporting what it is trying to do—is that chalk streams should be given overarching protection and priority status. That is the one big wish we have heard noble Lords talk about. If there is anything the Minister should take from this debate and previous debates on the Environment Act, for example, it is that the Government really must give chalk streams a status that reflects that they are not just locally precious but, as we have heard, globally unique. This amendment would provide those protections. We support it and I urge the Minister to get behind it. If the Government cannot do anything today, I urge them to bring something forward.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register. Amendment 372ZA seeks to amend the definition “environmental protection” to include specific reference to the protection of chalk streams. It was so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and I pay tribute to his and other noble Lords’ passion on this issue. I assure them that I would not stand at this Dispatch Box and in any way jeopardise the future recovery of our chalk streams. I was in one last weekend and I will be in one again this weekend, as the mayfly start to hatch.
Mention was made of the catchment-based approach— CaBA—which is a wonderful piece of partnership working, so ably led by Charles Rangeley-Wilson. I was fortunate enough to visit him in Norfolk, to see where he has reconnected with the valley bottom or river bottom chalk streams that were previously canalised for water meadows, sometimes hundreds of years ago. There are remarkable benefits, which we measure rather technically in the water framework directive, but the key indicators, such as ranunculus and fish populations, can be massively enhanced by many measures that he and others carry out. The work was led in this House by Lord Chidgey and, of course, in Hertfordshire by my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Heald, whom I met just a couple of weeks ago to talk about this.
There is undoubtedly some good news about chalk streams. The Mimram, which I visited in the past and which suffered from massively low flow, has seen some improvement, but there is still huge pressure on these remarkable places. I am on record talking about them as our country’s equivalent of the rainforests: these areas are, in large part, particular to England—85% of them are here—and we want to see them thrive. Some excellent points have been made.
This Government are committed to protecting chalk streams, which we defined as priority sites in the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, with a target of a 75% reduction in harmful sewage spills by 2035. In our Plan for Water, the Government also committed to reviewing the impact on chalk streams of private sewerage systems—my noble friend Lord Caithness made this point well. The pressures on them are from sewage outflows and inadequate sewage-treatment plants, farming and run-off, and serious problems due to misconnections and private sewerage systems that are not functioning properly.
I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that we will certainly address the Lottbridge Sewer—how on earth it got that name I do not know—and make sure that it is part of our consideration of chalk streams. To the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I say: the riverfly project of which she is part is one of the great examples of citizen science. It sees an enormous number of people assisting the regulator—the Environment Agency—in identifying when a problem occurs, so that it can then step in.
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned my visit to Marlborough in 2010, just after I became a Minister. I stood in a riverbed that was dry because water was being extracted from the Kennet and pumped out of the catchment to provide water for the people of Swindon. They needed water, but it should not have come out of the catchment. This really damaged a very special SPA and SSSI, but I am delighted that, through measures that the Government drove through our abstraction incentive mechanism, Thames Water then delivered water from the same catchment—the Thames—rather than the Kennet. The Kennet is now in a better, although not perfect, state. There are now huge opportunities, through private sector green finance initiatives and habitat restoration—driven by government actions, through ELMS and our Plan for Water—for chalk streams’ amazing natural environments to be restored, so that we can show the world that we lead the way on river restoration.
I certainly share my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s concern for the protection of chalk streams. I stress that the definition of “environmental protection”, for the purposes of the environmental outcomes report, has been drafted to ensure that the Secretary of State is capable of setting outcomes across the breadth of environmental concerns, very much including chalk streams.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sure that my noble friend’s comments are absolutely acceptable and I see perfectly well why he does not want this here. But is it possible just to consider whether attention might be drawn to this point somewhere else in the Bill? As he said, it is very special; I say this with a perfect lack of interest because, coming from the flatlands of Suffolk—where I am afraid we do not have any chalk streams—I am particularly keen to support the noble Viscount. Might the Minister consider putting this somewhere else in the meantime?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will have to have discussions with colleagues and officials to see whether there are other areas of legislation, or areas in this legislation, where we could reassure the House. I have listened and will continue to listen on this, and I hope that noble Lords will reflect on this.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Kennet case. Is he satisfied that enough legislation is in place to prevent that happening again?
Lord Benyon (Con)
A decade ago, we provided a mechanism whereby overextraction would require action to be taken, in this case by water companies. It was a fairly geeky measure called the abstraction incentive mechanism, and it worked. Countless other measures can and should be taken, and our direction to Ofwat and the commitments in our Plan for Water will drive this forward, as will our abstraction reforms.
Rivers such as the Kennet can be affected by something incredibly small. Three miles of the Kennet’s ecosystem was destroyed about seven years ago by about an egg cup of a chemical called chlorpyrifos, which went through the drainage system—which is the responsibility of the local authority and the water company—into the river. That tiny amount wiped out life for about three miles. That is an indication of how fragile these systems are and how we must have protections that can trace this, make the polluter pay and make sure that this never happens again. It is incredibly important that we do this.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am greatly heartened by the universal tone of the speeches and contributions made.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his support. It is most unfortunate that his local chalk stream has the name it does; I do not know how easy it will be for him to change it, but I imagine there is some kind of complicated procedure for changing names—there is for roads, so there should be for rivers as well.
I am also very happy to have received support from some noble Lords whose support I am unaccustomed to receive—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Deben. To answer my noble friend’s point, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister, together with his officials, could prepare a comprehensive list of defined chalk streams, because I am sure that we have not quite caught all of them. It may never be a perfect list, but at least, as my noble friend said, it would be a pretty good and near comprehensive one.
My noble friend Lord Caithness made a strong, comprehensive speech of support, for which I am most grateful. I agree with what he said about the Environment Agency and how it conducted itself immediately after its establishment, because I had to deal with it at great length over developments in the River Tamar. I also endorse entirely what he said about the small group of determined people who work so hard to protect our beautiful chalk streams.
I was also grateful to my noble friend for riling the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, into supporting my amendment—I think riling is the right word in this context.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There was no need for riling.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
If it should be necessary for me to bring back this amendment on Report, I shall be happy to receive the noble Baroness’s support.
I am also most encouraged by the support that my noble friend the Minister has given to my amendment. I had heard from my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Heald that he and the Minister visited the Mimram together, which is one case of a chalk stream whose condition has improved, and I am grateful to the Government for the support that they have given to date. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for the support that he has given today. I think he stopped short of committing to provide the specific statutory protection that chalk streams deserve, but I am grateful for his offer to engage in “granular” consideration. I am never quite sure what “granular” means, but it is one of those words that is used more and more nowadays. Anyway, I am very happy to accept his invitation to do that.
I would like to wish my noble friend tight lines as he casts his fly again next weekend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(aa) any proposals for increasing the extent to which a specified environmental outcome is delivered,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the second amendment in the Minister’s name to clause 139. It inserts a provision which is equivalent to the sub-paragraph removed by that amendment from clause 139(4)(b).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes sub-paragraph (i) from subsection (4)(b) of clause 139, so that subsection (4)(b) better reflects the “mitigation hierarchy” which is currently often applied as part of an environmental assessment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes sub-paragraph (iv) from subsection (4)(b) of clause 139, so that subsection (4)(b) better reflects the “mitigation hierarchy” which is currently often applied as part of an environmental assessment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the third amendment in the Minister’s name to clause 139.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the first amendment in the Minister’s name to clause 139.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the first amendment in the Minister’s name to clause 139.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the first amendment in the Minister’s name to clause 139.
“Purposes and plans of protected landscapes(1) National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty must be managed in order to contribute to—(a) restoring, conserving and enhancing biodiversity and the natural environment;(b) meeting environmental targets under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008;(c) the implementation of any relevant local nature recovery strategies under section 104 of the Environment Act 2021;(d) the delivery of an environmental improvement plan prepared under section 8 of the Environment Act 2021; and(e) equitable opportunities for all parts of society to improve their connection to nature of those areas and the enjoyment of their special qualities.(2) The purposes included in subsection (1) must be prioritised in addition to the purposes listed in section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, section 2 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and section 87 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.(3) Relevant management plans must include targets and actions intended to further the purposes specified in subsection (2).(4) Relevant management plans include plans under section 89 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, section 66 of the Environment Act 1995 and section 3 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.(5) In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, the Broads or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, any relevant authority must further the purposes specified in subsection (2) and the targets and actions in the relevant management plan.(6) The Secretary of State must maintain a publicly available list of relevant authorities who are to comply with subsection (5), publish a statement setting out instructions for relevant authorities, and review this list and statement at least every five years.(7) A management plan may not be made operational until it is reviewed by Natural England and approved by the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause supplements the statutory purposes of protected landscapes by giving them additional purposes. Key parts of existing legislation, such as the Sandford Principle, would still apply. The amendment also places stronger duties on relevant authorities and updates requirements for protected landscape management plans, to ensure that all relevant authorities take more action to recover nature and tackle climate change within those landscapes. This implements key recommendations from the Glover Review of Protected Landscapes.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government have set themselves a tremendous triple task: by the end of the next Parliament, we must protect 30% of the UK for nature; also, by 2030, we must halt the terrible decline in British wildlife, which has been marching on for centuries; and, by 2050, we must end the era of fossil fuels and create a net-zero economy. I am proud of the role that this House played in setting the world’s first legally binding target to halt the loss of biodiversity during the passage of the Environment Act. I am proud of the role that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and others played in securing a new global biodiversity framework with the same ambitious objectives.
The question before us today is whether we will make the land management reforms we need to deliver those three big promises. Serious improvements in land management are definitely needed. The abundance of priority species in England has declined by a staggering 82% since I was a boy and continues to decline by a further 2% a year. Instead of locking away carbon, 87% of English peatlands are still net carbon emitters. By some expert estimates, just 3% of the land is properly protected for nature. If we are going to turn things round, the UK’s great landscapes will be critical to our success.
Together, the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty cover a quarter of England. They are home to nine out of 10 threatened bird species and contain half of England’s priority habitats. From the chalk streams of the Chilterns, which we have discussed, to the blanket bogs of Dartmoor, they contain some of the rarest and most extraordinary habitats in the world.
Many of us probably imagine that our protected landscapes are already a backbone for biodiversity protection. Unfortunately, the truth is quite different. Nature in many protected landscapes is seriously deteriorating. Only 26% of sites of special scientific interest in national parks in England are in favourable condition, compared with a national average of 38%. In other words, our most important sites for biodiversity are often in worse condition inside protected landscapes than they are elsewhere. Critical habitats, such as peatlands, continue to leech out carbon as they are dried, overgrazed and degraded.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, before speaking to the amendment, which I strongly support, I remind the Committee of my role as a director of Natural Capital Research Ltd.
I see the amendments as really important to meet not only our environment targets but the COP 16 targets, to which the Government signed up last December to achieve at least 30% of our landscape as “protected for biodiversity” by 2030. How close are we to this target? According to JNCC estimates of protected areas in the UK, 28% of our land is already protected. Although 3% in seven years does not seem too bad, that percentage includes national parks and AONBs; if we take those out, the total amount of protected land is reduced to around 11.35%. In fact, without including the national parks, many people, myself included, would agree that there is no chance we will achieve 30 by 30. I know that the Minister is very keen to reach that target; he told me that it is written above his desk, so I am holding him to that.
Why can we not include national parks in that figure? That seems really counterintuitive. Although most people think of national parks as beautiful biodiverse landscapes, we need to think again. The vast majority of our national parks and AONBs are not currently managed for their biodiversity; in fact, biodiversity is not in their strategic plan and is not required of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, explained very well, this was pointed out in the excellent Glover review on national parks and AONBs four years ago. What the review suggested was that we need urgent changes to our legislation on national parks so that we make them focus strategically on biodiversity conservation and enhancing natural capital. But it gets worse: it is not that they just do not pay attention to doing that; if you looked at some of our national parks, you would think they were doing the opposite of what is required for biodiversity conservation and meeting our environment targets.
I will give the Committee some examples; the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has already given one on the SSSIs. One of the environmental targets we set this year was a clear target for clean and plentiful water. This is not being met in most of the rivers of our national parks. For example, the River Dove, one of the most scenic rivers in the Peak District, recently had its ecological status measured, and its surface waters reached 6% of what would be classified as “good ecological status”—that is pretty poor. This goes on. In the Brecon Beacons, 27 sections of the River Wye missed their pollution targets last year as a result of agricultural land run-off and sewage, as we have seen in the news today. These are not just cherry-picked examples; there are numerous examples such as these of the status of our rivers inside national parks.
The target for clean air is another case. We know that one of the most widespread causes of pollution is from traffic, yet in the last five years we have had three major roads agreed to either around the edge of a national park or through the middle of an area of outstanding natural beauty: the A27 bypass on the boundary of the South Downs National Park, the A47 link road outside the Peak District National Park, and the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine road, which runs right through the middle of an AONB.
Our third target is to enhance our thriving wildlife. The problems meeting that target seem even worse in national parks because, along with the SSSIs having a worse rating inside park boundaries than outside, 17% of the land in national parks is forested. That sounds good, until you realise that a third of that includes forestry plantations, many of which are managed by the Government’s own Forestry England. For example, in Northumberland National Park, 20,000 hectares is forestry planation. These are monodominant plantations managed for their timber, and they are really bad for biodiversity; we cannot pretend that they are not. A fantastic meta-analysis published about six weeks ago looked at data from 338 plantation sites across Europe. In every site, it found lower biodiversity, lower species richness and lower abundance for plants, animals and micro-organisms. Even more worryingly, it found low organic carbon in the soil. We are looking for those soils as a “get out of jail free” card for some of our climate offsetting, yet we are planting forests that do the opposite.
