Grand Committee

Thursday 29th February 2024 Grand Committee

Thursday 29 February 2024

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 29th February 2024 Grand Committee

Announcement

13:00

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, which we are not expecting, I will let you know, and we will adjourn for the time it takes to allow you to vote.

Long-Term National Housing Strategy

Thursday 29th February 2024 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

13:00

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote a long-term national housing strategy, and to seek cross-party support to ensure its effective delivery.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to open this debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have signed up to speak. I look forward to hearing from the great wealth of expertise and experience.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis. For too many people in the UK, home is not a place of safety and security but somewhere expensive or temporary, insecure or unhealthy. There are 140,000 children living in temporary accommodation, 1.2 million households on waiting lists for social homes, and numerous young professionals consigned to be part of “generation rent”. Inadequate housing has knock-on effects throughout a person’s life: on their education, their mental and physical well-being, their relationships and their ability to put down roots. It does not have to be like this. It is worth restating that decent housing is one of the basic essentials for a fulfilled and healthy life, yet we have some of the poorest quality housing in Europe. We can do better than the current system—indeed, we must do better.

Today, I would like to put forward three steps that I believe we need to take in order to transform our housing system. First, we need a clear, shared vision of what good housing looks like. Noble Lords will be familiar with a range of policy solutions that try to address individual elements of the crisis, but we need an overarching vision. What are we working towards? A “fixed” housing system is not just about interventions that respond to symptoms of brokenness; it is about tackling root causes and creating a housing system we can all be proud of.

Although there is broad agreement that our housing system is failing, there is no clear vision of what a “good” system would look like. We might start by saying that everyone should have a home that is a place of comfort, safety and security. Our homes should sustain us and help us maintain physical and mental health. They should offer access to work opportunities and public services, to peace and quiet for relaxation, and to places to socialise with family and friends—where children can grow, play and study and achieve their full potential. In short, we might say that decent, affordable homes should be available for every household. It is possible to realise these aspirations, if all political parties and stakeholders agree on a common vision of good housing, and a road map for getting there.

That is why, secondly, we need a long-term national housing strategy. In 2021, the report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community concluded:

“Our most important recommendation is that Government should develop a coherent long term housing strategy”.


Working in parallel was the Affordable Housing Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose contribution I am looking forward to hearing today. It made similar, equally strong recommendations, calling on the Government to

“make affordable housing a national priority and to put it at the centre of a national housing strategy”.

In advancing these recommendations, both commissions echoed many other recent housing investigations.

Most experts agree that the housing system is failing in substantial part due to the absence of a long-term strategy. Indeed, reactive, short-term and contradictory policy interventions have possibly exacerbated the crisis. We need an appropriate strategy to pull together disparate policy goals and short-term targets into something comprehensive, leading to realising a shared vision of good housing.

Decades of consistent action are required to address the challenges which make up the current housing crisis, because years of failure have got us into the situation we face today. It will take a generation to transform our housing, so we need to think in terms of 10, 20 or 30-year horizons. A strategy is also far more than achieving housebuilding targets. It must take into account all tenures and aspects of the current system, improving our existing stock as well as building new homes. I am confident that we can achieve this long-term vision and strategy, but it will of course take more than just good intentions.

So, thirdly, for this proposal to be effective, we will need the commitment of the main political parties and a governance mechanism to keep it on track. All parties will need to have a sense of ownership of the vision and strategy if it is to survive changes of government. That is why it must be comprehensive in offering good news for all: owner-occupiers, social housing tenants and private sector renters, as well as those with specialist housing needs.

The agreed housing strategy will require a statutory footing to ensure that it has the longevity and resilience to be carried out over a sustained period. Otherwise, policy decisions could be driven by short-term political aims, to the detriment of the long-term housing goals. One idea for putting a robust governance structure in place is to create a housing strategy committee, modelled on the existing Climate Change Committee, to provide annual progress reports to Parliament and hold the Government to account. Specific and robust targets will need to be set, based on need and the economic, political and social context at any given time.

Today I have put forward three fundamental steps which I believe will need to be taken to transform our housing system in the long term. There is no quick fix, but that does not make this response any less urgent. We must build a shared vision, a shared strategy and a shared political will to deliver it over a generation.

In my role as lead Anglican bishop for housing, I hear constantly that the housing system is broken. I am urging all political parties to rise to the challenge of fixing it today. I would welcome a commitment from each party to prioritise creating a long-term strategy for housing, and to commit equally to working with the other parties to ensure that it has cross-party and therefore long-term support. No one party will be able to turn around our broken housing system. It calls for a shared endeavour and a common commitment to prioritise current and future housing needs over short-term political advantage. I would welcome further conversations with Members from all political parties on shaping this vision, forming a strategy and ensuring that it is delivered.

I have already drawn together a steering group, which includes several noble Lords, some of whom will speak today, and work has already begun in partnership with the Nationwide Foundation on what the principles of a long-term strategy might look like. Time does not allow me to expand further, although others may yet comment; but I hope the seed may have been planted today and that the Minister will agree at least to finding out more about what we are trying to work towards.

Our homes and communities are fundamental to our lives flourishing. The current system is broken, but with long-term, concerted and coherent action, we can transform our housing system so that everyone has a decent, affordable place to call home. Let us rise together to this challenge, and together consign the current housing crisis to history.

13:09

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate and recognise that the Church, through the Archbishops’ Commission, is almost alone in having offered to help alleviate the problem by making land available for building.

The housing shortage is a crisis and a scandal. We talk about it, we set targets and we tinker with the planning rules, but we avoid debating one fundamental cause. The right reverend Prelate is doubtless familiar with Zen Buddhism, and with the Zen master challenging his disciple to describe the sound of one hand clapping. The answer lies in the debates in this House on housing. There is a lot of talk about housing supply and next to nothing about housing demand. We do not talk about housing demand because the increase in demand comes overwhelmingly from immigration.

A couple of decades ago, I was researching a pamphlet about the housing shortage. I discovered that we were then importing the equivalent of the population of Birmingham every decade. A few years later, we were importing the population of Birmingham every five years. Then it accelerated to the population of Birmingham every three years. Now it has reached the population of Birmingham over the last two years. Where do noble Lords plan to build a new Birmingham every two years? Unless noble Lords are prepared to answer that question, or to admit that any realistic solution must involve reducing net migration to the rough balance which prevailed before Tony Blair opened our borders, they have no moral right to participate in these debates.

I urge noble Lords to read the article by Robert Henderson in the Times on 23 February. He explains that the better-off elites, who used to display their superiority over common folk by what Veblen described as conspicuous consumption, now do so by adhering to what he describes as “luxury beliefs”, which he defines as

“ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class at very little cost”

to them,

“while often inflicting costs on the lower classes”.

Support for mass immigration is a luxury belief. It inflicts harm on the poor, the young, and the less skilled. It means that young people cannot afford to leave home and start a family and poor people cannot get on the housing waiting lists, which have doubled, but it makes our elites, who own their own now very valuable homes, feel morally and socially superior. I hope that, in future, the right reverend Prelate will challenge this hypocrisy.

13:12

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for tabling this important debate. We are desperately in need of some consistency in decisions about housing supply, and the Church of England, along with others such as the National Housing Federation and Shelter, have led the way in calling for a long-term national housing strategy.

For those living at the sharpest end of the housing crisis, a socially rented home is the only truly affordable solution. For decades, the number of families who cannot afford a safe, secure home has been rising. There are now 8.5 million people in England who cannot access the housing they need. That includes 2 million children who are living in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable homes, and record numbers of children are living in temporary accommodation.

Recent research from the National Housing Federation looks at what will happen if we do not act to put a long-term housing plan in place. By 2045, around 5.7 million households could be spending a third of their income on housing expenses—an unaffordable amount, and nearly twice the number of people doing so today. The impact of this on future generations would be stark. Both young and old would be worse off. In a society with a growing ageing population, we are already experiencing a severe shortage of homes for older people and an acute lack of specialist housing. By 2035, the number of people over the age of 60 in England will reach 29% of the entire population. Without a long-term plan for housing that accounts for changing demographic needs, by 2045 roughly 2.3 million older people could be living in homes that just do not meet their needs.

These figures offer a stark illustration of why a new long-term approach to meet housing needs in this country is urgently required. It took decades, as the right reverend Prelate said, to reach this crisis point. Clearly, it will take systemic change to solve it. Ultimately, it is a crisis that can be solved. Countries around the world are tackling similar crises, with long-term national strategies, and so can we. Such a systemic approach will happen only if there is long-term, cross-party political commitment and collaboration, and cross-Whitehall working, covering construction, planning, finance, skills, energy, net zero, health and social care, among many other things.

I support the right reverend Prelate’s call for a separate committee for housing that could put an end to the short-termism and uncertainty which has made systemic change in housing feel impossible. It must, in my view, by supported by a cross-Whitehall housing unit to end the housing crisis, on the same lines as the child poverty unit or the Social Exclusion Unit. I would welcome the Minister’s views on this, because only then can we begin to imagine a future where everyone in this country has a good-quality home that they can afford.

13:15

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for initiating this debate; indeed, I thank the Church of England for re-engaging with housing issues, not just with a welcome report but in taking some practical steps to maximise its direct contribution as a major landowner and investor. I join the right reverend Prelate in seeking consensus on a forward vision to solve the nation’s acute housing problems over the longer term.

A national housing strategy would mean, irrespective of innumerable changes of Housing Minister, having agreed goals for which a road map can set out the steps ahead. This needs to take a coherent, co-ordinated and cross-departmental approach which is sustained, irrespective of political change. To devise this strategy and maintain progress toward its goals, suggested approaches have included: creating a royal commission; setting up a new Cabinet committee to bring together the seven departments which all have a housing interest; establishing a government unit with the capacity for evidence-gathering and policy advice; or, and this is my favourite, creating by statute a national housing committee, along the lines of the Climate Change Committee, to act as a watchdog that monitors progress toward fulfilling the strategy’s objectives.

Meanwhile, although having a long-term strategic vision is essential, the current situation is so dire that each step taken needs also to ease the nation’s immediate housing crisis. The best barometer of how the situation is deteriorating is the doubling of the number of households having to be placed in temporary accommodation in many areas. This means children living in insecure and often unfit properties that deeply affect schooling, employment, health and well-being, while costing the NHS and care services billions, harming the wider economy and busting the budgets of councils already in severe financial circumstances.