I have cited a few of the brief facts and figures. It might seem as though I am cherry picking but, believe me, I am not; these are real problems. Therefore, I see Amendment 387 as extremely important, because we simply cannot include national parks right now as protected areas. They will not deliver what the rest of world thinks of when we talk about protected areas.
This amendment flags up the whole issue and would give us a legislative structure to say what is really going on in national parks. So, for example, when permits are considered for intensive poultry farms, we would know that there is a legislative process for someone to look at and weigh their effects on water quality. When the highways authority considers putting a road right through an area of outstanding natural beauty, it would have to consider the effects on habitat and air quality. When Forestry England considers a planting regime for these monodominant coniferous plantations, the broadleaves would get a much better hearing because of this amendment.
To sum up, this amendment would lead to our great landscapes having better management in the future. They would then really start to contribute to that 30 by 30 process—otherwise, I really do not know how we will achieve it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 471 in this group, which is on a different point. It would insert a new clause on the extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way; it is therefore about footpaths. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Thurlow, for having put their names to this amendment. Like my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I have not participated in Committee until now, so I apologise for that. Before I get down to the business of the amendment, I need to declare an interest: I am a member of the Ramblers and have been briefed by it about the implications of this particular amendment.
So, to horse: if one opens up an Ordnance Survey map of England and Wales, one finds it criss-crossed with a mass of footpaths, bridleways and other tracks. It is a unique facility that allows anybody—and I do mean anybody—to travel the length and breadth of the country and do so without having to walk, or to walk only rarely, on any tarmac. I am currently walking from Land’s End to John o’ Groats for my private pleasure in stages of about 70 miles. We have just crossed the A66 that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, referred to and have reached Haltwhistle, and we are travelling on to Scotland on our next session. During those 500 miles, you see every type of countryside, from every angle and, I must say, in every type of weather. Nearly all of the time, the paths are uncontested by the relevant landowner, but not always. Sometimes, obstructions are placed in one’s way. Some are subtle, such as nettles, brambles or thorns; some are not so subtle, in the shape of barbed wire.
An important aspect of this national network is its connectivity. Close a part of the footpath and the value of the whole is diminished, if not lost completely. One has to recognise that there is of course a trade-off between the rights of the landowner who wants to see their land respected and the walker who wants to enjoy our glorious countryside. However, there is a common interest between both parties in that they want certainty, and that is what this amendment and the background to it are all about.
The trade-off was recognised as long ago as 2000 by the then Labour Government. They provided in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act for a statutory right for existing footpaths and bridleways, but gave certainty to landowners by requiring that these be properly registered with the relevant local authority by 31 December 2025. Those not registered by that date would be lost for ever. At that time, a 25-year framework probably did not seem too demanding. In a Question for Short Debate on 2 April 2019, which was initiated by the late Lord Greaves and in which some noble Lords who I see today participated, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, said:
“I shall intervene only briefly. I was Chief Whip in the Commons when the legislation went through, and I assure everyone here that it was not anticipated that there would be a difficulty within that timeframe. It is the problems that arose later, particularly the pressures on local government, that have got us into the position today where it is vital that we look at the timescale again”.—[Official Report, 2/4/19; col. GC 32.]
In the period since, various efforts have been made to persuade the Government to look at the timescale again. Some amendments have been tabled in Committee on other relevant Bills, notably the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, moved an amendment on 21 June 2021. Others have been made by way of Parliamentary Questions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and to continue the trend of the afternoon of unusual coalitions across your Lordships’ House after my noble friend Lady Jones agreed fervently with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on the last group. I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord just said. I also very much agree with the two initial speeches in this group on Amendment 387, to which the Green group would have added our backing if there had been space. In the interests of clarity and making progress, I will constrain myself to speaking to four amendments: Amendments 467H to 467J in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb —she unfortunately cannot be in your Lordships’ House because she has had to dash off to an emergency dental appointment; I think that we all feel her pain—and my own Amendment 480.
I have a slight structural problem in that those first three are amendments to government Amendment 467G, so I shall try to explain the situation—I hope the Minister will forgive me if I cross over some ground on the government amendment as well—and then briefly set out the details. The background is that maps of access land show people where they are allowed to exercise their current very limited right to roam in England. Public access to these areas of mountain, moor, heath and downland are mapped according to criteria drawn up by Natural England. These maps were published in 2004. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act requires them to be reviewed every 10 years, so this review should have happened in 2014. Then—we are back to the issue of deadlines—the Government extended that deadline by another 10 years and are now seeking to extend it to a full 25 years after the maps were first produced. The first maps took only four years to produce, so why is there this delay in updating them, especially in the light of the Government’s commitment to ensure that everyone lives within 15 minutes walking distance of a green or blue space?
The Government admitted in the other place that
“not all downland was mapped satisfactorily”.
This concession proves what organisations such as the Ramblers have said for a long time: there are areas of the countryside where people should and do have the legal right to roam but are wrongly prohibited from exercising that right because of the failure of the maps. The organisations that have been working on this issue have extensive lists of mapping errors and omissions, many of which have been recognised by Natural England but cannot be corrected until the mapping review takes place. Examples of this span from Cumbria to Northumberland, Somerset to Sussex.
Another failure in the current maps is that there are access islands, where the public have a legal right to roam but no legal means to access the land. Unless you can parasail yourself down into it, there is no way of getting there. These valuable recreation spaces could be opened up and connected to the access network. One example is Letcombe Bassett in Oxfordshire. The mapping review could also open up more downland, particularly in southern and eastern England, which has much less right to roam than upland areas. For example, only 0.6% of land in Kent has a right to roam, compared to 72% of the Peak District.
This mapping review might also open up access to waterways and woodlands, such as the majority of Forestry Commission land that has been voluntarily dedicated as open access land. This could open up access for a good half of the population who do not have it now. The need for a mapping review is clear, as it will give more people rights to access incredible nature sites. Given that it took only four years to do the original mapping, it is nonsense that it should take almost eight more years for the first review to be completed.
The government amendment seeks to remove the duty to conduct further reviews after this one—it will set things in stone when this final review is done and that is it. This looks like an exercise in the Government removing a statutory duty that they have continually failed to deliver, rather than having any real justification. These reviews should be regular and seek continual improvement, because there will of course be mistakes that are not recovered until after the next review. Noble Lords can read the details for themselves but, very briefly, Amendment 467H would allow five years instead of seven to complete the mapping review, Amendment 467J would allow extra rights for appeals and Amendment 467I would allow for a continuous review process. Those are the amendments in the name of my noble friend.
I come now to Amendment 480 in my name. It is interesting that it is very rare that the two Houses are talking about the same issue at the same time: my honourable friend Caroline Lucas had a debate today in the other place on the right of access to nature, which is fitting for these issues that people are very concerned about and which are very much at the forefront of the public’s mind. This Bill gives us the opportunity to address them.
My amendment is a “Let’s have a review” amendment. Noble Lords may say that this is a sign of your Lordships’ House modifying my instincts and making me look for a middle way, which goes entirely against my instincts. In September 2021, when we were debating what is now the Environment Act, I put down an amendment that said: “Let’s have a right to roam in England”. That is still where I want to go, but I am looking for others to back me and ways in which we might make progress in your Lordships’ House, so all this amendment does is say: “Let’s have a review in England about people’s right of access to nature”. Let us not forget that in Scotland, people have the right to roam over most of the countryside: not in front gardens or gardens, not in places growing crops or where you will do damage, but otherwise you can go where you will. By contrast, in England 1% of the population owns half the land—quite a few of them are very familiar to your Lordships’ House—and the other 99% have the right to roam on just 8% of the remainder. My noble friend’s earlier amendments would marginally improve that situation; this is looking for a really big improvement.
I will not talk at length, as I am aware of the time, but I have three quick points on the benefits we could all see from a right to roam. I was at an event this morning where the Rural Policy Group released its annual Sustainable Food report, and we were talking about citizen science, which the Minister was just praising in wrapping up the previous group. We were also talking about the internet of things; someone said how brilliant it would be if we could plant electronic sensors all over the countryside. Someone pointed out that we would have to really fix rural connectivity to the internet before this would go very far, but we could use those electronic sensors to map the numbers of dragonflies, certain birds or butterflies. Of course, if we had a right to roam, we could also have groups of citizen scientists roaming around the countryside doing that mapping for you at considerably lower cost and without all the issues around electronic technology.
Also on the Environment Act there was a great deal of discussion about litter. Much of the litter in the countryside is blown or washed there, and people exercising their right to roam can clean some of it up. Undoubtedly, the biggest argument of all is the issue of public well-being and public health. We know so much now about the need for public health to improve, and we know that the right of access to nature gives that improvement.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I support and shall speak very briefly to Amendment 471 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. It is really important to recognise at the outset that his amendment is about one specific thing. It is not about the merits or otherwise of public access; it is about the future of the estimated 40,000 miles of historic public rights of way that were omitted from the definitive map in 1949 because the mapping was done in a great hurry. It is not about creating rights that have not previously existed; it is really important to recognise that.
I have form when it comes to public rights of way. For a decade, I chaired Suffolk County Council’s rights of way committee and have spent many happy hours looking at public map modifications and all the things that go along with that. These things are very time consuming, and there are a number of reasons why. One is the complexity of rights of way law. I do not think we are ever going to tackle that, because it would be really difficult to know where to begin; it has been built up over so many decades and centuries and it is a very complex area of law.
There is also the matter of the historical record and the time that needs to be spent going to the Public Record Office, looking at tithe maps and other documents and so on to get an understanding of whether something is or is not an historic public right of way. That is important because, in highway law, when something has once been a highway, it will always be a highway until there is a legal Act to stop it. There are some very lengthy statutory processes. All these add up to a huge demand on local authorities, which have less capacity than they did back in my day. Finally, there is the capacity of the Secretary of State and the appeals process. All these mean that every claim takes a long time to process.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as per the register. I apologise to the Committee that I have not previously participated in these proceedings, but I have been away a lot with the Council of Europe, monitoring elections in Montenegro and Bulgaria, and other places. As an aside, I must say, with Lib Dem Peers here, that Bulgaria adopted a proportional representation system. It has 14 political parties, organised into seven coalitions, and this was the fifth general election in two years we monitored, with exactly the same result as the other four. It has got a completely ungovernable country and, once again, a Government who will shortly collapse.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we have 250,000 miles of footpath, and we will shortly have completed 2,000 miles of the King Charles III England Coast Path. That seems to me to be an awful lot of mileage for people to walk on, but of course there are some right to roam fanatics who want to make a political point about having the right to roam on anyone’s land. I think it is more important that we develop footpaths and make sure they are open for access by ordinary people in every part of the United Kingdom.
I really must congratulate my noble friend Lord Randall on an outstanding speech today, moving his amendment; it was highly persuasive. The current amendment is an important opportunity to further nature recovery aspirations across the 24% of England designated as national park or area of outstanding natural beauty. England’s areas of outstanding natural beauty and the national parks are even more important now as we face the climate, nature and well-being challenges of the 21st century. They are more important than when the iconic National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed in 1949, as part of the World War II settlement.
I have lived in the Lake District National Park for about 20 years—just outside it now—and I can honestly say that the biodiversity of the national park is every bit as bad as some of the silage fields outside it, which are crop-bare three times a year and the hedgerows cut down to almost nothing. There is no better biodiversity in the national park. That is something which the amendment seeks to change, and I know the Government want to change it.
There is widespread recognition, including in the 2019 Landscapes Review commissioned by the Government, that aspects of the legislation need updating if our protected landscapes are to be able to rise to these 21st-century challenges and deliver the crucial benefits people and nature need. My noble friend’s amendment is a crucial opportunity to make these important changes, fulfilling the welcome intentions of the Government announced in last January’s initial response to the review. However, if the Government are minded to add a reference to nature recovery and biodiversity, it should be added, in my opinion, with equal priority to the current statutory purposes, not given primacy over the existing purposes. That is where I depart slightly from my noble friend: it should not be given priority over the other purposes but have equal weight.
I suggest also that the duty of regard placed on public bodies is strengthened and extended to encompass delivery of agreed statutory national park and AONB management plans. It is possible that a similar effect to the amendment, regarding statutory purposes, could be achieved if the Government and Defra, and my noble friend the Minister, asked Natural England, the statutory adviser on landscapes in England, to provide further advice or guidance to clarify interpretation of the current wordings, although I accept this would not give the same strength or security, or the signalling, desired by some concerned with the issue. However, I suggest that it might be an acceptable compromise if my noble friend’s amendment is not acceptable in any way to the Government. Without a slightly tweaked amendment or the compromise I have suggested, I am afraid we may miss the opportunity to build in appropriate and more effective tools to protect these landscapes at this critical time.
In my final comment, I say to my noble friend Lord Hodgson that I live near the A66 and, if I had known he was coming, I would have invited him in for a glass or two of Highland Park. I would hope that, after a few glasses, I could have persuaded him to give up this mad idea of walking the whole length and breadth of the country.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their 30 by 30 target. It is an enormous and ambitious thing to take on. In that context, I urge them to support my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment. We have large areas of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, a lot of which does not sensibly qualify for 30 by 30 at the moment. We have structures within them which could help drive them in that direction, if we pass the sort of amendment that my noble friend has suggested. I like proposed new subsection (5) in particular, which would make other agencies join in the purpose of the national park.
My Amendment 504GJC—after 30 years, I still do not understand how the numbering works, but that is where it is—concerns other effective area-based conservation measures. We are not, I think, going to get to 30 by 30 on the basis of national landscapes. We need a structure which allows not for nature protection to be provided somewhere else but for nature protection to be something that all of us can influence and be involved in.
Fortunately, the Convention on Biological Diversity has provided the concept of an OECM, which I think we can adapt in very positive ways. An OECM could be a corner of a park in a city, or a corner of a school playground that is developed in conjunction with the National Education Nature Park, which I see from the Natural History Museum is starting to be rolled out. It could be this great network of connection that we want farmers to develop across the landscape, so wildlife can move across it. It could even be golf courses, for goodness’ sake—I believe there is one golf course which allows daisies on the fairways. There is real scope for getting wildlife back into golfers’ lives—I have not yet met one who wants it but we will get there in the end.
It was one of the underpinnings of the Dasgupta report that everybody should have an appreciation of and involvement in nature. The structure of OECMs allows us to create that, involving everybody in getting to 30 by 30. The structure I have proposed in Amendment 504GJC has a low threshold, because you want people to be able to join in to begin with, without going through huge layers of bureaucracy, but you may well need a fiercer award within that to qualify for 30 by 30. It identifies an individual who has charge of the area and a purpose for it. This should be something personal which is down to a group of people or an individual landowner, which they are doing themselves and for which they are responsible, for which we can thank them for taking responsibility, but to which we can also hold them to account. I therefore very much hope that the Government will democratise 30 by 30, spreading it out and making it a national rather than a purely institutional ambition, and that they will give us the tools with which we can do that.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 387 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
This is not an area I usually speak on, and I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. I am prompted to speak for two reasons. The first is that I live in a national park—which is not so unusual, given that national parks account for 10% of the land in England; many colleagues will live in or near national parks. The second prompt was the very concerned letter that Trevor Beattie, CEO of the South Downs National Park—the newest national park, where I live—wrote to the Guardian in November last year, following the reporting of the 40% cut in real terms in government funding to England’s national parks in the last 10 years. I found this quite shocking, particularly considering current environmental concerns, and I asked an Oral Question on this back in January.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, I am grateful for the helpful briefings from National Parks England and the Campaign for National Parks. I thank Trevor Beattie, South Downs chair Vanessa Rowlands and the rest of their excellent team for the morning I spent in Midhurst last week hearing about the work they do, as well as their ambitions for the future. I very much stress “ambition”. Other noble Lords have provided the technical detail but my argument is really a simple one of principle, or ambition, being turned to practical effect. If we believe that the national parks and other protected spaces are to be considered key resources in the fight against climate change and for nature recovery—not just conservation but recovery and biodiversity—they should be given as many tools as is required to be as effective as possible in these significant and urgent ambitions. Certainly, from my visit to Midhurst there is no doubting the expertise and dynamism of those who work for the parks, and these are measures that they would like to see in place and on a firm legislative footing.
It is clear that we live in a world now with quite different perceptions about nature and our relationship to it than the one that existed when the national parks were set up in 1949, when neither climate change nor biodiversity were concerns, let alone truly urgent ones, and the public have certainly become more aware of the issues and the need address them. The parks ought then to be afforded the legal powers commensurate with our modern understanding of the issues involved. National parks are special places. Almost 30% of the area of national parks is recognised as internationally important for wildlife.
Having said that, it is true of course that the fight against climate change and for nature recovery is a global one without any respect for borders, particularly in the case of climate change. One of the important phrases I heard last week was “permeability”, the importance of the borders and parks being permeable—that people, particularly children from all backgrounds, be encouraged to come into the parks. Another was “taking nature to your doorstep”, which links with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was saying: that outside a park, there is movement in both directions because nature, or indeed environmental concerns, as I said, do not stop at the borders of the park. It seems that all this is about the NPAs having a strong voice that resonates both inside and outside their boundaries. Of course, access is not just about enjoying the parks for their own sake or in the interest of well-being, important though these aspects are. There is an immense educational value here too that needs to be tapped. So, maximising access to protected landscapes should play a significant role in levelling up.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for letting me add my name to his Amendment 471 concerning rights of way.
I have never been able to understand why the Government wanted to apply a guillotine to registering long forgotten and rediscovered public rights of way. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, made a number of interesting points but one in particular stood out for me. No one is attempting the equivalent of a land grab here; there is no rights grab going on. There are no compulsory purchase order-type approaches over land. Rights of way are simply a public asset, and that really is the focus of my short remarks this afternoon.
The Government are keen to open up the countryside to the public. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, just used the wonderful phrase “taking nature to your doorstep”. Farmers are finding their subsidy linked to the greater good rather than acreage. Access to the countryside is increasingly and frequently cited as a provider of mental health benefits to urban dwellers, and rights of way are one of the very few means of rural access available nationwide. Rights of way have already been levelled up.
The Government have agreed to delay the cut-off date for registering public rights of way to 2031, a token extension, but there seems to be reticence to action their promise to repeal the deadline once and for all. The Bill offers the perfect opportunity for the Government to make good their promise. I would like to know who is prevailing upon the Government behind the scenes to create this anti-social interference with the existing rights of the public, and what entitles the Government to quash the revelation of former rights of way as they are brought to light. We are not requesting new rights of way, simply confirming those which may have existed for centuries. They may have disappeared from the record, but, if verified, have always been there. Surely it is the Government’s duty to protect these public rights.
The key to rediscovering ancient rights of way lies in long-forgotten archives or seldom-accessed archives belonging to public libraries, local authorities, the Church and similar institutions, and to folklore. In addition, they may be found on the ancient maps on the walls of estate offices on large estates. These important ancient rights will inevitably be revealed slowly as the evidence is discovered. Society should rejoice as the network quietly grows, granting greater public access to green spaces. Inevitably, this process of discovery will quietly continue over many years, indeed decades, and to close an ancient right of way is to remove a precious public asset. It is ironic that the Government should be in place to protect public rights, yet willing to abandon them.
As we have heard, there are already thousands of rights of way claims awaiting processing. Some have been in the works for years, and thousands of miles of unrecorded routes need further research. Why do the Government stand in the way of this public service, rather than welcome it? Lift the cut-off date, I urge the Minister, and make good the Government’s promises by supporting the amendment.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I offer support to my noble friend Lord Randall on protected landscapes. We need to know where we are going on this. We are trampling through the devolved competencies. Luckily, Scotland is adopting green policies with even more enthusiasm than local authorities in England, but we always need to bear in mind that the original legislation was the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and originally, and even today, some see the second part as more important, as we were hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
I live in a national park in Scotland, and the Scottish Government are providing millions of pounds every year to staff it and provide facilities for the public. On my land, they have just provided £800,000 to improve a footpath. When we think of the value of national parks for nature, it is worth recalling that for a body called the International Union for Conservation of Nature, our park qualified only for level V, because the only limit they had in law was to preserve the topography. We need to make up our mind what level of nature conservation we desire.
A dedicated percentage of land for conservation and marine conservation areas was announced recently, and the Scottish Government have taken it up and announced a timetable for extension of their marine protected areas. This has brought a sense of desperation, particularly to the crofting counties on the west coast, because they see it as a hammer-blow to the crofting way of life, which requires buying livestock, cutting peat, fishing, weaving and crafts. This is a whole culture which could be lost. There are areas where we want to preserve the way of life, as well as nature. I hope that my noble friend Lord Randall’s efforts will point the way.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 387 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, to which I have added my name, and to Amendment 475 in my name, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has added her name. As an aside, today seems to be the day when Conservative Peers take a pop at the Opposition Benches. Perhaps the recent election results are driving them.
However, I first address Amendment 475, which seeks to ensure that wild camping is included in open-air recreation. I tabled this amendment after hearing the news that Dartmoor National Park was banning wild camping on its land, and this ban had been upheld in the High Court—a win, apparently, for a hedge fund manager. That is a prime example of the wealthy preventing the less well off from enjoying the environment. I have since learned that, through crowdfunding, a judicial review of the decision has been mounted. I understand that the fact that a JR is in process does not prevent me from speaking on the subject.
For years, people have been enjoying outdoor activities on our national parks. In particular, Dartmoor has hosted—if that is the right word—the Ten Tors challenge each year, weather permitting. National parks are also the venue for thousands of young people embarking on their Duke of Edinburgh’s award. This is especially so at the bronze stage, when secondary children go out in groups to orienteer their way round the moors and experience at first hand the importance of working together as a team, witnessing the challenge and pleasure of wide-open spaces, often for the first time. The expedition is often the best part of the DoE award scheme for the young people. Young people involved also learn what nature is, how it behaves and how we interact with it. Hopefully, they learn that nature and the environment have not only to be appreciated but nurtured and looked after. This is something of a rite of passage for many young people, who may not otherwise have this kind of experience.
While national parks are a haven for plants and wildlife, they are also a tremendous tourist attraction, and some tourists bring their own challenges. Thoughtlessness has caused devastating wildfires on many of our heathlands and national parks. The litter left behind over a particularly sunny bank holiday weekend can be a real problem to clear up. However, there are measures that can be taken to raise awareness with the public of the dangers of barbecues, in particular, alongside notices encouraging visitors to take their waste home. That should be at the same time as providing sufficient bins for them to put their rubbish in—unlike in one of the country parks in my previous district council area, when, after one very hectic weekend, the rangers decided to remove the bins altogether. Not surprisingly, the result was even more widespread rubbish to clear up after the next sunny weekend.
Yes, there will be a lot of rubbish to clear up after a large influx of tourists, but this could be an opportunity for the community to come together to help clear it up. We were encouraged after the Coronation to take part to help out, and this included many communities going on mass litter picks. There are many ways both to alert tourists to ensure that their visit does not adversely impact others and make sure they leave the environment they have enjoyed in the same state they found it. Banning a section of them through preventing wild camping is neither helpful nor in line with the Government’s wish to see more people enjoying open spaces. I tabled the amendment in such a way as to ensure the action taken on Dartmoor does not spread to other national parks. Surely the motto should be “Use and respect”, not “Go home, we don’t want you”, which is the message being given out by some in Devon.
Returning to Amendment 387, the ethos of the amendment is straightforward. The national parks across the country, the Broads and AONBs should contribute to the country’s biodiversity targets. They are protected landscapes, and the amendments implement the key recommendations from the Glover review, which has so far not been given the prominence it deserves. I am particularly keen to see proposed new subsection (1)(e), in Amendment 387, implemented. This fits in with my comments on my Amendment 475.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, very much for his introduction to his amendment. It thoroughly covered the issues and concerns of everybody in this Chamber. We offer our full support to what he is trying to achieve. I also have an amendment around national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, made an excellent speech. As she said, at the COP 15 negotiations in December the Government agreed to the global biodiversity framework, to effectively protect 30% of land and sea by 2030—the 30 by 30 commitment. Protected landscapes are an essential part of meeting this target. As we have heard, our outdated legislation around this and the management that flows from that legislative underpinning means that so many sites, whether in AONBs or national parks, cannot currently be considered as effectively managed for nature. The Government have accepted this in their response to the Glover landscapes review, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I live in the Lake District. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, made me think about biodiversity and the impact on nature that is local to me. She talked about river pollution, and we have a big issue with pollution in the lakes, which has come to the fore in recent times.
I would also like to talk about Forestry England, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I recently asked the Minister whether any impact assessments had been done of the effect on wildlife when swathes of the forest are cut down because of the disease that we have in the trees. If I remember rightly, his answer was that this does not happen. The number of trees being cut down in the national park near me, particularly because of larch disease, is horrifying. There are huge areas where there is nothing left at all, acres and acres. We asked locally what happens to the red squirrels and were told, “We don’t know”. I really worry about this. We need to think about how we work with, for example, Forestry England, which is making huge changes to the landscape, and how we can manage that impact on biodiversity. I am not expecting the Minister to have an answer to this now, but perhaps we can work on this more.
Therefore, we completely support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to update this outdated legislation. It must happen. We must ensure that national parks and AONBs have a greater contribution to 30 by 30, with increased benefits for people as well as climate, and to cultural heritage. The Glover review is a blueprint for more effective management of protected landscapes. We need to legislate properly to deliver it. Again, the Government have accepted this in their response. At Second Reading in January, a number of noble Lords made the case for implementing the Glover review recommendations through this Bill, in an amendment similar to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, introduced today. A follow-up letter on this to Peers from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, suggested that the general biodiversity duty created by the Environment Act could deliver it without the need to legislate. However, it has come across clearly today that most of us do not think that this is the case. Any new statutory purposes for nature recovery, climate or access to nature, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about, must be delivered through legislation. How else do we know that they will be delivered within the timescales that we need? They must be properly embedded so that a general biodiversity duty will require all authorities to give proper consideration of biodiversity at a high level and on a regular basis. The problem is that, without this being embedded in legislation, you do not get a proper sustained focus on targets to deliver those statutory purposes. That is what we need.
The amendments in this group represent an opportunity for the Government to deliver on their own promises more widely, as well as upholding the COP 15 commitments. Also, we need to revitalise our national parks and AONBs for nature. This is an opportunity for us to grab. It did not happen in the Environment Act in a way that satisfied everybody. That is something that we can look at now.