I conclude by recommending one measure that meets emergency needs while increasing long-term social housing provision. The Government should create a national housing conversion fund for housing associations and councils to acquire and upgrade run-down private rented properties for use as temporary accommodation now, and for the long-term growth of the social housing sector for the future, while also addressing issues of fuel poverty, health inequalities and climate change imperatives. I wholeheartedly endorse the right reverend Prelate’s plea for a national housing strategy, and I couple it with an earnest request for immediate action to ease a very real housing crisis.

13:18

[Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)]

My Lords, this debate is testament to a rare cross-party consensus. There is broad agreement that our housing market is socially divisive and economically debilitating. I would argue that it is the single biggest impediment to economic growth in the UK. Yet numerous strategies, initiatives and attempts at reform have consistently failed to deliver meaningful change.

The reason for that failure, I believe, is simple. Every reform has begun with the implicit belief that development needs to be planned by government dictating where we live, what type of houses we live in, and where we work and shop. Government, national or local, simply does not have the requisite knowledge, incentives or resources to do that; no single guiding mind ever could. That planned economies do not work seems to be a lesson the world never tires of learning. We plod through the standard Soviet list of excuses for failure: blame the plan, then blame the planners, then blame everybody else that you can. But the problem here is not the planners, the nimbys or even the politicians. They are symptoms of a deeper problem: planned economies do not deliver.

Some assume that the only alternative to top-down planning is free-for-all, conjuring up images of a nation covered in concrete, but there is a middle way: the same system that regulates virtually every other successful economic activity in the western world, from food to cars, computing and clothing—a carefully regulated free market that harnesses the collective intelligence and aspirations of an entire nation, but that might start with the presumption that all land is developable, but is subject to strict principle-based rules and regulations that will protect the legitimate interests of existing communities. Such a system could still have the flexibility to preserve land of outstanding natural beauty and open spaces of communal value. It can maintain the powers of local authorities to actively develop in their areas and all development would have to comply with clear rules and principles.

I have time to suggest just two. I hope that the first meets with the right reverend Prelate’s approval: it is the “love thy neighbour” principle. It simply insists that all new development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses. The second, the “carry your weight” principle, requires all new development to leave infrastructure in the state in which it found it or better. Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today. Our planning system does not need to be reformed; it needs to be replaced with better, as do so many of our buildings. Let us start afresh, put a bit more trust in each other, love the future as much as we love the past and return this nation to an age of great building of which we can be proud.

13:21

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate and an excellent speech. I agree that a long-term strategy is vital and, just in case I run out of my three minutes, the first of the three points that I want to make about long-term strategy is that it is important that its implications for other elements in society are fully thought through, because this is not just about housing. This picks up some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, just made. Secondly, it is about stability—creating a stable environment, in which people can plan and develop. Thirdly, it is about buy-in. I agree about cross-party buy-in but, if that is not possible, another form of buy-in is important: there are a lot of experts in this field and people who understand what is going on; we need to ensure that the people who really know about it are a part of any strategy that is developed. They are not necessarily sitting in Whitehall, where I have sat for some time.

A long-term strategy is vital to take all the implications into account. I come from a health background and therefore naturally think about the health implications and poor housing contributing about £1.7 billion to the costs of the NHS—as a modest estimate. I am also aware of the impacts on the environment, employment and everything else that goes with them. A long-term approach needs to take all those implications into account. Too much of what happens at the moment is tactical, and chopping and changing. Permitted development rights is precisely in that area: it is a tactical approach, whereby development might happen completely randomly by people outside the local communities, who see opportunities, come in and develop.

There is an alternative, better way of doing that, which is for the local authority, which has an interest in the area, to play a leading role in developing where such approaches take place. It is clear that there are commercial properties that could be transformed into housing.

The second point, about stability, is incredibly important to change the risk/reward balance for investors and developers. If we were able to secure a stable financial environment, we would see people able to take a smaller profit from their development in the longer term and investors, particularly those with an interest in social impact, coming in.

My third point is about buy-in. Such a strategy needs to be created with engagement, not just consultation, which government likes. The expert bodies and stakeholders should be part of developing and creating what is going to happen; some strategy should not be imposed from above.

13:24

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

Noble Lords should excuse me—this is my first go. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate. This is an idea whose time has come. I spoke to a number of young people about their feelings around housing. Let us be clear: when talking about housing, one is speaking about people under the age of 40. They said that the situation completely destroys their future and they have given in. They wanted me to bring three notable points to the attention of the Committee.

However, I had to speak to them about some of the successes that the Government have had, with 2.5 million houses built over the past 14 years, though that is clearly not enough. When we talk about housing, I want to focus on the human element and the absolute drag that this has been on the development of young people in this country. If we are to have a national body, there must be political buy-in. Some things go beyond politics and this is one of them. The state of housing in this country challenges the notion that we are a civil nation. Any nation that cannot afford to house its young people and their families needs to look at what its beliefs are. We are supposedly the fifth or sixth-richest nation in the world and we are spending our money in the wrong way. Many of those points have been made here.

To have this national scheme, however, a few things should be added to that list and pursued. One is promoting family-sized homes. In our current situation, we build lots of one or two-bedroom houses, which means that family-sized homes become, relatively, even more expensive. For those people below the age of 40 and looking to start a family, this is where their focus is. If they cannot start a family, it changes their trajectory of life as they see it.

The public sector needs to be more effective in putting its surplus land into circulation to be used for housing. Again, a national scheme could identify where these pockets of land would be most useful, how they came into circulation, what level of profit was drawn from this land and so on, to help these things happen more quickly. Many local authorities feel that they have to defend the land to the point where absolutely nothing happens and no one wins.

As a Government, we have also given lots of money to development. We gave the Mayor of London £4.82 billion but we had no control. His speed of delivery was incredibly slow. He started many schemes that will not be finished until 2030. That is simply too late for most people in dire housing need in this country.

Finally, this idea needs to be seen as a national mission. Most of the social pressures that we face in this country will be greatly eased by increasing the amount of affordable, decent housing. I commend this idea to anyone and I hope we can find a way of supporting it across the political divide.

13:27

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate and welcome this debate, with its purpose of promoting cross-party agreement on a national housing strategy. The long-term nature of the issue would benefit from cross-party support. In that respect, I should like to focus attention on the importance of an agreed rural housing strategy within the national planning framework. I declare my rural interests as set out in the register.

More attention to rural issues is required from all parties and housing is paramount, although it is not the only concern. Infrastructure and other policies need to be considered. Some 10 million people live in the countryside and 85% of rural businesses are not farming businesses. The opportunity exists to increase the productivity of rural areas and the growth and sustainability of these communities if there is an agreed policy on housing. For non-farming businesses to expand and to enable diversification by farmers, there is a labour requirement to support this growth. With a shortage of new, as well as affordable, homes, together with an increase in second homes and holiday lets in some areas, availability of labour can be a major problem. Therefore, responsible housing development in our villages is vital to support growth and to make these communities flourish.

An example of a policy on which we should be able to agree is to encourage rural housing exception sites—RES—with a high degree of affordable housing. So far, this has not been a successful policy due to both the expense of submitting planning applications and the high risk of their refusal. In 2022, RES delivered only 548 homes, and only 14 out of 91 rural local authorities used the policy. The recommendation is to encourage RES by granting planning permissions in principle before the applicant incurs the cost of a full planning permission. I tabled an amendment to the levelling-up Bill suggesting this, which, although warmly received by the Minister, was not accepted. I ask the Minister to reconsider.

Many other planning issues affecting rural housing need cross-party support, but I urge on this and future Governments the need for rural-proofing for housing in both local and national plans.

13:30

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I concur heartily with my noble friend Lord Lilley: we have to look at demand as well as supply, and there has to be a plan to do so. I disagree with the idea of a quango to look after this issue; Parliament must take responsibility for the failures in housing policy. Although I welcome the Government’s long-term plan for housing in areas such as brownfield development presumption and helping small and medium-sized businesses in the supply of permitted development rights, it is not enough.

I heartily deprecate the capitulation in December 2022 to the nimby wing of my party in destroying the Government’s laudable aim to build many more houses. We need to revisit the National Planning Policy Framework. In some respects, the levelling-up Bill was a missed opportunity.

I urge noble Lords to look at the CMA report published on 26 February—the focus on aesthetics and beauty, the possibility of a statutory code for the quality of homes, fairness and equality in the management of private estates, and the encumbrances and obligations of public space on people who buy homes on new estates.

There has also been quango overreach. It is a fact that 41,000 homes in Norfolk and 18,000 in Somerset are not being built because of the nutrient neutrality regulations. The Labour Party missed a trick in not supporting the Government on that issue; significant safeguards were put in place to get those houses built.

There are other issues which time does not permit me to develop, but in the long term we need to reiterate our support for public sector land being released for all types of housing tenure. That has not happened. In the other place I served on the Public Accounts Committee and, year after year, we had reports of the failure of government departments to release land properly.

We also need fiscal measures to enable, through the tax system, the building of extra care facilities for older people, in order to release the pressure on acute hospital care and to enable older people to release larger homes for young working families, for instance. Finally, we still have not done the work we should have properly done on residential estate investment trusts. International comparisons show that they work abroad to leverage serious amounts of money into good-quality, sustainable private sector lettings.

We will have an opportunity to develop these issues in the debate on 14 March, sponsored by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, in which I very much hope to take part.

13:33

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on her good idea of a committee. I do not regard it is a quango; the comparison with the environmental committee is a good one.

The Government’s latest approach, building on brownfield sites, will not help thousands of young people in rural areas. Does the Minister support the concept of community land trusts, which require young people to live and work there for three years to get one-third off the purchase price of their home, which, if they sell, goes back into the community?

The Financial Times recently published an article pointing out that building social housing saves money overall. The total cost of housing benefit is billions of pounds, which could be saved. It is a really important point, and I would welcome the Minister commenting on that issue.

We can meet housing targets, although it requires an imaginative approach. My party is heading in the right direction when it talks about freeing up land. There is plenty of greenbelt land that could be built on. You need long-term projects, and I make no apologies for referring to a project near me in Southall, built by Berkeley Homes. It is a 25-year project, and one of the largest brownfield regeneration projects in west London, working with Hillingdon and Ealing local authorities. It is a 25-year project, successfully delivering the first phase of 623 homes, 50% of which are affordable. It is an absolutely beautiful site, where work is being done to link in with the local environment and ensure that there is very little use of cars.