I support a number of other amendments in this group but I want to be brief because it is getting late. I offer our support to Amendment 471, so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I walk an awful lot. Living in Cumbria, I walk up the fells a lot, so I use a lot of paths. The rights of way network is one of our nation’s greatest assets. We know the benefits to health and well-being. It helps communities to connect with each other and the wider neighbourhoods. It fosters a sense of connection and pride in communities, which is one of the levelling-up missions. Amendment 471 is quite an important amendment on the levelling-up agenda. I hope that the Minister considers it carefully.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for tabling Amendment 387, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling Amendments 504GA and 504GB, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for Amendment 504B.
These amendments would give national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty additional statutory purposes and update the duties on relevant authorities. I am grateful for the quality of the debate that we have had on this and share noble Lords’ passion for our national parks and the beauty that they provide in landscape terms, as well as the human benefits that they give for our health and well-being. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that our commitment to 30 by 30, and the inclusion of national parks and designated landscapes in this, is fundamental. She is right that I have a sign in my office saying “30 by 30” and then quoting NASA:
“Failure is not an option”.
It is about the quality of the environment as well as the line on the map.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has rightly raised, in another amendment, issues around OECMs. There are a variety of ways in which we will achieve this commitment, which is important for us domestically—and internationally, if we are to walk the talk that we have done in international fora on successfully encouraging countries around the world to commit to 30 by 30.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, also identified a point about the quality of our interventions as land managers and the types of trees that we plant. She identified perhaps a conflict between tackling carbon and biodiversity. The trees that she described in a pejorative way grow much quicker. They form parts of the furniture and other features in our rooms or whatever. That is keeping that carbon still locked up, and they sequester carbon much more quickly. However, the biodiversity that we want is largely absent from them, whereas the broadleaves, abundant in biodiversity, are slower growing and more susceptible to pests and diseases. We want to ensure that we are getting all that, the carbon benefits as well as the biodiversity benefits, and there is a landscape issue there.
The Government recognise how important our protected landscapes are for improving nature, tackling climate change, supporting rural communities and removing barriers to access. To deliver 30 by 30, we need to strengthen governance and management through the Environment Act 2021. We have strengthened the biodiversity duty on public bodies such as national parks and AONBs, and set ambitious environmental targets. We are also setting specific targets for protected landscapes and issuing guidance for public bodies with responsibilities in those areas.
We are extending land protected for nature through carefully chosen new designations and other habitat-creation projects. We are investing in restoring habitat through the successful Farming in Protected Landscapes programme and the biodiversity challenge fund, while working with partners to attract private investment in protected landscapes.
In opening this debate, my noble friend Lord Randall eloquently set out why he thinks this change is necessary. I hope I can prove that the Government are absolutely committed, because we have taken on-the-ground action to implement the excellent landscape review led by Julian Glover. As I said, our Farming in Protected Landscapes programme supports farmers in protected landscapes to deliver projects for nature, climate, people and place, addressing exactly the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. It delivers good environmental and habitat management. Our Access for All programme is also helping local teams to improve accessibility in our protected landscapes. We are also investing in a new protected landscapes partnership to enable national parks, AONBs and—crucially for a subsequent amendment—national trails to collaborate on national priorities more closely.
The Environment Act strengthens the duty on public bodies to have regard to conserving and enhancing biodiversity. In addition, under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, public bodies already have duties to have regard to the statutory purposes of protected landscapes when exercising their functions. The Government intend to publish guidance to ensure that the existing duties on public bodies are correctly interpreted and applied when exercising their functions in protected landscapes.
I will study my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s words in the record, because he raised some interesting points where a compromise is perhaps achievable.
I hope I have said enough to convince my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge—I know he takes a lot of convincing—to move on these issues that he feels so strongly and speaks so eloquently about. I hope I have persuaded him to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 471 repeals the 2026 cut-off date for recording historic rights of way. I draw noble Lords’ attention to our commitments on public access in our environmental improvement plan, our desire for everyone to be within at least 15 minutes of green open space, our commitments to complete the England Coast Path and to enhance national trails, and what we are doing on social prescribing. We are using the benefits of nature and access to it to divert people away from the NHS, with new access provisions through a variety of other measures, as well.
It is important to give users, landowners and local authorities certainty about recording unregistered rights of way. Regulations will provide for certain unrecorded historic rights of way to be excepted from extinguishment, such as where they are currently in use or applications to register them remain undetermined. The Government therefore intend to commence the cut-off date provisions, in line with the original intention of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
However, in answer to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who spoke with great passion on this issue, given the delays caused by Covid and the impact it had on a great many areas of the public realm, but particularly local authorities, the Government will take steps to use existing powers and extend this deadline by five years to 1 January 2031. The Government are committed to delivering rights of way reform, which will make processes to add historic rights of way to the definitive map faster, fairer, cheaper and less bureaucratic. Our reforms will also give landowners a new right to apply to have certain routes diverted or extinguished. The regulations needed to bring these into effect will be introduced as soon as is reasonably practicable.
The Government are keen to promote responsible access, protect nature and support people who live and work in the countryside. We also recognise the importance of providing access to the outdoors for people’s health and well-being, and we are working to ensure this and that we are achieving that balance in all that we do. We will continue working with landowners and user groups to promote responsible access, so that we achieve our 25-year environment plan commitment to make it easier for more people, from every background, to connect with nature.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the news of a five-year extension. Could his department try to explain to local authorities the importance of giving some priority to registrations? As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, said, they inevitably tend to get pushed down the hierarchy. We need to find as many ways as possible to bring them up to get this finished. However, I understand that there is a balance to be struck, and the Minister is fair to point that out.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend. He and the noble Baroness made very important points, but this is a question of resourcing and of prioritisation in local authorities. Of course, some local authorities are inundated and others are less so. It is about supporting them to register these rights of way. I will work with him and all interested noble Lords to make sure that we assess how this is going against the new timescale.
Amendment 475 would have the effect of permitting the right to wild camp on open access land. The Government understand concerns about the ability to wild camp in Dartmoor National Park, as raised by the noble Baroness. As a result of the local court judgment, this has come into much clearer view for the wider public. Private Members’ Bills in the other place also seek to make similar legislative amendments to those proposed here.
For the record, it is worth saying that Dartmoor has never banned wild camping: there was just never a right to it. It is a question of which end of the telescope you look at this issue from. There was what I thought was a very fair report on “Countryfile” a few weeks ago, which gave the perspective of both those who want that access as a right and those who very often end up clearing up the mess from the small proportion of those who act irresponsibly and damage our natural environment. The amendment would have negative impacts, including potential legal conflict and complexity surrounding the rights of private landowners, concerns about health and safety and the liability of landowners, and the risk of damage to the natural and historic environment.
Amendment 480 requires the Government to review recreational access to land and open access land. The Government are already required by law to complete a review of open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and the next review is due by 2024-25. We will consult on extending the rights to open access land after having completed the review of our existing maps of open access land; this point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I understand the point that she raised, and I have been active in providing access to land close to where a lot of people live. I understand the tensions and problems. Much can be done by good joint working between land managers and the people who wish to use it. I am very happy to continue that debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have a point of clarification. The term “recreational access to land” may have been interpreted as meaning open access land. This amendment is meant to mean all land, not just open access land, and I think that the way it is written shows that.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I understand the campaigning point that the noble Baroness makes. That is perhaps for another occasion in this House; I am very happy to have that debate. I want to see more access but, over the next six years, the recovery of species in this country has to be our priority, as there has been a catastrophic decline. We have to work with people to give them more access where it is appropriate, but we also have to protect our countryside and rare habitats and make sure that hotspots of biodiversity are allowed to thrive, because the benefits from those will spill out right across our country.
Amendment 504GJC, so ably spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lucas, enables local communities, landowners and organisations to contribute directly to the 30 by 30 target through an internationally recognised structure—namely, the other effective area-based conservation measure. We understand the intentions behind this amendment. I provide reassurance that, as I said earlier, the Government are committed to protecting 30% of land for nature by 2030 and to developing the most appropriate approach to increasing and enhancing our protected areas and other land of value to nature.
We are working with partners across the country, including members of the public, the environmental sector, academics, farmers, landowners and the private sector, to deliver against this commitment. The nature recovery Green Paper sought views on our approach to 30 by 30. This included our plans to explore how land that is delivering for biodiversity outside of our designated protected areas can contribute to our 30 by 30 target. Many of the reforms explored in the Green Paper have fed into the Government’s environmental improvement plan, our delivery plan for protecting nature. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise these points. More areas will be developed for nature as part of our reforms, and I very strongly believe that these should be included in our 30 by 30 calculations.
Government Amendments 467G, 504O, 509E and 515 address the requirement for Natural England to review the maps of open access land in their entirety at set intervals, with the first review currently due to be delivered by 2024-25 and subsequent reviews to be completed every 20 years following this date. These amendments allow Natural England to complete proportionate reviews, focusing on areas that were mapped incorrectly or have changed status, on an ongoing basis. While much open access land is already mapped correctly, some mistakes were made during the initial mapping process, and a first review of these areas is required to establish an accurate baseline. The amendments do not remove the first review deadline completely but move it to 2031 to allow for sufficient preparation of the review.
As I have said, we recognise the importance of enabling access to the countryside. That is why we have established 13 community forests, alongside substantial programmes to create more green open space and significantly expand national trails. We have also created and restored some 360,000 football fields of habitat since 2010. Our response to the Glover recommendations made clear that we will not consider whether CROW rights should be expanded until the review of the CROW maps is complete. Our stakeholders have been clear that reviewing the maps is a necessary first step before any consideration of expanding rights can be made. Once the first review is completed and a baseline established, the amendments will enable us to move to a continuous selective review system. Any changes in land use can be amended on the maps in good time rather than needing to wait up to 20 years for further review.
Amendment 467G inserts a new provision into the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 regarding when Natural England must carry out reviews following the issuing of open access maps, and the matters that such a review must cover. The amendment also makes provision for regulations to set out the procedure on a review and makes consequential amendments.
I hope noble Lords will support these important amendments. A substantial amount of planning is required if we are to ensure that the reviewed maps are fit for purpose, so that we can then switch to a system of limited continuous review rather than the periodic reviews required at present. Amendment 467H would reduce, by three years, the time we have to make sure that the first review of maps is completed to the standard needed. The Government have tabled amendments which remove the scope for regulations to push back the deadline for the review, so I offer the noble Baroness assurance that this date will not move again.
Amendment 467I would insert a legal requirement to make regulations to enable subsequent reviews of the open access maps. Once the Bill has achieved Royal Assent, the Government intend to make regulations to enable a continuous review following the completion of the first review, which I hope will reassure the noble Baroness that the ability to do this will not be lost.
Amendment 467J would take the opposite approach of the government amendment by returning to the existing power to invoke the original appeals regime so that it applies to the review process. The Government feel it is important that we have the flexibility to fit the details of the appeal regime to the very different circumstances of the review, and therefore do not feel able to support this amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. I thank all those who have supported my amendment.
Because of the lateness of the hour I will not go into details, except to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her speech, which was not just passionate but full of expertise, which shows the strength of this Chamber. I also thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra, not just for his almost complete support but for two ideas. One is tweaking. I am always up for tweaking and I hope my noble friend the Minister is too. My noble friend’s other suggestion involved a bottle of Highland Park. Perhaps we could get together and tweak this amendment with the Minister, and perhaps even his boss, so that we can go forward. Then, if the Government do not come forward with the appropriate amendment on Report, I assure my noble friend that I will return to it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(c) In upgrading each nitrogen significant plant and each phosphorus significant plant—(i) publish a compliance and investment plan for each plant before upgrades are commenced, setting out how upgrades will be delivered,(ii) within each compliance and investment plan set out how upgrades will, wherever feasible and possible, use catchment-based approaches and nature-based solutions to secure a reduction in nutrient discharges equivalent to those required to meet that limit, and(iii) report annually to the Water Services Regulation Authority, the Environment Agency and the local planning authority on progress against the agreed compliance and investment plan.”“(1A) The Water Services Regulation Authority and the Environment Agency must advise the local planning authority if compliance and investment plan monitoring suggests that the pollution standard will not be met; and a local planning authority may disapply its obligations under Schedule 12 to this Act on receipt of such advice.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will require sewage undertakers to clearly set out plans for and provide annual reports on progress towards upgrading plants in sensitive catchment areas, including plans to prioritise use of catchment-based approaches and nature-based solutions to reduce nutrient pollution, thereby unlocking wider environmental benefits.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 390 in my name, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, seeks to address a missed environmental opportunity in Clause 153, which takes very welcome steps to address nutrient pollution. The Government should be congratulated on this, as this nutrient pollution, which comes from houses and from farming, is devastating our freshwater habitats.
The statutory requirement in the Bill is to meet this nutrient removal through sewage disposal works and plants. Frustratingly, the clause specifies that this upgrade should take place only in these areas and has missed an opportunity to bring in nature-based solutions. The first reason this is a problem is that concrete-based solutions carry a really hefty price tag, as Wessex Water told me the other day, but they carry an even heavier climate cost. They have a very large carbon footprint. So what we have ended up with in the Bill is an environmental problem—nutrient pollution in our rivers—being addressed in a way that will create another environmental problem: significant carbon emissions.
There is an environmentally friendly alternative. This amendment suggests that water companies should also be given the option to reduce the level of nutrient pollution by using nature-based solutions, such as a buffer strip of forestry or wetland plants along the edges of a river. They all sound very nice and are often seen as a soft alternative. That is the real problem. There is now a really large scientific evidence base to demonstrate that such nature-based approaches are highly effective at reducing nutrient loads in rivers.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, apart from the Government, I have the bulk of the other amendments in this group so I thought I would go through them now. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis; she is very knowledgeable and it is interesting to hear what she has to say. She brings an extra dimension to our debates on this issue, and I hope the Minister will agree with that.
Part 7 provides an opportunity to address nutrient pollution, particularly from development. There is a duty on water companies to upgrade their sewage disposal works; that is welcome, but some of our amendments are to do with the wording, because we are a bit concerned that the wording about how water companies are to deliver the required upgrades is unnecessarily prescriptive. For example, Amendments 391 and 393 look at how the Government have come to the wording of the exemptions. Amendment 391 is to new Section 96D in Clause 153, which says:
“A plant is exempt … if … it has a capacity of less than a population equivalent of 2000”,
while further down it says,
“the plant has a capacity of less than a population equivalent of 250”.
The amendments probe where those figures have come from and why they are there.
My Amendment 400 probes whether broken sewage monitoring stations are contributing to sewage discharge. We are aware that Ofwat has recently announced that water and sewerage companies will face increased penalties from 2025 for using faulty or broken equipment to measure pollution from storm overflow pipes. Obviously we welcome that announcement, but the Government and the regulators need to enforce existing legislation. My amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to monitor the situation so we would ensure that what is legislated for actually happens. The narrow focus on sewage disposal works locations also means that the upgrades will be delivered onsite, usually through the traditional engineering methodology, which the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, talked about—using concrete, steel and chemicals has a high carbon cost.
My Amendment 401 probes the implementation of the environmental action plan. It asks the Minister for an explanation of how that is related to Part 7 and how it all ties together.
My Amendment 402 probes the potential for rebuilding sewage works with new concrete and steel rather than creating woodlands, reed beds and wetlands. The noble Baroness went into a lot of detailed explanation about why we need both options. A prescriptive site-specific approach closes down that environmentally beneficial alternative for upgrades. Habitat restoration can be done from wetlands and riparian woodlands and you can enhance farmland through hedges—the Minister knows all this. It would be good if that were also included as an option.
We know there have been pioneering partnerships between water companies and nature organisations, including locally where I am in Cumbria, and they have demonstrated how effective habitat restoration can reduce nutrient pollution levels and achieve nutrient neutrality. Again, why not use those pioneering partnerships to drive forward best practice? Other countries have done so, such as Belgium, so there is proper evidence and information as to why that is a good way forward.
I shall be brief because we still have quite a bit to get through. I finish by reiterating our strong support for everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has said and her amendment, and I urge the Minister to consider accepting it. We also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 393ZA is in my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her support in advance. I want to offer my support for all that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said. It was extremely knowledgeable and powerful, and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give her a positive response.
My amendment responds to the specific ambiguities in the text of the clause in front of us. Clause 153 amends the Water Industry Act 1991, and in its new Section 96D(5) it provides that:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations specify”
which sewage treatment plants are exempt from control of nutrient discharge. That subsection (5) follows a couple of preceding subsections which detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, pointed out, that plants of a particular size are exempt in any case. As I understood it from reading the legislation, very small-scale plants might be exempted. On top of that, we have subsection (5), which says that the Secretary of State may by regulations specify any sewage treatment plant that they decide is exempt. It is exactly the same area of concern that I expressed previously: it would appear that the Secretary of State is being given a free card to decide on exemptions, additional to those written into the earlier part of the new section.
A less scrupulous water company—we all know that they have suddenly become extremely scrupulous, which is very good to hear; of course, I absolutely take what they are saying in good faith—might think it worth while pursuing an exemption for a plant to avoid the costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has alluded to the substantial costs for them if they are required to comply. That is reflected pretty fully in the concept in the same clause: that if an exemption is ever withdrawn—in other words, if you thought that you had an exempt plant but the Secretary of State decides that the exemption is withdrawn—there is a seven-year period in which to become compliant. Once the exemption is withdrawn, you have seven years to get back into compliance. That indicates the cost and difficulty somebody would face if they found themselves with a plant which they had to make compliant.
The point I am trying to make, not very articulately, is that there is a real benefit to an operator in avoiding having to put in the necessary measures which this clause prescribes. There will be voices raised and pressures brought to bear on the Secretary of State to be very relaxed, and to operate subsection (5) in addition to the statutory exemptions in the preceding subsections. One could imagine that the greatest pressure would come from somebody operating a sewage plant which had had persistent breaches in standards that they regarded as being too onerous or expensive to comply with. They would make some special pleading to the Secretary of State that they should be exempted. That is exactly the situation that ought to be strongly resisted, and which this legislation should prevent happening.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, in her Amendment 390, to which I have added my name. It is a really important amendment as we struggle to meet the Government’s environmental target and our need to build more homes and develop our land. We have to do that in a way that understands there are fundamental environmental problems we need to address, particularly nutrient pollution.
It is clear that we need a statutory underpinning for nature-based solutions because, without that, they are not going to happen. We have evidence of that. You only have to look through previous price reviews, in which Ofwat turned down recommendations from water companies for nature-based solutions because, on a crude cost-benefit analysis, putting in a grey concrete storm tank was a damn sight cheaper than wetlands and various other proposals. If my memory serves me right, Ofwat turned down some very detailed and thoughtful proposals from Anglian Water because of the cost. Unless there is statutory underpinning, Ofwat will just carry on with its usual economic model.
This amendment is an important way of ensuring we get that win-win of nature-based solutions as we seek to address our nutrient pollution problems. It is an elegant way to move forward on the Dasgupta review, which talked about finding new ways to build nature into our economic model. Giving this a statutory underpinning would, as I have just made clear, give Ofwat the confidence to build into its economic models support for nature-based solutions. We know these are going to be fundamental if we are going to get to our 30 by 30 target.
The only thing I want to say, because it is late and so much has been brilliantly said by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is that you would expect us to say this. We are the usual green environmentalists. But I hope the Minister hears that we are also saying that we understand why this is important. We need development, and there is stalemate in many housing developments because the nutrient pollution issues cannot be solved. We are trying to be constructive in resolving that problem. We are not just saying this with our usual green hats on. We realise that this is a tricky issue which needs resolving.
It is not just us in the environmental groups, such as Wildlife and Countryside Link. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee did an excellent report on nature-based solutions recently. Again, this underpins the support for this amendment. The Government’s own environmental improvement plan talks about the benefits of nature-based solutions. If you are going to deliver on your own words, then you should be supporting this.
For me, the most important and powerful thing is that the water companies support this amendment. In addition to the comments made individually to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, Water UK put out a release saying that the water companies want this amendment. It would be wonderful to be able to say that this amendment has been supported on a day when the water companies have said, “Mea culpa”, said sorry for the appalling way that they have handled our sewage problems, and promised that they will put £10 billion-worth of new investment into this area. This would ensure that we get the win-win, both to overcome some of our problems with building the homes we need and to ensure that we get the benefits we need for our hard-pressed nature.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I will come to the various points but, first, I say that I agreed with nearly everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, particularly the quotation from Dasgupta. But her criticism of Ofwat is slightly out of date: I had those arguments with it a decade ago. It liked a bit of concrete and steel then because it could measure water going into it and the quality going out, and it did not trust nature-based solutions because it could not get that degree of measurement of asset value. There has been a sea-change in how we do that, but I agree with her in every other respect.
On this group on nutrient pollution standards, I begin my remarks with Amendment 390. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and others that we should ensure that water companies deliver this new statutory duty in a timely way. Throughout the delivery of the Water Industry National Environment Programme, the Environment Agency regularly liaises with water companies to ensure progress and to address risks to delivery. Under Section 202 of the Water Industry Act, the Government have the power to request that water companies provide information regarding the delivery of improvements to wastewater infrastructure, and we intend to use these powers if necessary.
Should it become evident that a delay in upgrading a particular wastewater treatment works is unavoidable, the legislation makes provision for the Secretary of State to disapply the requirement placed on local planning authorities to assume that the upgrade will be delivered by 1 April 2030 for the purposes of a habitats regulations assessment. The Secretary of State must notify local planning authorities accordingly so that they can factor this into their planning discussions.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we should ensure that water companies are delivering against this duty in a way that maximises benefits for the environment, and ensure that nature-based solutions are a vital part of our sewage treatment infrastructure. The Government want to see water companies making use of these solutions as part of the treatment processes that they apply. In the strategic policy statement for Ofwat, we set out that water companies should
“increase … the use of nature-based solutions where appropriate”.
The new statutory duty has been designed to ensure that water companies can use nature-based solutions as part of the wastewater treatment process—for example, water companies may use integrated wetlands to remove nutrients from wastewater. The legislation also allows water companies to use nature-based solutions as part of this process. I am repeating myself, so I will move on, as the hour is late.
In the most recent strategic policy statement for Ofwat, the Government set the clear expectation that it should continue in this form. Therefore, I assure the Committee that sufficient provisions are already in place to ensure that nature-based solutions are taken forward where appropriate.
I turn to Amendment 391 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. Upgrading wastewater treatment plants smaller than a plant capacity of 2,000 population equivalent would require significant investment in new infrastructure and deliver minimal environmental benefit, and it is therefore unlikely to represent value for money. However, we have provided a power for the Secretary of State to lower the plant capacity in individual catchments so that, where appropriate, we can require upgrades at smaller treatment works too.
Although I welcome Amendment 392 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, it is unnecessary because the Secretary of State will of course consider all relevant information and advice before making any exemptions from achieving the nutrient pollution standard. In addition, if a wastewater treatment plant is exempt from this statutory duty, the Environment Agency will still make use of environmental permits to set limits on the quality of wastewater being discharged, thereby ensuring that the water environment is protected.
In relation to Amendment 393, I reassure the Committee that wastewater treatment plants with a capacity of less than 250 population equivalent can already be designated as not exempt where appropriate. If the evidence shows that it is necessary to put enhanced treatment in place at a wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of less than 250 population equivalent, the legislation allows for the Secretary of State to do so within a set timeframe.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that we should ensure that nutrient pollution standards for wastewater are protected. However, as already made clear, wastewater treatment works that are exempt will still be subject to all the other existing standards set by the Environment Agency on a site-specific basis, but I am happy to continue discussions on this as the Bill progresses.
Amendment 400 raises the issue of accurate monitoring and reporting. I agree that this is critical. Under this Government, we have gone from just 7% of storm overflows being fitted with event duration monitors in 2010 to over 90% today, and by the end of this year that will rise to 100%. The Environment Agency already regulates many water quality monitoring stations through permits to ensure that they operate to established regulatory standards. We aim to bring forward regulations to implement a new duty on water companies to report data on sewage discharges from storm overflows in near real time. In those same regulations, we will implement a duty to monitor the water quality impacts of those discharges. That will make the UK world leaders in understanding the impact of sewage discharges on the receiving environment. I therefore reassure the Committee that this amendment is not necessary, as the Government are already taking steps to ensure the accurate and timely reporting of monitoring data from wastewater treatment works. The Committee should expect further announcements on this soon.
Considering Amendment 401 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I will assume that she is referring in it to the environmental improvement plan. The plan includes the steps that we are taking to meet the legally binding long-term target to reduce phosphorus loadings from treated wastewater to the water environment. Every five years, the Government must review the environmental improvement plan and update it as necessary to ensure that it contains any further policies needed to achieve long-term and interim targets. It is therefore important that we retain flexibility to update the actions in the plan rather than setting them on a statutory footing, so that we can ensure that the actions reflect the most appropriate path to achieving our policy. It will be for this and the other place to hold Ministers to account on this in future years.
Government Amendments 393A to 393J will improve the enforceability of these provisions by making it clear that the Environment Agency needs to treat excess nutrient pollution discharge which results from the failure to deliver upgrades on time as environmental damage. The sewerage undertaker would then be liable to remediate the excess nutrient pollution determined as having been discharged. For the reasons set out, which I hope provide sufficient reassurance, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to withdraw Amendment 390, and noble Lords not to move the other amendments in their names and to support the government amendments.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses who have participated in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Stunell, for their excellent additional points. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her support of my amendment.
I urge the Minister to consider this matter further. I give him one reason why: if we have so much legislation out there already, why is it not working? If you look at recent government funding for wastewater treatment plants and schemes—I checked it earlier today—not a single one that has been funded is a nature-based solution; they are all concrete. That suggests to me that people are not taking this seriously; the water companies are certainly not looking at nature-based solutions.
I would like to discuss this further with the Minister’s department, if possible. I appreciate his answers and know that this matter is not straightforward, but we need to put legislation in place that means that nature-based solutions are on the same footing as concrete solutions—they are not right now. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 190, line 36.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would change what is treated as environmental damage for the purposes of the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015 where a plant is in breach of a nutrient pollution standard to the excess nutrient pollution discharged (instead of the damage caused to a site).