We desperately need more housing in London. If you come in on the train, as I did this morning, you will see thousands and thousands of flats. Interestingly, hardly any of them are available for people. Why is that? It is because speculation is taking place. In Norway, you have to live in the country to be able to invest in housing, and the Government should ensure that that approach is taken in this country.

We can solve this problem. We did it after the war, and we can do it again. It is certainly a vitally important project.

13:36

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to the right reverend Prelate’s timely debate. She has worked hard behind the scenes to build the necessary cross-party consensus on the delivery of a long-term housing strategy, and she spoke on it very eloquently today. I have a strong temptation to respond to some of the thoughtful and provocative contributions to the debate, but my actual job is to respond briefly on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, so I shall forebear on that.

The Liberal Democrats share the right reverend Prelate’s belief that every person should have an affordable roof over their heads, and we also share her analysis that, despite the good intentions of politicians of practically every stripe, some of which have been well demonstrated here, we remain a very long way from achieving a good outcome. Outright homelessness is rising, precarious tenancies are mushrooming, social housing waiting lists are lengthening, and too many first-time buyers are squeezed out by escalating prices, then knocked out by fluctuating mortgage rates.

The state is spending billions of pounds supporting tenants’ rent payments, and billions more subsidising buyers’ mortgage payments, but still the housing crisis persists, with all its malign consequences. Given that painful analysis, the right reverend Prelate is clearly right to call for a new approach: a long-term housing strategy that addresses the problems, not just for one Parliament, one Secretary of State or one Housing Minister, but for a generation. That is what is needed to give the certainty, sense of purpose and drive to all those who are not politicians and who have to play a part in delivering the outcomes needed: the construction and development industries—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Do the Liberal Democrats believe that the long-term strategy should include controlling demand as well as supply?

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I think that the noble Lord is inviting me to enter into a debate about the merits of immigration and whether or not we want more nurses and doctors, or our universities to have any money from overseas fees. That is an entirely different debate, which I shall steer wide of, if I may.

If we are going to have a flourishing and successful housing strategy and policy, we have to engage owners and landlords, and get the skills sector, the planners and local communities on board, and we have to get the vital financial sector to play a part. At the moment, none of those can contribute their best because they are falling back on reactive responses to the short-term decisions taken in this building, when what they need to see is a durable and credible strategic vision.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, standing aside from the political fray, has been bold enough to tell us that, unless we can co-operate to deliver a broad consensus that can survive the day-to-day political battles, there will be no end to the housing crisis. Some of us are working cross-party to see how that might be achieved. It is still work in progress, and I want to hear from the Minister that she and the latest Housing Minister will keep their minds open to the opportunity the right reverend Prelate’s initiative gives them to play an important role in delivering a long-term housing strategy that reaches rather further than the forthcoming general election.

13:40

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for securing this important debate today and for all her work in this area.

We debate aspects of housing on many occasions in your Lordships’ House, and rightly so, as we are in the middle of an extreme housing crisis. It is utterly shameful that we have 88 families a day being accepted as homeless by local councils, six times as many families as there are social homes being built. The housing benefit bill has doubled and some councils are spending 40% of their budget on emergency housing.

The reason for the many debates goes to the heart of the topic today: there simply is no national vision or strategy for housing driving the change that we want to see. Contrast that with the vision of the post-war Labour Government, who not only built my new town, Stevenage, but drove national consensus between 1945 and 1980 and saw local authorities and housing associations build 4.4 million social homes—more than 126,000 a year. By 1983, that supply had halved to just over 44,000 a year and last year it was less than 10,000.

We see a piecemeal approach to housing, whereby Bills are introduced to provide sticking plasters for some of the issues facing us, but even those get watered down as the Government cave in to vested interests. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about housing targets. We now have a Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which we were told would confine the archaic tenure of leasehold to history but does nothing of the sort. We have a Renters (Reform) Bill, which should have scrapped the dreadful Section 21 evictions that leave renters so insecure but is currently stalled.

Planning departments, which should be at the heart of creating local visions for their areas, assessing the need for housing and making the short-term and long-term plans to deliver, have been starved of funding through successive years of savage local government funding cuts. Just this week, we have seen two important reports which set out some of the key issues. The CMA report illustrates a point made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in relation to the findings of the Letwin review—and I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me quoting him. He said that

“we have handed over the decision-making process for all major housing developments to the oligopoly of volume housebuilders. These companies initiate each new scheme: they secure the land, they produce their plans and they build their development, in their own time and at a speed that suits them”.—[Official Report, 17/11/22; col. 1062.]

We have also had the outstanding report by the National Housing Federation and Shelter, setting out the clear economic and social reasons for a surge in the delivery of social housing.

We all know that a safe, warm, secure and affordable home is the foundation for every individual, family and community to thrive. That is where our vision and our strategy for housing should start. My party will get Britain building again and recover the dream of home ownership with a housing recovery plan and a blitz of planning reform to quickly boost housebuilding to buy and rent and deliver the biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation. We will have the next generation of new towns, with a package of devolution and stronger local powers over planning, a planning passport for urban brownfield development and first dibs for first-time buyers, supporting younger people with a government-backed mortgage guarantee scheme.

I hope that we can build a consensus and the mechanism to maintain it. After 27 years as a councillor, my passion for the power of good housing to unlock the potential of individuals, families and communities is undimmed. It is time to renew our vision, our focus and our inspiration so that everyone in our country, and indeed future generations, will have the opportunity of a home that enhances their dignity.

13:44

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I start by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions and, in particular, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for bringing forward this important debate. I know that she has taken a keen interest in this issue over a long period and I thank her personally and on behalf of the Government for her leadership on this matter and for developing proposals to release more church land in particular for affordable housing. It really is recognised and appreciated.

In light of the comments from across the Committee, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to delivering more of the right homes in the right places. We have a long-term strategy that we are delivering and a strong record to build from. In fact, the four highest annual rates of housing supply in the last 30 years have all come since 2018 and we are on track to meet our manifesto commitment to build 1 million homes this Parliament.

The long-term strategy for housing that we committed to in July 2023 encompasses all tenures and supports households right across the country. In this strategy, we are regenerating our most treasured towns and cities, starting with London, Leeds and Cambridge. We are giving communities a voice in what development happens in their area and where.

In particular, quality is key to this strategy. We are introducing the most comprehensive reforms that the private rented sector has seen in 30 years through the Renters (Reform) Bill, including applying the decent homes standard across the private rented sector for the first time to ensure that every home is safe, decent and warm. We are also delivering on one of our core commitments: the Government are liberating leaseholders through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, expanding the rights of leaseholders to enfranchise and take back control from distant freeholders.

We know that increasing supply is critical, especially of affordable housing. That is why I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will acknowledge that our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme is delivering tens of thousands of affordable homes to rent and to buy, alongside the £1 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund and an additional £4.2 billion through the housing infrastructure fund to support new development. Separately, we are also providing £1.2 billion to the local authority housing fund to support refugees and those at risk of homelessness, on top of almost £2.4 billion this spending review period to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

To further support our ambitions on supply, the Secretary of State announced changes to the National Planning Policy Framework in December 2023 and set firm expectations for local authority planning performance. Also, just two weeks ago the Housing Secretary announced new commitments to boost brownfield development across the country to help to provide the right homes in the right places.

I will try to respond to as many of the specific questions as possible, so apologies if I miss anybody out. If I do, we will try to cover those by reading Hansard afterwards and replying in writing.

In no particular order—my pile of sheets is fairly huge—the first sheet in front of me is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on cross-party support, which many noble Lords mentioned, including the right reverend Prelate. What have we done to seek cross-party support while developing the long-term strategy? I suggest that we have sought cross-party support at every step of the way across all the principles underpinning our long-term strategy for housing. We have engaged in lively debate in both Houses on our legislative programme, including most recently on the Renters (Reform) Bill and the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to strengthen these key pieces of legislation and ensure that we get them right. We have laid Written Ministerial Statements, setting out our policy intentions to both Houses to scrutinise, and we have published consultations inviting views from all to ensure that we are listening to a spectrum of views as we strive to deliver good homes in great places to live and work.

Many noble Lords mentioned cross-Whitehall collaboration and it is fair to say that we work in this way. Very many departments are involved in this work, which is ongoing and continuous. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, also commented on permitted development rights. I agree: we need to look for all alternative forms of new homes. Permitted development rights give us a way to deliver those more quickly, in many instances.

Last summer we issued a consultation on PDR amendments to support housing delivery, including potential changes to the PDR, which would allow the change of use of commercial premises to residential. Following the analysis of the consultation responses, we have amended Class MA to remove the 1,500 square metre limit on the amount of floor space that can change use under the right, and removed the requirement that the premises need to be vacant for at least three months before an application for prior approval can be made. I hope, therefore, that there is some support for that, as changing some of these permitted development rights is making an important contribution to the delivery of new homes across the country, with 104,000 new homes having been delivered under these rights in the eight years to March 2023. I hope that will expand and accelerate under the new proposals.

My noble friend Lord Bailey mentioned young people. Indeed, first-time buyer numbers have been steadily improving over the last decade, and in 2021 we saw the highest number of transactions in 20 years. However, there is more that can be done and, I hope, is being done. We are committed to providing a secure path to home ownership by increasing the number of first-time buyers, helping people access homes and make true freehold ownership the standard. Since 2010, over 876,000 households have been helped to purchase a home through government schemes, including Help to Buy, right to buy and shared ownership.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned various schemes, but in particular those for key workers. Our first homes programme is designed to help local first-time buyers in their locale and indeed key workers on to the property ladder by offering homes at a discount of at least 30% compared to the market value.

My noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Jackson, and others, mentioned public sector land. We are setting up a new public sector land for housing programme which will release land for at least 15,000 homes this year and the next, and we have been working with large landowning departments—

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining some of the Government’s response to the crisis, and indeed for referencing their own long-term strategy. Does she agree that seeking to find cross-party support for their long-term strategy is different from sitting down and working together cross-party towards the creation of a long-term strategy, with a national housing committee, that would report progress and seek to hold the Government of the day, of whatever party, to account?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I appreciate the sense and sentiment behind that; therefore, although I am not personally familiar with the issue, I will take it back to the department to discuss where we are at. But I point out that this is a sensitive area in which collaboration is really important, not just with government at the highest level, but with local government and delivery partners, so collaboration is in the DNA of this. We need to figure out how this is going to work; however, I will come back on this issue when I have spoken to the department.

Returning to the issue of public sector land, we have been working with larger landowning departments, including the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care, as well as with Homes England, to establish this new programme. These departments, along with the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, will come together in a new ministerial task force to ensure delivery by March 2025.

On affordable housing supply, to give some historical context, since 2010 we have delivered over 696,100 new affordable homes, including over 482,000 affordable homes for rent, of which 172,000-plus are for social rent. In the period from 1997 to 2010, some 557,000 affordable homes were delivered. The Government are on track to deliver their target of building around 250,000 affordable homes—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

The Minister does not seem to wish to address the points I raised at the beginning of the debate, but did she note that all the speakers opposite seem to believe in a Zen housing strategy involving only one hand clapping? Supply side does not address demand, even though that requires us to build the equivalent of Birmingham every two years just to cope with incomers, before we build a single house to deal with the existing problems the right reverend Prelate so eloquently enunciated at the beginning. Is the Minister a Zen planner too?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I can assure my noble friend that I am not a Zen planner. However, I am a realist, and I am faced with a multiplicity of policy responses to the rise in demand, no matter where it comes from. The Government do consider the demand and supply side, which form part of our long-term strategy.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We challenged the term “affordable housing” during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. It is still being used constantly, as though using it means that the housing is affordable to anyone, which it absolutely is not. Can we please have a bit of caution over the use of that term?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I note the noble Baroness’s comments on the definition of that terminology. It is not mine—it is a term the department uses—but I will query its definition.

On overall delivery, £11.5 billion was made available in the affordable homes programme and it will deliver thousands of affordable homes to rent and buy across the country. Local authorities also have a crucial role to play in increasing the supply of social housing. That is why, in 2023-24, we introduced a package of flexibilities for how local authorities can spend their right-to-buy receipts. We implemented a preferential rate for borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board for building council houses, which has been extended until June 2025.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised the issue of rural housing, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young. We delivered more than 268,000 affordable homes in rural communities in England between 2010 and March 2023. Of the £11.5 billion we are investing, £7.5 billion will be outside London. That will help boost the supply of affordable housing in rural communities. We recognise that development of affordable housing in rural areas can be costlier and riskier; therefore, the Government are trying to help partners with their funding.

I am now out of time, but there are several pages of points I have not got to. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are delivering a long-term housing strategy that provides safe, decent, warm and beautiful homes for communities across the country. We are determined to work with the housing sector, local authorities and all of your Lordships to make our ambition a reality.

13:57

Sitting suspended.

AUKUS

Thursday 29th February 2024 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

14:00

Asked by

[Lord Risby]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in respect of the AUKUS agreement, the defence and security partnership between the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States.

[Lord Risby (Con)]

My Lords, for over a century there has been an enduring relationship between three trusting countries, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of which share embedded democratic values. In 2021, the three nations began a consultation process—particularly referencing Australia, which had been concerned by unwelcome Chinese naval activity in the Indo-Pacific region—to upgrade its submarine capability in partnership with the United Kingdom and the United States: AUKUS.

For us, our own defence thinking has extended to the Indo-Pacific, underscoring our passionate historic commitment to the freedom of the seas. A year ago, this consultation led to an agreement that Australia acquire conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines through the trilateral partnership, which sends a clear message of our shared commitment to protecting global security and, most specifically, a secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific.

That consultation, in 2021, reflected great prescience. Since then, the world has become increasingly scarred by war and violence, such as Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by his linkages to countries such as North Korea and Iran. Violence in the Middle East has once again erupted, and in the Indo-Pacific China continues to assert itself, backed by a sustained build-up of military capabilities and indeed a close relationship with Russia. It is these national linkages that present democracies with a threat to the world we live in, attempting to rewrite the rules of the international order to better suit their interests. What happens in the Euro-Atlantic clearly now reverberates in the Indo-Pacific, and vice versa. The two regions are increasingly inextricably linked.

The UK is already fully integrated into the security architecture of the Euro-Atlantic, and in recent years His Majesty’s Government have chosen to engage the nations of the Indo-Pacific with much greater commitment, as well as to integrate the UK more deeply in the region’s security, while benefiting from the economic and business opportunities offered there. So far, we have been successful with trade agreements and, of course, our membership of the CPTPP. But it is AUKUS, the technology accelerator agreement signed between the UK and two of our closest Indo-Pacific partners, Australia and the United States, which promises to have the greatest potential impact on regional and, ultimately, global security.

Through pillar 1, which is concerned with equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines and Britain’s next-generation undersea capabilities, the United Kingdom is ensuring that its future defence infrastructure is of the highest standard. This will allow us to continue to participate with consequential impact in upholding a world free from coercion and the use of force in both the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific. In this spirit, it also specifically involves a rotational presence in Australia of one British submarine and four American submarines. Through pillar 2, which is concerned with accelerating and deepening the development and delivery of state-of-the-art military capabilities, the UK is further ensuring that in a world so influenced by advanced technology systems, we will not fall behind key developments.

AUKUS acts as a transparent and intensively close way of enhancing our trilateral relationship. It gives Britain a chance to share in the upgrading of the capabilities of two of our close partners. It is an opportunity of a magnitude that cannot be overstated. We already have a strong relationship with the US and Australia, but AUKUS plans to better operationalise this bond and take it to further heights.

AUKUS positions itself as an initiative that goes above and beyond the vagaries of electoral cycles, and indeed it must, as the project will require sustained effort and expenditure from Governments into the 2040s. It is a firm signal that we are placing greater emphasis on each others’ geostrategic sensibilities and objectives, but also embedding a long-term step-by-step strategic commitment.

In order to maximise the functional benefits of AUKUS, it must absolutely be viewed as a national endeavour, expressed as such and be given overarching focus across all relevant parts of government. This will enable us fully to embrace the generational commitment that AUKUS demands. It is a focused effort at building a more integrated deterrence posture. This will require increasing interoperability between the three nations. This enhanced interoperability informs collaborative projects through pillar 2, such as shared approaches to the next generation of advanced weaponry—for example, hypersonic missiles. There are obvious dangers associated with countries choosing not to obey the rules of the sea, and AUKUS is the UK, Australia and the USA united in their effort to resist and if necessary push back together against such activity.

A key element to ensuring that the long-term vision of AUKUS is realised will be enhanced people-to-people, governmental and educational links between the three countries. This is already beginning to happen. Regular port visits from British submarines to Western Australia in the 2030s will also further this, and I am encouraged to learn that Royal Australian Navy representatives have begun training at British and American nuclear-powered submarine schools. Is my noble friend the Minister content that we are adequately deepening our education and workforce development systems’ link with the United States and Australia, which is key to the realisation of the agreement?

The benefits of that long-term generational partnership will not be felt just in the realm of international security but here in Britain directly. We are experiencing the impact on shipping and the British economy that Houthi attacks in the Red Sea are having. AUKUS contributes to Britain’s ability to resist and detect such activity, as well as to deter actors from disruptive action, wherever it arises.

What we know is that the nature of defence and warfare is changing dramatically, such that in pillar 2, key areas have been identified for sharing and development. Fundamentally, they are undersea capabilities, but also quantum technologies, artificial intelligence, advanced cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities, electronic warfare, and innovation and information sharing.

The Minister will know of the 17 working groups that have been established. Can he indicate how their functioning is progressing? All this work to bring the pillars to fruition highlights the intensity of shared mutual trust. Indeed, the evolution of AUKUS is being watched with positive interest by New Zealand, Japan and South Korea, all of which have security concerns.

Of considerable and enduring importance, AUKUS offers a concerted attempt to integrate our top civil and private companies with our own industrial base. This will in turn stimulate the British economy by providing jobs and improving skills—a transformative boost, particularly for the local economy of Barrow-in-Furness, where the new submarines will be built. In fact, as Barrow is so pivotal to AUKUS, I must ask the Minister if he is satisfied that there is an adequate skills base there, what we are doing to upgrade it and whether the transportation system in and around Barrow is appropriate for the construction of AUKUS submarines.

The people of the United Kingdom want to live in a world free from coercion and blatant aggression. Today, this vision is under increasing pressure. We thus need bold new ideas, and to pursue them in tandem with our closest allies and partners. AUKUS is key to this. It is about investing in and with our partners, shoulder to shoulder, for the future, so that we can uphold and maintain the international order that has benefited us and many others so greatly.

14:09

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, while the events in Ukraine and the Middle East have understandably engrossed the world’s attention, we have seen developments in the Indo-Pacific that signal its increasing geopolitical centrality: in 2022, China struck a security pact with the Solomon Islands; in January, Nauru switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China; and, a month ago, Papua New Guinea confirmed early-stage talks with Beijing on a security and policing agreement. Post AUKUS, Chinese-driven media activity across several Pacific island nations demonstrates that China regards the agreement as a major impediment to its geopolitical ambitions, as does its concerted diplomatic pressure on smaller nations across the region.

I do not question the aims of AUKUS, but I have three questions about our approach to realising those aims and our capacity so to do. The first is about the future of submarine warfare. The last two years have seen advances in uncrewed submarine capabilities by our allies and our strategic adversaries. In Russia, the K-329 Belgorod submarines emerged—unmanned nuclear-powered submarines that purportedly offer nuclear-strike capabilities, as well as deterrence support. Last year, North Korea unveiled its first nuclear-armed unmanned submarine.

While encouraged by our own Project Cetus, I ask whether any assessment has been made of the extent, if any, that crewed, nuclear-strike submarines will have been superseded by the time Australia is building SSN-AUKUS boats. Given the rapidity of relevant technology advances, it would be useful to know if any such work has been or is likely to be commissioned.

Secondly, on our industrial capacity, can we meet our obligations under the AUKUS agreement’s optimal pathway? Each of the last Astute-class submarines under commission took around 130 months to complete. We are told that HMS “Agincourt” will commission after a 99-month build. Why does the MoD believe that we will be able to complete work on HMS “Agincourt” 31 months more rapidly than we did for the previous four submarines in the class and 13 months faster than BAE Systems has ever built an Astute?

Lastly, on the reliability of the MoD’s financial estimates, on 7 December I asked why the three services have different approaches to cost forecasting, with the Navy and RAF including predicted costs for the capabilities planned while the Army includes only what it can afford. The noble Earl the Minister said that he was in “entire agreement” on the question of consistency and conceded that in 40 years of looking at budgets he had

“never seen a budget that resembles anything like this one”.—[Official Report, 7/12/23; col. 1570.]