“(2A) In paragraph (2)—“excess nutrient pollution” , in relation to a nutrient significant plant and a related nutrient pollution standard, means the amount by which the total nutrient pollution discharged in treated effluent by the plant during the period—(a) beginning with the upgrade date, and(b) ending with the day the plant first meets the related nutrient pollution standard,exceeds the total nutrient pollution that it would have discharged in treated effluent during that period had it met the related nutrient pollution standard on and after the upgrade date;“total nutrient pollution” means—(a) in relation to the nitrogen nutrient pollution standard, total nitrogen, and(b) in relation to the phosphorus nutrient pollution standard, total phosphorus.(2B) It is for the Environment Agency to determine the excess nutrient pollution discharged by a plant and in doing so the Environment Agency may have regard to—(a) the concentration of total nitrogen or concentration of total phosphorus determined for the purposes of section 96F of the Water Industry Act 1991 (see in particular subsection (5) of that section), and(b) the volume of treated effluent discharged by the plant, as determined by the Environment Agency.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would define “excess nutrient pollution” for the purposes of the provision that would be inserted by the Minister’s amendment at page 190, line 36.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out paragraphs (3) and (4) of inserted regulation 9A of the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015 which would not be needed as a result of the Minister’s amendment at page 190, line 36.
““nitrogen nutrient pollution standard”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 191, line 6.
““phosphorus nutrient pollution standard”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 191, line 6.
““treated effluent”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the definition of “treated effluent” from section 96J of the Water Industry Act 1991 for the purposes of the definitions that would be inserted by the Minister’s amendment at page 191, line 6.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 190, line 36.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 190, line 36.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 190, line 36.
“(c) the Secretary of State has published a strategy for ensuring the development corporation is accountable to local residents”Member's explanatory statement
This is to probe the accountability of development corporations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, although it is not a matter for the register of interests, I declare a particular interest in this group of amendments in that I grew up in an area developed and managed for many years by a development corporation. At their best, they provide focus, finance and pace for new development. If we are serious about tackling the severe housing crisis, which we have discussed so many times in your Lordships’ House, and ensuring that we create the conditions and environment for the new forms of employment we need—I am reminded of recent discussions in Question Time about the need to develop new battery capacity at speed—we should welcome the move to enable this way of tackling new developments at scale.
However, we must ensure that, as we do so, we learn the lessons of the past, including the not-so-distant past: with all the safeguards we need to ensure development at pace does not ride roughshod over proper and appropriate process and accountability. We also need to ensure that there is appropriate membership of, and links with, those who are democratically elected at local level, so that the public can be reassured they have a recourse via the democratic route.
May I ask the noble Earl the Minister a few questions before I begin consideration of our amendments about the way that development corporations are framed in the Bill? First, the Bill refers to one or more local authorities having what is called “oversight” of the development corporation. Of course, as advocates of localism we welcome this, but can the Minister be more specific about whether that means that the local authority will be the accountable body, which is a different term? This important distinction would help us to understand whether it is the Government’s intention that development corporations are autonomous in terms of finance or whether financial decision-making and probity will still require a council process. If it is the former, I am not convinced that there is sufficient detail in the Bill about how probity will be achieved. Bearing in mind the very considerable sums of public money that will potentially flow through development corporations, it is absolutely crucial that we are all clear on this issue.
Also in relation to finance, the Bill creates substantial new powers of borrowing for development corporations. Will they be subject to the same prudential borrowing regime as local authorities? If it were not so late, I could talk more about public accounts committees and local public accounts committees and how that might be a solution, but I will save that for another day.
Secondly, regarding how development corporations are to operate in terms of planning powers, will they be responsible only for the planning of new development within the designated area? To explain further: should the designated area contain existing development, does the council remain responsible for day-to-day matters of planning, such as infill development, extensions, tree preservation orders and so on, or is the whole gamut of planning within the application area the responsibility of the development corporation once the designation has been made? Can the Minister also clarify whether, in two-tier areas, the district council takes on the planning powers of both tiers—for example, the minerals, waste and flooding powers of the county as well as district planning powers? Would the county council keep the minerals and flooding powers without housing powers, or would all those powers transfer to the development corporation?
Lastly, in terms of membership and chairmanship of a development corporation, it is not clear to me whether this is left entirely to local discretion or whether it will require government departmental sign-off. Will it be a requirement that each local authority that comes within the designated area of the development corporation will be entitled to representation on that development corporation? Can the Minister give any further clarity on that? I am happy to have a response in writing at a later date.
Amendment 403 attempts to establish a principle that the development corporation should be accountable to local residents. When councils undertake development, whatever the scale, the public have all the protections that have been built into the planning system through the route of democratic accountability. Our amendment probes how that will be replicated in relation to development corporations. I note that the new Amendment 403A, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, makes a similar point in relation to ensuring that the public get value for money.
In view of discussions in your Lordships’ House just yesterday relating to the very significant development taking place under the mayoral development corporation in Teesside, I think it is particularly important that the accountability route for the public in relation to both the development itself and the public funds invested is much clearer than it is at present. We strongly believe that development undertaken by a development corporation should have to be in accordance with local plans, subject to master planning, where it is implementing development at scale, and subject to the same reassurance of independent examination as is required of councils.
Our Amendment 404 would give the public the opportunity to make representation at an independent inquiry.
Our continuing concern about this Government’s failure to deliver any scale of housebuilding that would help to tackle our housing emergency has prompted our Amendment 406, which probes the Government’s intentions in relation to a programme for new towns. We have had many discussions in Committee about the role of members of local councils in the development of their areas. Too often in the past, these vital community bodies—parish, town and other community councils—are left out of the loop. Their role at the heart of their communities is key to ensuring that there is a voice for local people as developments move forward.
Our Amendments 407 and 408 will introduce a requirement for local councils to be represented on locally led urban development corporations. In my questions to the Minister, I outlined our concerns over how the finances of a development corporation are to be publicly accountable. Our Amendment 409 reflects that concern and asks that the Secretary of State is much clearer than the Bill currently is about how the finances of development corporations are to be transparent, how they will be monitored and how they are to be accountable to the public. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this short group is actually very important. Clause 156 in Part 8 is an introduction by the Government of a new type of development corporation: locally led. Development corporations have been around in various guises for a long time—new towns, Canary Wharf and the Olympic Park are examples—with very variable degrees of success in achieving their stated aims. Development corporations are the vehicle for public-private partnerships, often to develop former industrial sites. In that sense, the principle is supported by these Benches. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is quite right to challenge some aspects of the planned changes. We support her Amendments 404 and 405, which would ensure that the public have a right for their voice to be heard. This is, after all, the levelling-up Bill, where public engagement, involvement and participation are emphasised.
It is absolutely right—fundamental, in my view—that locally elected representatives are at the heart of development corporations, for the very reason that they are the route by which members of the public can take their concerns, raise complaints, get answers, challenge decisions that are being made and hold the board to account for the public money that is being spent. Unfortunately, that is not the case with some existing development corporations. Wherever public funding is involved, as it is in development corporations, there has to be public and transparent decision-making and then public accountability for those decisions. Hence Amendment 403A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley.
Unfortunately, one development corporation, the Teesside Development Corporation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is making headlines of the wrong sort, in both the Yorkshire Post and the Financial Times, for the apparent failure of transparency and accountability. Teesside is a mayoral development corporation—I asked this question yesterday in the Chamber, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, responded—where it seems that the mayor has the sole right to appoint the board membership of the development corporation. I think that was the response I got, but maybe that is not the case, in which case I hope that is put right. This practice is totally contrary to good governance, where openness and inclusivity have to be the hallmark. The extension of development corporations to include locally led ones is an opportunity for the Government to review best practice in governance, transparency and accountability and make the appropriate changes so that all development corporations meet the highest standards of open and transparent governance.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said, as well as what my noble friend Lady Pinnock had to say about this.
I need to start by saying that I worked in the architects’ department of a new town for 13 years and lived in that new town during its raw development stage. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that I believe that the development corporation model has a proven track record, usually of building communities with all the essential infrastructure in a joined-up way. The Government are right to see the development corporation model as one means of accelerating necessary development, and I welcome the presence of these clauses in the Bill.
However, I will just briefly reflect on my experience. During the 1960s and 1970s, the new towns were very top-down in conception. The New Town Act made the development corporation I worked with simultaneously the client, the designer, the planning authority and the funding channel for the delivery of the projects I worked on, which was a very cosy situation for those of us working on the projects but not so good if you lived next door or sometimes literally underneath where we were developing. The later generation of urban development corporations mostly paid better lip service to local democratic institutions than that.
However, there are deficiencies, and my noble friend Lady Pinnock has put her finger on one of them. It is good that the relevant clauses inform a model whereby development corporations spring from local government initiatives and are not to be imposed by somebody with a map sitting in Whitehall. That brings me to my first question to the Minister. Clause 156(2) still reserves the power to declare urban development corporations independent of any local proposals—the Secretary of State can in fact sit behind a desk in Whitehall. Do the Government have in mind making any such designations, and if not, why do we have Clause 156(2) in the Bill?
My second question relates to the consultees listed in Clause 156(4), which inserts new provisions. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, refers to that in her Amendment 407. A very good part of that clause says that local government is to be involved even if it is not the commissioning authority. There is then a less good list of what local government consists of. Very surprisingly, it does not include parish and town councils. They are not listed as statutory consultees, although district and county councils are. There is a parallel provision in the legislation for the urban development corporations to what we might call the green belt ones. In each case, parish councils are left out. In any normal use of language, they qualify as local government, do they not? They also qualify as legislative and statutory as well, so it is a great puzzle to me why they are not there. An important point is that they will probably be the best informed about their areas, and at a detailed level which certainly will be missed by county councils, for instance. I therefore want to hear from the Minister why parish councils are not statutory consultees.
The Minister may say that there is a catch-all here;
“any other person whom the proposing authority considers it appropriate to consult”
is among the consultees. However, that is an option for the consulting authority, not a statutory consultation partner. If you want to rely on that catch-all, why not rely on it for county councils? If it is blindingly obvious that you would always consult a parish council, and therefore you do not need to say it, it must surely be blindingly obvious that you need to consult the county council, so you do not need to say that. If you are mentioning one, why not the other?
Secondly, what led to the omission of town and parish councils? If it was an oversight, will the Minister please correct it on Report or at least tell us that the inevitable statutory instrument will make it unambiguously clear that any town or parish council in or in the vicinity of a proposal should be consulted as a matter of course? I would be very happy to receive an answer by letter, if that makes it easier.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has explained, this group of amendments concerns development corporations. I am grateful for the broadly supportive comments from noble Lords for these provisions.
Amendment 403 probes the issue of local accountability, which was a theme picked up strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, whose amendment I will come to in a moment. One of the key priorities of the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to empower local leaders and communities. Introducing a new, locally led urban development corporation model will support local aspirations for regeneration without the need to establish a body accountable to central government, but which is instead accountable to local authorities. For it is local authorities—local councillors, elected by their local community—who will be the originators of the proposal and oversee the locally led development corporation, ensuring clear democratic accountability.
We completely recognise the importance of community involvement and participation in the creation of locally led development corporations. That is why we have included statutory public consultation arrangements for locally led urban and new town development corporations in the Bill, which proposing authorities must implement before submitting their proposal to the Secretary of State.
We intend also to use regulations to set out further details on the composition of board membership and aims of the oversight authority for locally led urban development corporations, as we did in relation to locally led new town development corporations in 2018. In appointing independent members, we expect the oversight authority to ensure that the board has the relevant skills and experience needed and includes those with an understanding of the local area.
I turn to Amendments 404 and 405. We recognise the importance of ensuring that appropriate scrutiny has taken place, including from the local community, where a proposal is being developed to designate the development area of a new settlement or urban development area and establishing a locally led development corporation. As I have mentioned before, we have included provisions for statutory public consultation where people can have their say on the proposals at the formative stage before it is submitted to the Secretary of State. When the proposal is received by the Secretary of State, they will look very carefully at the robustness of the plans, including at community involvement and views expressed, before making a decision on whether the proposal is expedient in the local interest and making an order to designate the development corporation’s development area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked whether all planning would become the responsibility of the locally led UDC and whether all powers would transfer from the local authority to the locally led urban development corporation. The answer is no—or rather, not necessarily. It is for local authorities to propose and for the Secretary of State to decide, under his discretion, whether and to what extent functions should transfer.
The noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also asked about the conformity of locally led UDC development with local plans. A development corporation that takes on plan-making or development management functions will be subject to the same rules as a local planning authority. I would be happy to fill out that answer in writing, if I may.
Amendments 404 and 405 are therefore an unnecessary addition to these consultation requirements. They would slow down the designation of development corporation areas. The purpose of designating the area is to determine the area in which the locally led development corporation will operate and deliver a programme of urban regeneration or a new town. There will be further opportunities for the local community to have its say on the planning proposals for the area as proposals for development come forward through the planning system.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving us a detailed and thorough response, in spite of the late hour. It is much appreciated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, this is an important clause in the Bill and we want to support it, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that the way that development corporations work has generally been very effective. It has not worked everywhere, but in most places it has been very effective and has delivered at scale. It has created not just dormitory areas but real, proper communities, with all the infrastructure, which is exactly the model that we want to see for at-scale housebuilding going forward. We really want this to work; it is very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue about Teesside, as I did. This is very important. It has made us all quite nervous to see the lack of transparency that there appears to have been in some of the decision-making there. That is making us concerned about this, so I hope that our amendments and the questions we have asked help us to clarify our thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, raised the issue, as did I, of parish and town councils. That needs some thought: as the noble Lord rightly said, if we have specific mention of county councils and district councils in the consultation and it is not just assumed that they will take part, that should surely apply to parish and town councils as well. I do not see any reason why not. The Minister indicated that that might come through in a later statutory instrument, but we will be more reassured if the other types of council are included in the Bill.