On top of this supervening inconsistency, we have seen the NAO describe the MoD’s equipment plan to 2033 as “unaffordable”; the MoD’s own worst-case forecast concedes a funding gap of almost £30 billion. What financial contingencies has the Minister’s department instituted or considered to ensure that we meet all our pillar 1 and 2 AUKUS obligations? Any assurance in the Minister’s answers to these questions would be extremely welcome.

14:12

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I refer to my register of interests: I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and chair of Wilton Park.

On 13 February, the Foreign Secretary broadly answered the question that we have put to ourselves today. I will return to two of the areas that he raised to pursue them further. He referred to the gain of about £4 billion-worth of contracts in generating thousands of jobs. I urge the Minister that we talk about AUKUS and job generation in a much wider context. As the noble Lord, Lord Risby, rightly said, this will be over several electoral cycles and some very difficult budget settlements; it therefore must be seen in the context of our national security and the freedom of the high seas, which is important to our prosperity.

The Foreign Secretary also referred to progress made on ITAR. He used an interesting phrase:

“a troubling issue that British Governments have had to deal with for decades with American Governments”.

He acknowledged that

“it is essential that AUKUS partners can trade freely between each other in defence equipment”.

He suggested in his answer that real progress had been made when

“President Biden signed the US National Defense Authorization Act, which enables licence-free trade between the AUKUS countries”,

but he added a note of caution by saying,

“and we are working with the State Department on the technical details to make sure that really happens”.—[Official Report, 13/2/24; col. 143.]

If, at its heart, AUKUS is a technology-accelerator agreement for the purpose of national defence, it is important for current members—and to any discussions about widening it, particularly to Japan and South Korea—that the ITAR question is satisfactorily resolved. Otherwise, we will not be able to trade freely.

I think that it is generally accepted that the current membership of AUKUS pillar 1 is unlikely to have additional partners, but when it comes to pillar 2, on advanced military technology, we might even look at countries such as Canada. I suggest that the Minister should also not forget about the importance of France as a major Indo-Pacific power.

The key issue that I want to leave the Minister with is that Bloomberg recently estimated that if there were to be a blockade on the Taiwan Strait it would cost the economy some $10 trillion. All these debates, whether on AUKUS, additional partners or technology, have to be seen in the context of free world trade, the freedom of the high seas and our collective prosperity.

14:15

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for securing this debate. Momentum is crucial in AUKUS, not only because there is no time to waste in building up the capability and deterrence factor, but also because we should not assume that public and political opinion across our partner nations will remain static without clear signs of progress. It is vital that we make that progress on both pillars.

As the noble Lord, Lord Risby, rightly said, much of pillar 1 rests on the workforce. We need to get on with integrating and training across the UK and Australia in particular, which will co-operate deeply on SSN-AUKUS. What progress have the Government made in delivering specific AUKUS visas to enable workforce transfer in this regard?

Our country needs more advanced engineers, full stop. It particularly needs to be able to attract them into this specific programme. Key to that, as the noble Lord, Lord Risby, said, is building up Barrow’s capability and the nuclear capability in Derby. Both those towns need the infrastructure to attract and sustain the significant rise in numbers that will be needed. If the Minister wants to share with us what announcements will be made in the Budget next week on that, we would all be very grateful. This really is investing to save, because unless we can get the workforce up to speed, the cost overrun will dwarf anything that will be spent on the necessary infrastructure measures.

Team Barrow is doing heroic work, but a great responsibility rests on its shoulders. The engagement from the Cabinet Secretary, the Levelling-up Secretary and others is genuinely remarkable, but I hope that the Government will specifically focus on ensuring there is the institutional capacity in local institutions to deliver the economic development that is needed. The future of local enterprise partnerships remains in doubt across the country and development corporations have had difficulties. There needs to be something more in place.

Finally, the Government must ensure that pillar 2 is a concurrent commitment and not sequential. We need greater engagement with industry and we need Ministers consistently to show the public that this is an economic and security priority. Without that, we will not hope to maintain the consensus that is needed.

14:18

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on securing this timely debate. I support the AUKUS partnership with two of our strongest allies and welcome the progress made so far. However, although the United Kingdom still likes to regard itself as one of the world’s leading military powers, that claim is becoming ever more difficult to stand over, given the ongoing depletion of our Armed Forces. This is especially worrying at a time when our nation and the West face a greater threat from Russia than for many decades.

Against such a worrying backdrop, I find it astonishing that His Majesty’s Government continue to preside over such a brutal reduction in the size of the British Army. Under their watch, the Army is now a professional force of around 73,000 personnel. This compares with around 100,000 in 2010. This underlines why working in partnership with other nations is so critical for our security, although it should not be as vital as it currently is. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether there are plans to expand the AUKUS partnership beyond its current membership? The Legatum Institute has published a report recommending the integration of Canada into AUKUS pillar 2. Is this being considered?

It is obviously the case that the United States is by some distance the lead partner of the three current members, so much so that the outcome of the forthcoming US presidential election could be pivotal to the AUKUS agreement remaining in place. Can the Minister advise the Committee whether Mr Donald Trump has indicated his support for the creation of AUKUS and, more importantly, given a commitment to throw the full weight of his Administration behind it should he regain the presidency in November?

Last year, when announcing new funding to support the AUKUS programme, the Prime Minister suggested that it could create thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell me whether any of these jobs will come to Belfast, which, as we well know, has such a long and illustrious history, both in shipbuilding at Harland & Wolff and in supplying the defence sector at Thales Air Defence Ltd, formerly Shorts Missiles Systems?

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, mentioned the situation in the South China Sea region. The Committee will know of my unwavering support for the Government of Taiwan and my determination to protect their people from the aggressive actions of the communist regime in Beijing. Given the global reach of AUKUS and the US Government’s recent welcome decision to sell arms worth $75 million to Taiwan, has it been made clear to the democratically elected representatives in Taipei that the partnership stands fully with them and against the increasingly frequent incursions of Chinese military aircraft across the median line of the Taiwan Strait into Taiwan’s northern air defence identification zone?

Similarly, we simply cannot put up with the constant straying of Chinese military vessels into Taiwanese territorial waters, with the most recent incident occurring as recently as Monday of this week, when five Chinese coastguard ships approached the frontier line in Kinmen.

14:22

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, when the Foreign Secretary answered Questions on AUKUS the week before last, he was euphoric, absolutely unbounded, in his enthusiasm for the agreement. I happily agreed with him on the undoubted attractions of AUKUS. I fully understand the potential upsides, particularly to the defence industrial base, jobs and national advantage. I did not want to appear cynical, but I asked him whether there had been any slightly more cautionary voices in the relevant NSC discussion regarding AUKUS. I have to say that I felt the Foreign Secretary was politely dismissive of the risks that I raised, such as losing, or at least leaking, specially nuclear-qualified personnel to Australia and the risks of cost escalation in a programme that might rapidly become non-discretionary in nature. In opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Risby, spoke of sustained expenditure until at least 2040.

From the Library pack provided to inform this short debate, I also now see that, as well as the self-evident delivery risk in increasing the drumbeat of submarine production, there appears to be a significant liability for British submarines to conduct both operational tours and extended port visits to Australia throughout the long period involved in generating the Australian capability. I worry that this must surely place at risk the operational requirements, at least for what we call two-boat availability, for standing tasks in closer-to-home waters.

Therefore, I again ask the Minister: has there been any recognition or discussion of attendant risks to this agreement and how to mitigate them? Or does it now represent an irreversible commitment which might place further constraints on the future flexibility required to bring into balance defence policy aspiration and the MoD’s available funding?

One might be tempted to ask similar questions about the Global Combat Air Programme, GCAP, a parallel initiative with Japan and Italy. Let me be clear: I am a huge supporter of advanced technology but, equally, I am concerned that the continued addiction of our procurement processes to pursuing ever more exquisite capabilities risks a future defence capability programme that, because it is underfunded, is also completely unbalanced.

14:25

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, AUKUS is an acronym for a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. There are two pillars, with defence capabilities, and in the first a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia, supported by the UK and the USA. The second pillar is co-operation in advanced capability, including AI.

As a trustee of Policy Exchange, I can say that we coined the term “Indo-Pacific”, as opposed to “Asia-Pacific”, as it used to be referred to. With the UK’s renewed policy focus in the Indo-Pacific, this is very timely. We have just joined the CPTPP. Should we join Quad, with India, the USA, Japan and Australia? The UK joining would make it Quad Plus, and we would circle the world. With our membership of NATO and Five Eyes, our security would be enhanced. However, would the Minister not agree—I am like a stuck record—that we should be spending 3% of GDP on defence? As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, our Armed Forces, the Army, Navy and Air Force, are too small in numbers of people and short of equipment—and I say that as a proud honorary group captain in 601 Squadron of the Royal Air Force.

The Prime Minister assured us last March that an additional £5 billion would be provided by the MoD for the AUKUS programme and sustained funding would be provided. The Government have also said that this would create thousands of jobs here in the UK and, of course, in Australia.

Gideon Rachman wrote an excellent article in the FT just three days ago, where he said:

“China has repeatedly attacked Aukus as dangerous and confrontational. Shortly after it was launched, Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister at the time, gleefully lampooned the ‘raucous squawkus from the anti-Aukus caucus’”.


Gideon Rachman concluded his article by saying:

“The pact is ultimately a statement of resolve and long-term commitment. It is based on a shared perception of the growing strategic threat from China and Russia as they work together to overturn the current international order. That perception seems more pressing and valid than ever”.


I thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for initiating this debate and raising awareness of AUKUS, which people need to know more about. I love the way he referred to it as a technology-accelerator agreement. There is huge potential in enhancing our security and powering ahead with our innovation and research and development capabilities—all things at which this country has always been absolutely brilliant.

14:27

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on sponsoring this important and timely debate. AUKUS is an agreement of the greatest significance, a very high-tech defence project within the non-proliferation framework. It is also a significant opportunity for Australia, Britain and the United States for employment and the development of leading-edge technology.

From all that we hear, things in general are proceeding well, but it is still very early days for AUKUS. My understanding is that there has been solid progress on where the project needs to go, but there remains a great deal of detail to be decided. I want to look at some detail on the workings between the partners.

The three countries are close allies, but there is a need for vigilance so that the opportunities and benefits are shared equally. The United States has a particular strength—an admirable strength—in defence technology. This is a very good thing. But there is a risk, and a very real one, that the tech opportunities will be taken by the United States at the expense of Australia and Britain. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Britain and Australia benefit appropriately, as envisaged in what I believe to be the spirit and intent of the agreement? We need to be confident that the benefits are mutual.

It is intended that the UK and Australia also grow and enhance their technological, business and academic bases. The protection of IP is essential for the development of our industrial, academic and research bases. It is also vital for Britain and Australia to maintain and grow employment, especially under pillar 1. We also need to be vigilant to ensure that Britain does not end by losing skills, not least experienced Royal Navy engineers, to our very good Australian friends.

In a project of this scale and importance, it is essential that what might be termed a common information infrastructure is established, especially for the delivery of pillar 2 capabilities. We are assured that an advanced capabilities forum is in the process of being established as an essential vehicle for the exchange of information between government and industry trilaterally.

For Britain and Australia, negotiations to gain approval under the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations regime—ITAR—as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, could inadvertently handicap broader UK exports outside of the AUKUS partners. Discussions with ITAR must be carefully handled, and with great attention.

A final point: the three nations are close allies and very good friends. The behaviour between them over the next 20 years and more will be critical to the success of AUKUS. Given its long-term nature, it is necessary to bear in mind that there will be elections in each country, very likely at different times, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Risby. There is a need for great tact and understanding between the partners. What thoughts does the Minister have has on this serious requirement?

14:30

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, the world has changed and it should now be defined more globally. We are approaching a crossroads and, as with the last Cold War, two well-defined camps are emerging. There was a “never again” collective relief last time around; however, a new extended cold war now appears inevitable. Deterrence, though, might become essential. This makes AUKUS timely, but it should be seen as a building block. No single alliance is what is required, but rather a multiple.

We and the European Union, together with those with similar values, must become more brutal in our mindset and prepare in haste for a series of defence and security hubs to act for the common good. With nuclear proliferation and the fear of using those arms potentially dissipating—I come from a school of thought subscribing to the view that nuclear arms are more a form of blackmail—and with the current make-up of the UN Security Council not allowing it to do what it was constructed to do, there is an immediate need for NATO and Five Eyes collectively to create a tight command structure to thwart those who wish us ill. EU and US leaders present and future, together, I suggest, with the inclusion of Canada in the Five Eyes network, should collectively see this as a priority, with the clear participation of India to be encouraged in one form or another.

The adage “Out of area, out of business” has relevance now, as it did when a past NATO Secretary-General observed succinctly the West’s necessity

“to deal collectively with the multiplying threats and instabilities of this new era”.

Sanity and pragmatism are critical for these new times. Sabre-rattling should not automatically be perceived as a slow drumbeat to war, however; only strength will ensure a safer and more coherent world.

I conclude with three observations. First, China has a longer-term play than being a participant in war; secondly, beware Russia and the GIUK gap, which, together with the Arctic northern sea route, can play a strategic and deceptive role; thirdly but importantly, we should urgently build the network and invest in those countries with which we and others have had an historical association. Failure to do so makes them a soft target.

14:33

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my shareholdings as in the register, particularly in the Potteries-based Goodwin plc, which is a major supplier of castings to the US and UK submarine programmes.

Parallel to AUKUS Australia is, pleasingly, spending $7.25 billion to increase its number of combat vessels from 11 to 26. It intends shortly to sign a “very significant” defence co-operation agreement with Indonesia. Is the Minister aware of this and could he comment?

Perhaps the Minister could also comment on the capacity of Barrow, its expansion physically and the workforce there. Our submarine-building programme has been characterised by cost and time overruns. Have any comparisons been made with the United States, in the sense that there are possible lessons to be learned? Can he also tell us what the current manning level of our existing submarines is, and are there any plans to increase the number of submariners?

Is there a concern that a percentage of the workforce in Barrow may well emigrate to Australia? No doubt, Barrow has many attractions, but Australia is of course somewhat warmer. How many Australian military and civilians are embedded with the Royal Navy or are on any sites? Pillar 2 talks of deep space advanced radar capability. Are there going to be any new United Kingdom radar sites?

Finally, Goodwin raised two matters with me. First, the United States orders submarines in blocks and is in the process of procuring materials and components for the next 17 under one purchase order, with obvious savings. The United Kingdom, Goodwin tells me, tends to purchase for each boat separately. Larger and longer purchase orders for AUKUS would be beneficial. Secondly, forgings are mission-critical to submarine construction. United Kingdom forging suppliers are buying ingots from eastern Europe, with obvious negative implications. Goodwin tells me that can supply ingots here. Perhaps the Minister can look into this United Kingdom opportunity.

14:36

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register of interests and specifically to my roles with the Royal Navy. I join all noble Lords present in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on securing such an important and timely debate.

The world has changed beyond all recognition in the past decade. When I was elected to the other place, there was little discussion of the potential threat posed by China. It was the height of the golden era of Sino-British relations under the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Inquiries by the Defence Select Committee, of which I was a member, into the strategic importance of the South China Sea were broadly ignored. The world has moved on, as have our relations with China. The Indo-Pacific is now a core operating environment and our relations with key allies throughout it are a cornerstone of our mutual security.

In that context, His Majesty’s Opposition of course support the AUKUS alliance and consider the security pact to be a welcome formalisation and deepening of the relationship with two of our strongest allies. That does not mean that we do not have some questions for the Minister, however.

The delivery of both pillars of AUKUS requires us to consider this not as a defence programme but as a national endeavour, as the noble Lord, Lord Risby, highlighted. On pillar 1, the Labour Party strongly welcomes the announcement of the SSN-AUKUS collaboration. We want these boats to be built in the UK. We want to see new infrastructure at Barrow and a multigenerational commitment to and investment in the next generation of SSNs. For our part, a future Government will build on our Indo-Pacific commitments through UK technology, capability, diplomacy and closer defence industrial co-operation. We will strive to make the potential of both pillars of AUKUS a reality.

To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Walney, a future Labour Government will build the next generation of AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines in Barrow, and we consider the UK-Australia-US security pact at the heart of AUKUS to be above party-political consideration. Our national security is not a matter for party politics. However, we need assurances from the Government that they are doing the groundwork now in order to deliver the promise of AUKUS. Can the Minister therefore answer the following questions?

Responses to several Parliamentary Questions in the other place have made it clear that clarity is lacking on who in the department has responsibility for AUKUS, and that only a part-time SRO is dedicated to the project. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is clear leadership and sufficient resources for the successful delivery of this programme? On pillar 2, what capabilities are the Government prioritising in order to deliver innovation to our UK Armed Forces, alongside our AUKUS allies, as part of this programme? At the moment, pillar 2 seems to lack clarity and direction. Can the Minister assist noble Lords and begin to put flesh on the bones? Given the long-term commitment to AUKUS pillar 1, will the Minister set out how he intends to ensure that the UK defence industry has the skills it needs to deliver the AUKUS submarines on schedule, especially given current programme delays?

AUKUS is an incredibly important part of the next phase of our national security, complementing our NATO commitments and building on Five Eyes. Our job now is to make it work.

14:39

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)]

My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Risby for initiating this debate and to all noble Lords for their constructive and extremely thoughtful contributions. It is fair to say that I have never been asked more questions in such a short period, so I will be doing quite a lot of writing. However, I hope to pick them all up either now or through answering some of the more specific ones.

It is indeed two and a half years since we launched the AUKUS defence and security partnership to bolster global security alongside our equal American and Australian allies. Since then, the challenges to address have become more acute. Putin has brought war to Europe, tensions have heightened in the Indo-Pacific, and terrorism and violence have been unleashed in the Middle East. Military coups have toppled Governments across the Sahel and the Houthis are holding global trade hostage in the Red Sea. Each of these global security setbacks magnifies the need to advance our military capabilities through partnerships such as AUKUS. This is about much more than building the next generation of submarines and other capabilities. It is also about establishing a more sustainable industrial base and developing the skills for the future. With that in mind, I will provide an update on the progress we have made on the various AUKUS workstreams and I will try to address the questions raised by the noble Lords.

First, AUKUS pillar 1 is our commitment to help Australia develop a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability. Last March, AUKUS leaders announced that this new platform would be based on designs for the UK’s next-generation submarine that will replace our current Astute class. They will incorporate cutting-edge US technologies and will be the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy. They will enhance our capability to operate in the north Atlantic and will further our objectives around the world. They will be built in Australia and the UK and will enter service with the Royal Navy in the late 2030s, and with the Royal Australian Navy in the late 2040s. This phased delivery will enable us to work together to build up the facilities, skills and experience needed for all partners to operate the vessels both safely and securely.

I was delighted to see the Australian high commissioner and his deputy earlier this week. We had a very positive, enthusiastic conversation about precisely this point on skills, training and experience. The opportunity of working ever more closely together on this critical task, developing joint skills and sustainable employment for decades to come across all three nations should be rightly celebrated, and that work is well under way.

The Government have committed an additional £5 billion up to 2025 to modernise the UK’s nuclear enterprise and fund the next phase of the AUKUS submarine programme. It is obviously very difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, rightly knows, to budget very accurately when we are talking about 2030, which is years ahead. However, the determination is there to ensure that the procurement process is both accurate and timely.

AUKUS partners BAE, Babcock and Rolls-Royce have already been awarded contracts worth £4 billion to procure long-lead components for the submarines. This will support thousands of highly skilled jobs in the UK, particularly in Barrow, where the UK’s submarines will be constructed, and at the Rolls-Royce Raynesway site in Derby, which will double in size to manufacture all the reactors for the UK and Australian subs, creating around 1,100 new jobs. We have also accelerated nuclear co-operation and training between AUKUS partners, offering enhanced opportunities for Australian sailors to train in the UK and the US, including on non-nuclear submarines, and we have committed to more planned visits to the US and nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.

On pillar 2, although the media spotlight has shone brightest on our submarine collaborations under pillar 1, AUKUS has always been about a much broader range of defence and industrial collaboration under pillar 2. From better information and technology sharing to new cutting-edge joint capabilities and more seamless interoperability, as well as strengthening the resilience of our defence sectors, these objectives were centre stage at the AUKUS defence ministerial meeting in December, where Ministers announced new pillar 2 capability programmes on AI, autonomous systems, threat detection, undersea warfare, quantum technologies and cybersecurity, as well as a separate deep space advanced radar programme and a programme of industrial engagement. We are making steady progress with many of these capabilities and, wherever possible, we will continue to be transparent and provide updates as we reach important milestones or embark on new endeavours.