On my question regarding the accountable body, perhaps the Minister could respond in writing. I have recently set up a town development board that is working on a billion-pound town centre regeneration project; that is not quite the same as a development corporation, but similar. The council has had to be the accountable body: the town development board has a mixture of elected and appointed people, and the decision-making on the finance has to go back to the council every time. I wanted to be sure about the role of this oversight authority. The Minister said that that might be subject to further information, to come at a later stage. Given the vast sums of public money that is likely to go through these bodies, it is important that we understand who will be accountable for that money and how, and who will monitor it and how.
The point the Minister made about these being locally led development corporations is really important. Those of us who experienced them in the 1950s will remember that the approach was very top-down. I know that that is not in anybody’s mind these days, as doing it that way does not work any more. We do not want to go back: it is very important that they are locally led and there is local input all the way through the development of the proposals. It was reassuring and helpful to hear that planning proposals by development corporations will go through the planning system in the same way, so there will be public inquiries, presumably, and publicly held meetings about the plans and proposals.
I heard the Minister say that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act requires financial reporting from development corporations to the Secretary of State, and a report to then be laid before Parliament. I look forward to reading the annual report for Teesside’s mayoral development corporation when it is made public; it will be very interesting to see what it says.
The Minister mentioned the garden communities. I will not step on any corns regarding East Herts District Council, which has just completed a garden village proposal—and where the Conservatives lost 17 seats a couple of weeks ago. In general, the garden communities are a very good thing; they are well-planned communities with the infrastructure needed to support them.
The Minister referred to the Secretary of State approving the governance and deliverability plans before designating a development corporation. Finance should be included as well. I do not know whether that is what he intended, but it is very important.
There are some issues still to be clarified, but we are all generally supportive of locally led development corporations. We may come back to these issues on Report, when we have further information, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4) Schedule (Conditional confirmation and making of compulsory purchase orders: consequential amendments) contains, and makes provision in connection with, amendments in consequence of this section and paragraph 3 of Schedule 15.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces the new Schedule in the Minister’s name before Schedule 15, and omits one of the provisions superseded by that new Schedule.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“ScheduleConditional confirmation and making of compulsory purchase orders: consequential amendmentsLand Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26)
1 In section 33D of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (exclusions from entitlement to loss payments), for subsection (6) substitute—““(6) The relevant time is the time at which any of the following occurs in respect of the compulsory purchase order relating to the person’s interest in the land—(a) the order is confirmed, other than conditionally, under section 13 or 13A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;(b) the order is made, other than conditionally, under paragraph 4 or 4A of Schedule 1 to that Act;“(c) a decision is made under section 13BA(2)(a) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (decision that conditions subject to which order was confirmed have been met);(d) a decision is made under paragraph 4AA(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to that Act (decision that conditions subject to which order was made have been met).”Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (c. 66)
“2 In section 5(2) of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (vesting declaration not to be executed before purchase order operative), for “26(1)” substitute “26”.Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67)
3 (1) The Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) In section 7—(a) in subsection (3) (regulations subject to negative procedure)—(i) after “13A” insert “or 13BA”;(ii) after “paragraph 4A” insert “or 4AA”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—““(4) So far as anything is required or authorised to be prescribed as mentioned in subsection (2) in relation to orders that fall to be made or confirmed by the Welsh Ministers— “(a) the reference in that subsection to the Secretary of State is to be read as a reference to the Welsh Ministers, and“(b) the reference in subsection (3) to either House of Parliament is to be read as a reference to Senedd Cymru.”(3) In section 26 (date of operation of orders and certificates), for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—“(1A) A compulsory purchase order confirmed under Part 2 becomes operative—(a) if it is confirmed unconditionally, on the date on which a confirmation notice in respect of the order is first published as required by section 15(3)(a);(b) if it is confirmed conditionally, on the date on which a fulfilment notice in respect of the order is first published as required by section 15(4C)(b)(i).“(1B) A compulsory purchase order made under Schedule 1 becomes operative—“(a) if it is made unconditionally, on the date on which a making notice in respect of the order is first published as required by paragraph 6(3)(a) of that Schedule;“(b) if it is made conditionally, on the date on which a fulfilment notice in respect of the order is first published as required by paragraph 6(4C)(b)(i) of that Schedule.“(1C) Subsections (1A) and (1B) do not apply to an order to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 applies.“(2A) A certificate given under Part 3 becomes operative on the date on which it is first published as required by section 22(a).“(2B) A certificate given under Schedule 3 becomes operative on the date on which it is first published as required by paragraph 9(a) of that Schedule.(3) This section is subject to section 24.”Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
4 (1) The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.“(2) In section 582 (suspension of recovery of possession of certain premises when compulsory purchase order made)—(a) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) any earlier date on which—(i) the Secretary of State notifies the authority that the Secretary of State declines to confirm the order,(ii) the order (having been confirmed conditionally) expires by virtue of section 13BA(2)(b) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, or(iii) the order is quashed by a court.”;(b) in subsection (6), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(aa) the Secretary of State notifies the authority that the Secretary of State declines to confirm the compulsory purchase order,(ab) the order (having been confirmed conditionally) expires by virtue of section 13BA(2)(b) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981,(ac) the order is quashed by a court, or”.(3) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 5A (termination of initial demolition notices)—(a) in sub-paragraph (2), after “(3)(a)” insert “or (aa)”;(b) in sub-paragraph (3)—(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(ii) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a decision under section 13BA(2)(b)(ii) of that Act that conditions subject to which the order was confirmed have not been met, or” (c) in sub-paragraph (4), after “(3)(a)” insert “or (aa)”;(d) after sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(6A) If—(a) a compulsory purchase order has been made as described in sub-paragraph (2),(b) the order expires by virtue of section 13BA(2)(b)(i) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, and(c) the effect of the expiry is that the landlord will not be able, by virtue of that order, to carry out the demolition of the dwelling-house,the notice ceases to be in force as from the date when the order expires.”;(e) in sub-paragraph (7), after “(2)” insert “or (6A)”.Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)
5 (1) TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In section 137(7)(b) (discontinuance of compulsory purchase for purpose of blight notice exception)—(a) in sub-paragraph (i), after “order” insert “or the order (having been made conditionally) expires by virtue of paragraph 4AA(2) of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981”;(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), at the end insert “or (having been confirmed conditionally) it expires by virtue of section 13BA(2)(b) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981”.(3) In Note (2) in paragraph 22 of Schedule 13 (land ceasing to be blighted by proposed compulsory purchase order)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “; or“(c) the order (having been confirmed or made conditionally) expires by virtue of section 13BA(2)(b) of, or paragraph 4AA(2) of Schedule 1 to, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.”Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)
“6 In section 48(6)(b) of the Listed Buildings Act (discontinuance of compulsory purchase for purpose of listed building purchase notice exception)—“(a) in sub-paragraph (i), at the end insert “or the order (having been made conditionally) expires by virtue of paragraph 4AA(2) of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981”;“(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), at the end insert “or (having been confirmed conditionally) it expires by virtue of section 13BA(2)(b) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981”.Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023
7 (1) In section 111(8)(b) of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 (discontinuance of compulsory purchase for purpose of listed building purchase notice exception)—(a) in the English language text—(i) in sub-paragraph (i), at the end insert “or (having been confirmed conditionally) it expires by virtue of section 13BA(2)(b) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), at the end insert “or the order (having been made conditionally) expires by virtue of paragraph 4AA(2) of Schedule 1 to that Act”;(b) in the Welsh language text—(i) in sub-paragraph (i), at the end insert “neu pan fydd (ar ôl cael ei gadarnhau’n amodol) yn dod i ben yn rhinwedd adran 13BA(2)(b) o Ddeddf Caffael Tir 1981”; “(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), at the end insert “neu pan fydd y gorchymyn (ar ôl cael ei wneud yn amodol) yn dod i ben yn rhinwedd paragraff 4AA(2) o Atodlen 1 i’r Ddeddf honno”.“(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend sub-paragraph (1) before it comes into force in consequence of the provision amended by that sub-paragraph being enacted other than as proposed in the relevant iteration of the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill.(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—“(a) the “Historic Environment (Wales) Bill” means the Bill of that name introduced in Senedd Cymru on 4 July 2022, and“(b) the “relevant iteration” of that Bill is the Bill as it stands after consideration by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee of the Senedd on 13 February 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Schedule brings together various amendments in consequence of the introduction of conditional compulsory purchase orders (some of which are currently elsewhere in the Bill and some of which are new).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
““(4) In section 582 of the Housing Act 1985 (suspension of recovery of possession of certain premises when compulsory purchase order made)—“(a) in subsection (2)(a), for “third anniversary of” substitute “final day of the period of three years beginning with”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—““(6A) If the compulsory purchase order specifies a period longer than three years under section 13D of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, the references in this section to the period of three years are to be read as references to the period specified in the order.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds consequential amendments to Clause 171.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Power to require prospects of planning permission to be ignored(1) In the Acquisition of Land Act 1981—“(a) in section 7(3) (regulations subject to negative procedure), before “paragraph 4A” insert “section 15A(11) or”;“(b) in section 14A (confirmation by acquiring authority), after subsection (2) insert— ““(2A) Nor does it apply to an order directing that compensation is to be assessed in accordance with section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (see section 15A).”(c) after section 15 insert—“Special provision about compensation
15A
Directions applying section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—(a) an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order for confirmation, and(b) the authorising enactment is listed in Schedule 2A.“(2) The acquiring authority may include in the order a direction that compensation is to be assessed in accordance with section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (cases where prospect of planning permission to be ignored); and if it does so the following provisions of this section apply.(3) The acquiring authority must submit to the confirming authority a statement of commitments together with the order.“(4) A “statement of commitments” is a statement of the acquiring authority’s intentions as to what will be done with the project land should the acquisition proceed, so far as the authority relies on those intentions in contending that the direction is justified in the public interest.(5) If the authorising enactment is listed in any of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 2A, those intentions must include the provision of a certain number of units of affordable housing.“(6) The statement under section 12(1)(a) must include a statement of the effect of the direction; and paragraphs (ba) and (bb) of the same subsection apply in respect of the statement of commitments as they apply in respect of the compulsory purchase order.“(7) The confirming authority may permit the acquiring authority to amend the statement of commitments before the decision whether to confirm the order is made.(8) But the confirming authority may do so—“(a) only if satisfied that the amendment would not be unfair to any person who made or could have made a relevant objection for the purposes of section 13, and“(b) if the authorising enactment is listed in any of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 2A, only if the statement of commitments as amended will still comply with subsection (5).(9) If the confirming authority decides to confirm the order in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Part—(a) it may confirm the order with the direction included if satisfied that the direction is justified in the public interest;(b) otherwise, it must modify the order so as to remove the direction.“(10) If the order is confirmed with the direction included, a confirmation notice under section 15 must (in addition to the matters set out in subsection (4) of that section)—(a) state the effect of the direction,(b) explain how the statement of commitments may be viewed, and(c) explain that additional compensation may become payable if the statement of commitments is not fulfilled. (11) In this section—““the authorising enactment” means the enactment that confers the power to make the compulsory purchase to which the order in question relates;“the project land” means—(a) the land proposed to be acquired further to the compulsory purchase order, and(b) any other land that the acquiring authority intends to be used in connection with that land;“unit of affordable housing” means a building or part of a building that is—(a) constructed or adapted for use as a separate dwelling, and(b) is to be used as—(i) social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, or“(ii) housing of any other description that is prescribed.”;(d) after Schedule 2 insert—“Schedule 2AEnactments eligible for directions applying section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961Enactments authorising acquisitions for purposes including housing
1 Section 142 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (acquisition by urban development corporation).2 Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 (acquisition by local housing authority).“3 Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (acquisition by local authority for development or planning purposes).4 Section 333ZA of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (acquisition by Greater London Authority for housing or regeneration purposes).“5 Section 9 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (acquisition by the Homes and Communities Agency).6 Section 207 of the Localism Act 2011 (acquisition by mayoral development corporation).Enactments authorising acquisitions for purposes of the NHS
7 Paragraph 46 of Schedule 4 to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (acquisition by NHS foundation trust).8 Paragraph 27 of Schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006 (acquisition by NHS trust).9 Paragraph 20 of Schedule 2 to the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (acquisition by local health board).Enactment authorising acquisitions for educational purposes
10 Section 530 of the Education Act 1996 (acquisition by local authority for purposes of educational institution or function).”(2) In the Land Compensation Act 1961—(a) after section 14 insert—“14A Cases where prospect of planning permission to be ignored“(1) The following provisions apply in relation to an acquisition if the compulsory purchase order authorising the acquisition directs that compensation is to be assessed in accordance with this section.(2) Section 14 does not apply.“(3) In assessing the value of land in accordance with rule (2) in section 5, it is to be assumed that no planning permission would be granted for development on the relevant land (whether alone or together with other land). (4) Subsection (3) does not prevent account being taken of planning permission that has already been granted.(5) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to development consisting of the use as two or more separate dwellings of any building previously used as a single dwelling.(6) Schedule 2A provides for the payment of additional compensation in respect of the acquisition in certain circumstances.”(b) in section 32 (interest from entry on land), after subsection (2) insert—““(3) This section does not apply in relation to additional compensation payable under Schedule 2A.”(c) after the second Schedule insert—“Schedule 2AAdditional compensation where section 14A appliedDirections for additional compensation