Our ambition to deliver nuclear-powered submarines for Australia will remain trilateral. However, as our work progresses on AUKUS advanced capabilities—pillar 2—and other critical defence and security capabilities, we are open to engaging with allies and close partners. Defence Ministers also announced new future combined exercises, including a joint exercise in the autumn of 2024 off the east coast of Australia to test new equipment to protect critical underwater infrastructure, including autonomous systems. Joint exercises such as this improve our ability to work together and enhance the development of new capabilities.

My noble friend Lord Risby is absolutely right to raise the important function of the AUKUS working groups, which continue to progress the ambition set out in December by Defence Ministers. I am also grateful to him for highlighting the pivotal role that Barrow will play as a home of UK submarine-building. The Government have committed £5 million to support the long-term delivery board for Barrow and are working in close co-operation with Westmorland and Furness Council and BAE Systems to develop that community. With the infrastructure to support this ambition, it should be a thriving place for people to work and live. That includes local transportation and other community projects.

Critical to the success of AUKUS and the strength of the partnership is our ability to forge deeper and more seamless ties between our nations right across the defence sector, so we were delighted that Congress recently passed legislation to establish an AUKUS nations exemption to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations—ITAR—for the UK and Australia. I understand some of the concerns about the small print of this, but the principle having been taken is a very significant step in the right direction.

Closer collaboration and exchanges between our businesses and experts will drive innovation, enable us to make the most of emerging technologies and provide an opportunity for UK defence companies to turbocharge exports. To further grease the wheels of innovation and trade, we have established the advanced capabilities industry forum and will shortly publish the first AUKUS innovation challenge, deepening those crucial links between our three systems to ensure we support the development of skills fit for the future workforce.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He just mentioned the AUKUS advanced capabilities industry forum and collaboration with trade and industry. That is absolutely spot on, but no one mentions working with universities. Is there not huge potential for the AUKUS programme, in the USA, Australia and here in the UK, to work with our world-class universities to turbocharge this programme? I am chancellor of the University of Birmingham, which last week won a Queen’s Anniversary Prize at Buckingham Palace for its work with Rolls-Royce on aero-engines. It is so powerful. Should we not be promoting this more?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I could not agree more. Rolls-Royce is in the process of doubling its graduate intake between 2022 and 2025, and taking on an enormous number of apprentices over the next 10 years to ensure that we build up this capability of proper, genuine, well-paid and highly skilled jobs for life—exactly the sort of thing that the noble Lord refers to.

Alongside our AUKUS partners, we have also committed to co-operate on the deep space advanced radar capability programme. Although DARC is not part of AUKUS as a result of the particular nature of regulatory requirements covering space-related technologies, it is a clear benefit from the closer trilateral working relationship that we have forged through our AUKUS partnership. That shows the breadth of thinking that AUKUS is projecting.

A couple of noble Lords raised our non-proliferation obligations. As part of the AUKUS programme, we have engaged extensively with the International Atomic Energy Agency, as noble Lords would expect. The UK, the US and Australia are fully committed to an approach that protects classified information and strengthens the global regime.

On the question of other strategic allies in the Indo-Pacific, such as Canada, Japan or indeed South Korea, which was mentioned, we already enjoy close defence relationships.

On exchanges, we currently have three Australian officers embedded in the Royal Navy submarine officer nuclear training pipeline and two Royal Australian Navy personnel embedded in the Submarine Delivery Agency in the Defence Nuclear Organisation. An advanced verification team formed of experts from all three partner countries visited Pearl Harbour and Faslane last year to build our understanding of the maintenance and industrial skills required to maintain nuclear submarines.

I shall just go through some of the specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about costs and contingencies. In addition to the £3 billion extra provided to our Defence Nuclear Organisation, I confirm that there will be sustained funding to support the AUKUS programme over the next decade. It will be a process of iteration but the commitment is absolutely there.

Can we really build submarines faster than ever before? We have a commitment from our industrial partners and confidence in that. Rolls-Royce is producing the reactors and we have invested billions of pounds in both Barrow and Derby. As I said, we have committed to more than 1,000 new jobs already.

It is better that I write to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about our assessment of uncrewed submarines.

At this time, it is not for me to comment on President Trump and the presidential candidates’ views. At the moment, all three parties are confident of the longevity of the tripartite agreement.

On the question of jobs in Belfast, there is indeed a very proud tradition and industrial past of shipbuilding in Northern Ireland and across the UK. I take the point: Barrow-in-Furness has the licence and capability to build the submarines, but I am certain that there will be a lot of SME opportunity that includes Northern Ireland. In fact, we will ensure that it does.

In closing, I express my gratitude once again to my noble friend Lord Risby for initiating this important debate on AUKUS. Our national defences have always been dependent on the strength of our resolve, the quality of our people and capabilities, and the power of our alliances. In our more dangerous world, the AUKUS partnership is strengthening all three of these elements. Our adversaries may be aligning but, through AUKUS, the UK, the US and Australia have become ever more connected, prepared and lethal. AUKUS is a partnership building bridges across the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is a partnership for the future that, I hope, will keep us safe for generations to come.

14:53

Sitting suspended.

Overhead Electrical Transmission Lines

Thursday 29th February 2024 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Swire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the advantages of burying overhead electrical transmission lines.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to open this debate and I am most grateful to noble Lords who have signed up for it. Many more have approached me elsewhere to say that they cannot be here, but they feel as strongly about it. I start by conceding that it may seem a little eccentric or self-indulgent to have a debate on this subject when so much is going wrong elsewhere in the world, but it is an incredibly important subject, and one that we need to be very aware of in terms of the implications going forward.

Let me say at the outset that I fully recognise the Government’s commitment to reach their target of net zero by 2050, and the challenges of achieving that in a difficult planning environment. They are encountering the same difficulties in reaching their housebuilding targets. Everyone—or at least most people—is signed up to the principle of more housing; the problem starts when the new housing is going to be anywhere near them. I believe that that can be overcome by good design, with houses built in the right place, and by building housing that actually enhances existing communities rather than detracting from them. Unfortunately, with powerlines, we do not seem to be faced with any such choice.

National Grid, which noble Lords will hear a lot about in the next few minutes, estimates that there are more than 22,000 transmission pylons across England and Wales, made up of 4,500 miles of overhead cables and only 900 miles of underground cables. I think that I am writing saying that, where National Grid is the distribution network operator—known in the business as the DNO—as in the Midlands and in my part of the world, the south-west, south Wales and so forth, the network is made up of a further 60,000 miles of overhead lines and 83,900 miles of underground cables. These figures are set to increase dramatically. National Grid’s “Great Grid Upgrade” includes proposals for hundreds of miles of high-voltage overhead lines right across great swathes of our countryside, all held up by pylons.

I acknowledge from the outset that overhead transmission lines are cheaper than the alternatives. The Parsons-Brinckerhoff report states that,

“overhead line (OHL) is the cheapest transmission technology for any given route length or circuit capacity, with the lifetime cost estimates varying between £2.2m and £4.2m per kilometre”.

Why we use kilometres I do not know, but we seem to from time to time. It continues by saying:

“Underground cable (UGC), direct buried, is the next cheapest technology after overhead line, for any given route length or circuit capacity. It thus also represents the least expensive underground technology, with the lifetime cost estimate varying between £10.2m and £24.1m per kilometre”.


It is precisely these figures that the Government pray in aid time and again to defend their policy. Further, in the National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure, EN-1 contains a

“strong presumption in favour of pylons”.

The Prime Minister has described a lack of electrical infrastructure, such as cables, pylons and substations as

“one of our biggest constraints to reaching net zero”,

and described the 14 years that it takes to get some projects under way as “unacceptable”.

We know that grid capacity has to double to transport energy from offshore wind, solar farms and other renewable sources to meet demand, which is anticipated to double by 2050. Nick Winser, the UK’s first Electricity Networks Commissioner, says that our policies are out of date, and we need £54 billion worth of new grid infrastructure by 2030.

All this has huge significance for our country, particularly our countryside. There are good and bad ways of achieving net zero, and this is a bad way. One of the main problems is the lack of joined-up, long-term thinking, not least when it comes to bringing offshore-generated electricity onshore. Can my noble friend the Minister please explain why substations are located offshore in countries such as Holland and Belgium—I understand that Denmark and Germany intend to follow suit—yet current UK policy is that instead of pooling power from the 18 or so wind farms and interconnectors in need of connection points to the UK, National Grid is offering each and every project a connection one by one? If this was not folly enough, having the substations onshore is even worse. Scottish Power wants to build, inland at Friston village near Aldeburgh in Suffolk, a substation which would be 50 feet high and cover 30 acres. Surely we can be smarter than that.

While I am on the subject of wind turbines, can the Minister confirm that they take 15 to 20 years to become carbon neutral and that the engines need replacing after 10 years?

Today, East Anglia is in the firing line. It faces the prospect of 100 miles of new pylons cutting a swathe through some of our most beautiful and historic countryside. It is tragic and, to my way of thinking, vandalism. It is true that Ofgem, through the visual impact provision, has identified £500 million to help reduce the visual impact in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, and National Grid runs a landscape enhancement initiative as part of this project. But when I last looked, National Grid’s revenue was almost £5.5 billion last year, with profits up by 15% and a net profit margin of over 13%. John Pettigrew, National Grid’s chief executive, boasted:

“A record £7.7 billion has been invested in building clean, smart energy infrastructure and maintaining world class reliability across our networks”.


What about its East Anglia green initiative? It looks good because it is transporting renewable or clean energy, but at what cost? The cost is 180 kilometres of 400 kilovolt overhead cables, 50-metre-high pylons, except in Dedham Vale, where they will be buried, and a new 400 kilovolt connective station near Colchester.

What consideration has been given to alternatives, such as cable ploughing—in other words, ploughing the cable straight into the ground rather than having to dig up 120-metre-wide swathes of our countryside—or using DC instead of AC, which requires a narrower trench? What is the Minister’s view of TS Conductor’s new generation of super lightweight and super strong conductors? I think I am right in saying that the UK Government are an investor in that company. They are already installed in the US and have the great benefit of being able to transmit five to six times more power—critically, using existing infrastructure, the net gain being that fewer pylons would then be needed. This calls for more creative thinking from all those involved.