1 (1) This paragraph applies if—(a) an interest in land has been acquired further to a compulsory purchase order, and(b) the order directed that compensation was to be assessed in accordance with section 14A.“(2) The confirming authority must, on an application by an eligible person, make a direction for additional compensation if it appears to the confirming authority that the following conditions are met.(3) Those conditions are—(a) that the statement of commitments has not been fulfilled,(b) either—“(i) that the period of 10 years beginning with the date on which the compulsory purchase order became operative has expired, or“(ii) that there is no longer any realistic prospect of the statement of commitments being fulfilled within that period, and“(c) that the initial direction would not have been confirmed on the basis of a statement of commitments reflecting what has in fact been done with the project land since its acquisition.(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—“the statement of commitments” means the statement of commitments submitted in connection with the compulsory purchase order under section 15A(3) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (and if the statement was amended after its submission, means the statement as amended);“the initial direction” means the direction referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) (and that direction was “confirmed” when the compulsory purchase order was confirmed with the inclusion of the direction);““the project land” means the land treated as the project land for the purposes of the statement of commitments;and that statement is “fulfilled” if what is done with that land after its acquisition is materially in accordance with the statement.“(5) The effect of a direction for additional compensation is that each eligible person may make a claim to the acquiring authority for any additional compensation in respect of the acquisition payable to the person under this Schedule.“(6) A person is an “eligible person” for the purposes of this Schedule if the person was entitled to compensation in respect of the acquisition (and see also paragraph 4(1)). Amount of additional compensation
“2 (1) Additional compensation in respect of an acquisition is payable to an eligible person only if, in relation to that person, the alternative amount is greater than the original amount.(2) The amount payable is the difference between the two amounts.(3) The “original amount” is the amount of compensation awarded or agreed to be paid to the person in respect of the acquisition.“(4) The “alternative amount” is the amount of compensation that would have been assessed as due to the person in respect of the acquisition had compensation been assessed without the application of section 14A.(5) If the original amount was agreed, the relevant valuation date for the purposes of the assessment imagined under sub-paragraph (4) is the date on which the agreement was concluded.“(6) In relation to the determination of an amount of additional compensation under this Schedule, section 17(2)(b) applies as if its reference to the amount of compensation were to the amount of additional compensation.“(7) A certificate issued under section 17 (or 18) after the award or agreement referred to in sub-paragraph (3) is to have effect for the purposes of the assessment imagined under sub-paragraph (4) as if it had been issued before that assessment.(8) Any amount of compensation that is or would be attributable to disturbance, severance or injurious affection is to be ignored for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).Time limit for application for direction
3 An application under paragraph 1(2) may not be made after the expiry of the period of 13 years beginning with the date on which the compulsory purchase order became operative.Mortgages
“(1) For the purposes of this Schedule an “eligible person” includes a person who would have been entitled to compensation in respect of the acquisition but for the existence of a mortgage (but the mortgage is in that case still to be taken into account in determining the original and alternative amounts under paragraph 2).(“2) An amount agreed or awarded to be paid to a mortgagee under section 15 or 16 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 in respect of the acquisition is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as compensation in respect of the acquisition.“(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) to an amount paid under section 15 or 16 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (“the applicable section”) includes an amount paid under section 52ZA or 52ZB of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and taken into account by virtue of section 52ZC(7)(d) of that Act for the purposes of the applicable section.“(4) Additional compensation payable under this Schedule to a person in the person’s capacity as a mortgagee (or to a person exercising rights of a mortgagee) is to be applied towards the discharge of the sums secured by the mortgage.“(5) If there is no remaining sum secured by the mortgage, the additional compensation that would be payable as described in sub-paragraph (4) is instead payable to the person who is an eligible person by virtue of the interest that was subject to the mortgage. “(6) If the additional compensation that would be payable as described in sub-paragraph (4) exceeds the total of the remaining sums secured by the mortgage, the amount of the excess is instead payable to the person who is an eligible person by virtue of the interest that was subject to the mortgage.Successors-in-title
“5 (1) This paragraph applies if, had the compensation to which an eligible person was entitled in respect of the acquisition remained unpaid, the right to be paid it would now vest in some other person (assuming that it remained enforceable and any obligations in respect of the right had been complied with).(2) If the eligible person is still alive or in existence, the rights that the eligible person would have under this Schedule are exercisable by the other person and not by the eligible person.“(3) If the eligible person is no longer alive or in existence, the rights that the eligible person would have under this Schedule if that person were still alive or in existence are exercisable by the other person.“(4) The right exercisable by the other person under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) is subject to any restriction, condition or other incident to which the right vested in that person as imagined under sub-paragraph (1) would be subject.(5) Additional compensation paid to the other person by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) or (3) must be dealt with by the person in any way in which the person would have to deal with compensation paid to that person further to the right vested in that person as imagined under sub-paragraph (1).“(6) If a person is an eligible person by virtue of paragraph 4(1), the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to compensation to which the person was entitled is to be read as a reference to the compensation to which the person would have been entitled but for the mortgage.Consequential losses
(1) The relevant authority may by regulations provide for additional compensation payable on a claim under paragraph 1(5) to include (in addition to any amount payable under paragraph 2) an amount to make good qualifying losses.“(2) “Qualifying losses” are financial losses shown to have been suffered by an eligible person, or a person entitled to exercise the rights of the eligible person under paragraph 5, as a result of the compensation initially payable to the eligible person in respect of the acquisition being of the original amount rather than the alternative amount.“(3) In the case of an eligible person who is so by virtue of an interest that was subject to a mortgage, the reference in sub-paragraph (2) to compensation payable to the eligible person is to be taken to include compensation payable to the mortgagee of that interest.“(4) Regulations under this paragraph may limit the qualifying losses in respect of which additional compensation is payable under the regulations by reference to—(a) a description of loss,(b) an amount, or(c) any other circumstance.Procedure etc
7 (1) The relevant authority may by regulations make provision— “(a) about the procedure for applications under paragraph 1(2) or claims under paragraph 1(5) (including provision about the costs of such applications or claims);“(b) about steps that must be taken by the acquiring authority or the confirming authority for the purposes of publicising or giving notice of a direction for additional compensation;(c) for interest to be applied to amounts of additional compensation that are payable;(d) about how or when additional compensation (and any interest) is to be paid.(2) Regulations under this paragraph about costs of claims under paragraph 1(5)—“(a) may modify or disapply section 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (costs or expenses) or provisions in Tribunal Procedure Rules relating to costs;(b) may apply (with or without modifications) section 4 of this Act;and section 4 of this Act does not apply in relation to such a claim unless so applied.Regulations
8 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule “the relevant authority” is—(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England;(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to Wales.(2) Regulations under this Schedule may make—“(a) consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes.(3) Regulations under this Schedule are to be made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing such regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of—(a) a resolution of either House of Parliament, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, or(b) a resolution of Senedd Cymru, in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers.Interpretation
9 (1) In this Schedule—(a) “the confirming authority” means—(i) the person who confirmed the compulsory purchase order, or(ii) any successor to that person’s function of confirming compulsory purchase orders of the type in question;(b) references to “the acquisition” or “the compulsory purchase order” are to the acquisition or order by virtue of which paragraph 1 applies;(c) references to the acquisition of an interest in land include—(i) the creation of such an interest, and(ii) the acquisition or creation of a right in or over land;and references to interests in land are to be read accordingly.“(2) In the case of a compulsory purchase order made under section 10(1) of, and Part 1 of Schedule 4 to, the New Towns Act 1981 (compulsory acquisition by new town development corporation in usual cases), the reference in paragraph 1(4) to section 15A(3) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is to be read as a reference to paragraph 5A(2) of Schedule 4 to the New Towns Act 1981. “(3) In the case of a compulsory purchase order made under section 13(1)(a) of, and Part 1 of Schedule 5 to, the New Towns Act 1981 (compulsory acquisition by new town development corporation of statutory undertakers’ operational land)—(a) the reference in paragraph 1(4) to section 15A(3) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is to be read as a reference to paragraph 5A(2) of Schedule 5 to the New Towns Act 1981, and(b) the references in paragraph 1(4) and sub-paragraph (1)(a) to the confirmation of the order are to be read as references to the making of the order.(4) If—“(a) an interest in land is acquired further to section 154(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (deemed compulsory acquisition further to blight notice), and(b) the land falls within paragraph 22 of Schedule 13 to that Act (land blighted by compulsory purchase order),“the interest is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as having been acquired further to the compulsory purchase order by virtue of which the land falls within that paragraph.”(3) In the New Towns Act 1981—(a) in Schedule 4 (procedure for compulsory acquisition by new town development corporation in usual cases), after paragraph 5 insert—“(1) A development corporation submitting an order to the Secretary of State under this Part of this Schedule may include in the order a direction that compensation is to be assessed in accordance with section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (cases where prospect of planning permission to be ignored); and if it does so the following provisions of this paragraph apply.(2) The corporation must submit a statement of commitments together with the order.“(3) A “statement of commitments” is a statement of the corporation’s intentions as to what will be done with the project land should the acquisition proceed, so far as the corporation relies on those intentions in contending that the direction is justified in the public interest.(4) Those intentions must include the provision of a certain number of units of affordable housing.(5) The notice under paragraph 2(1) must—(a) state the effect of the direction, and(b) name a place where a copy of the statement of commitments may be seen at any reasonable hour.(6) The Secretary of State may permit the corporation to amend the statement of commitments before the decision whether to confirm the order is made.(7) But the Secretary of State may do so—“(a) only if satisfied that the amendment would not be unfair to any person who duly made or could duly have made an objection for the purposes of paragraph 4, and(b) only if the statement of commitments as amended will still comply with sub-paragraph (4).(8) If the Secretary of State decides to confirm the order under paragraph 3, the Secretary of State—(a) may confirm the order with the direction included if satisfied that the direction is justified in the public interest;(b) otherwise, must modify the order so as to remove the direction.“(9) If the order is confirmed with the direction included, the notice under paragraph 5 must— (a) state the effect of the direction,(b) explain how the statement of commitments may be viewed, and(c) explain that additional compensation may become payable if the statement of commitments is not fulfilled.(10) In this paragraph—“the project land” means—(a) the land proposed to be acquired further to the compulsory purchase order, and(b) any other land that the corporation intends to be used in connection with that land;“unit of affordable housing” means a building or part of a building that is—(a) constructed or adapted for use as a separate dwelling, and(b) is to be used as—(i) social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, or“(ii) housing of any other description that is prescribed.”;“(b) in Schedule 5 (procedure for compulsory acquisition by new town development corporation of statutory undertaker’s operational land), after paragraph 5 insert—““(1) A development corporation making an application under this Part of this Schedule may include in the application a request for a direction that compensation is to be assessed in accordance with section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (cases where prospect of planning permission to be ignored); and if it does so the following provisions of this paragraph apply.(2) The corporation must submit a statement of commitments together with the application.“(3) A “statement of commitments” is a statement of the corporation’s intentions as to what will be done with the project land should the acquisition proceed, so far as the corporation relies on those intentions in contending that the direction would be justified in the public interest.(4) Those intentions must include the provision of a certain number of units of affordable housing.(5) The notice under paragraph 2 must—(a) state that the request has been made and what the effect of the direction would be, and(b) name a place where a copy of the statement of commitments may be seen at all reasonable hours.(6) The Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister may permit the corporation to amend the statement of commitments before the decision whether to make an order on the application is made.(7) But they may do so—“(a) only if satisfied that the amendment would not be unfair to any person who duly made or could duly have made an objection for the purposes of paragraph 3, and(b) only if the statement of commitments as amended will still comply with sub-paragraph (4). “(8) If the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister decide to make an order on the application under paragraph 3, they may include the direction in the order only if satisfied that the direction is justified in the public interest.(9) If an order is made with the direction included, the notice under paragraph 5 must—(a) state the effect of the direction,(b) explain how the statement of commitments may be viewed, and“(c) explain that additional compensation may become payable if the statement of commitments is not fulfilled.(10) In this paragraph—“the project land” means—(a) the land proposed to be acquired further to the compulsory purchase order, and(b) any other land that the corporation intends to be used in connection with that land;“unit of affordable housing” means a building or part of a building that is—(a) constructed or adapted for use as a separate dwelling, and(b) is to be used as—(i) social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, or“(ii) housing of any other description that is prescribed.”“(4) In section 157 of TCPA 1990 (special provisions as to compensation for acquisitions further to blight notices), before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) Where—(a) an interest in land is acquired in pursuance of a blight notice,(b) the interest is one in respect of which a compulsory purchase order is in force, and(c) the order directs that compensation is to be assessed in accordance with section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961,“the compensation payable for the acquisition is to be assessed in accordance with that direction and as if the notice to treat deemed to have been served in respect of the interest under section 154 had been served in pursuance of the compulsory purchase order.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause allows a Minister confirming a compulsory purchase order to direct, in certain cases involving affordable housing, health or education, that compensation should be assessed on the basis that no new planning permission would be granted for the land. It also allows the effect of that direction to be reversed if the land is not subsequently used as planned.