Incidentally, I wrote to the papers about the onshore distribution of electricity some ago, when I saw that the Crown Estate is proposed to gain many billions of pounds from renewable energy. It has let it be known at a very high level that it wishes the money generated from those profits to be ploughed back for the public good. What better way to spend that money than on burying all the cables that this offshore wind will generate?

The offshore distribution of electricity needs a major overhaul to meet new demand in different places. The offshore grid in the North Sea needs much better integration, which would save £2 billion and reduce overall infrastructure by 50%. We need to be more protective of our countryside, our green and pleasant land, before we wake up to find that we are too late.

The late Poet Laureate, Ted Hughes, wrote in his poem “Telegraph Wires”, which was part of his collection, Wolfwatching, about

“The Striding Steel Sentries

Marching across the land”,

describing them as “mighty metal monsters” and concluding,

“If we didn’t have them

Darkness would be our fate”.

But that was written in 1989, and the technology available to us has moved on considerably. We do not have to have mighty metal monsters marching across our land to transmit the technology; there are other ways. As the technology improves, more choice should be available to the consumer.

I simply do not understand how we can reconcile patting ourselves on the back by importing more renewable and green energy if the cost of that will be to desecrate our natural habitats and unrivalled landscapes at the same time.

15:09

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Swire for initiating this important debate. I consider myself extremely fortunate to live in a beautiful part of the UK, with all its rolling hills, scenery and landscapes, but I am not the only one who is extremely fortunate—there are all the local businesses, which are dependent on tourism and on visitors who regularly make the trip to visit the area.

Tourism is one of the most important sectors of the rural economy; it is worth over £29 billion per annum and accounts for around 12% of rural employment. In fact, such is the Government’s belief that we should encourage more people to enjoy the countryside and improve the quality of our rural tourism experience that they are making a number of investments, one of which is that Defra will provide up to £2 million to enable local communities to enhance their tourism offer by improving public rights of way.

I believe that, if you were to conduct a straw poll of what visitors to the countryside most want to enjoy, a walk in the fresh air taking in the surroundings would be close to the top of their agenda. People of all ages and mobility can enjoy the experience. It is a magnificent draw for young children to run to their hearts’ content in the fields and exhaust themselves with fresh air and exercise. Young parents or couples can take a break from the busy life they may lead in a city and enjoy some quality downtime surrounded by nature, while the older generation who may not be able to participate in team sport or vigorous exercise are able to work on their daily 20,000 steps amid beautiful scenery.

Spending time in nature helps with anxiety and depression, while at the same time we know that physical exercise has multiple benefits in reducing obesity and maintaining positive mental health. It therefore appears that the benefits of visiting the countryside, going for a walk and enjoying the scenery have multiple positives for both our health and well-being. To quote John Keats:

“Happy is England! I could be content

To see no other verdure than its own”.

It is important that we take special care to retain our glorious countryside and ensure that the use of overhead electrical transmission lines is minimised, given that we have the ability to bury them underground. We already have 4,500 miles of OHL, and of these there are around 356 miles in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. The Visual Impact Provision project and Landscape Enhancement Initiative is a great example of the energy industry working together with National Parks England, CPRE, the National Trust, Ramblers and others to restore the magical landscapes—but this is only

“in a number of locations”.

Of those 356 miles flagged, what is the actual number of miles of overhead transmission lines going though those areas that could be replaced by underground cables?

Cost is obviously a key factor in these decisions, and there have been a number of studies on this. Estimates for the cost of underground cables range from five to 10 times more than overhead transmission lines. What I would like to flag up is that many people, including myself, believe that the long-term societal benefits of underground cables significantly outweigh the initial investment costs of OHL and result in minimal cost implications to us as the end consumers over a 40-year time horizon.

Data from Germany and the UK indicates that an increase in the use of underground cables would result in a 1% increase in the total electricity bill for the end consumer, or approximately £15 per annum at the higher end. The reason for this is that grid charges make up less than one-quarter of the actual price of a kilowatt hour, with the largest components being generation costs and government taxes and subsidies.

National Grid carried out a study in 2019, the results of which showed a nationwide willingness to pay an additional £6.87 per household per year to underground a further 20 miles of existing lines in areas of outstanding national beauty and national parks. It appears that the majority of end consumers continue to support the removal of overhead lines from these areas, so have the Government had any discussions with Ofgem to investigate the possibility of increasing energy industry funding for the Visual Impact Provision project? If consumers are prepared to pay more, it would seem logical to ask the energy industry to increase their levy contribution to match consumer commitment.

Can the Government also ensure that all ongoing and future public consultations on OHL versus underground factor into the outcome the multiple benefits of underground cables for society, tourism, wildlife and the nation’s health and well-being, so that the real holistic and economic cost can be discussed? We are talking about protecting the UK countryside not just for now but for future generations. That should be of the utmost importance.

15:15

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for initiating this debate. He and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, outlined some very powerful points for consideration. I will address a different and more parochial aspect, but also the massive expansion we are likely to face in the coming years.

To give a bit of a personal connection to this, during the winter of 2021-22, two very severe storms hit the UK, Storm Arwen and Storm Malik. This had a direct and dramatic impact, certainly in my part of the world, in Aberdeenshire, but in many other places as well. My home was without power for more than four days during Arwen, and more than three days during Malik. Many others suffered much longer disruption and outages.

It is important to take on board that not only were we without power but so were all the mobile phone masts within a fairly large area. This was aggravated by the fact that BT had replaced its fixed lines with digital lines, which require broadband. Those who were wise enough not to respond to BT or who ignored the email found that they had power. Those of us who did what we were told found we had no communication whatever. The power companies were unaware of this, so they were happily broadcasting online all kinds of information that was totally inaccessible to the people it was aimed at. That was a pretty powerful experience of how these things happen.

To share with noble Lords the consequences of all that, the temperature inside our house dropped to 8 degrees. We were lucky compared with some, as we had a contingency back-up, in that we had not replaced an old solid fuel burning stove, which gave us heat in one room and some hot water. Other people in houses whose fireplaces had been removed had no back-up at all. We were incredibly isolated and incredibly disadvantaged.

The point about this is that the overhead power lines were extremely vulnerable to wind and debris, which brought them down, in addition to which the access roads were blocked by falling trees, so even though people were brought in from all over the UK to tackle this problem, they could not access the places where the cables had broken. Indeed, the local council eventually contacted the Ministry of Defence, and, thankfully, 150 members of the Armed Forces came to our area. All they actually did was house-to-house calls to check where people were and what they needed. As the situation progressed, the companies then provided hot food stands, with no charge to anybody who turned up.

I accept that lessons were learned; nevertheless, this was an emergency that people had not experienced on such a scale, although every time the wind blows, we expect some kind of a power cut. I want to stress that I genuinely believe that undergrounding is about security of supply as well as visual impact.

As it happened, at the end of Storm Arwen the house was coming back and my wife said to me, “There’s no point in you staying here. It’s cold—you might as well go down to London”. The BBC asked, “Are you affected by this?” so I posted on Twitter, not with my title or saying who I was but just as a member of the public. The BBC said, “Would you like to come into a studio somewhere?” I said, “Well, I could come into Millbank”. Only when I walked into the studio did they recognise who I was. My point was that I did not do that because of who I was; I was just a member of the public who was affected by this. When the next storm happened, my neighbour, who I have to say is a very staunch Conservative, said to me, “Will you go back on the BBC again? As soon as you went on, the power came back on”. However, there is a serious point here, and the BBC was impressed by the fact that people were completely incommunicado as well as in a serious situation.

I genuinely want to believe that the idea of undergrounding power lines is about security of supply. We were not the only people affected; the north-east of England was badly affected, as were a lot of other places, so that is an issue. However, in the north-east of Scotland we are of course very familiar with the oil and gas industry, and nobody suggested stringing oil and gas pipes on high poles across the countryside; they have all been undergrounded, right from the outset. It was quite disruptive at the time, but it is totally invisible now. On the interesting point about ploughing, and so on, I believe that with proper planning, the cost of undergrounding could be managed. You might say that water and electricity do not mix, but you could use the same trenches with enough separation. The point that I want to make to the Minister is that the Government should be prepared—though not in all situations; we accept that—to have a proper look as to whether this can be done and in an affordable way.

The other point, which is obviously what prompted the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, is the expansion of onshore and offshore wind and the whole drive towards net zero. Again, I can testify just to local situations in my area where we have offshore wind farms coming ashore. We have already had a massive campaign about an onshore station. That is exactly the point: if you are to have them, why not offshore, and why not collect them together rather than having each one? Surely that has to be addressed. I do not know how it is going to be resolved, because the company has said, “We’re not going ahead with that”. However, it has not said what it will do, so it will have to come up with some alternative. It was interesting that the protest was such that, in one of the few Conservative-held constituencies in Scotland, that changed the policy.

The other problem is that once we have it onshore, we will transmit it to the grid, and you are talking about potentially massively additional power lines to those already there. I do not think any of us are saying that in the short run we should demolish the ones we have, although over time maybe we should replace them. But certainly, on the idea that new power lines should not have a proper assessment of undergrounding, the point the noble Lord, Lord Effingham, made about relative cost over the lifetime relating to the cost of electricity, was interesting. Of course, that cost goes up and down rather sharply but, nevertheless, this seems to suggest that, while it is more expensive, it may be not as expensive as it appears. There are also the benefits in security of supply and the lack of interruption, there are big costs associated with restoring the supply, and then there is the visual impact.

This is a valuable debate and, in a way, I am pleased to see the development. Obviously, a lot of people oppose wind farms offshore and onshore. They are controversial. A very contentious one is currently being applied for, literally at the back of my village, which absolutely nobody supports because of the scale of it. I support them, generally speaking, and feel that most of the ones that have gone ahead in my area have been properly and visually acceptable. However, this one is out of all proportion. We are talking about an 1,800-foot hill with 900-foot turbines installed on it, and I just do not believe that is sensible or credible. But generally speaking, they are fine.

More and more offshore is where we are going, and all that has to be transmitted. So it seems absolutely clear that we have to give a serious think as to how we do that. I would say to any Government, “You’re going to get an awful lot of political reaction to this. There will be public anxiety and there will be protests, so it is better to anticipate it and at least think through what could be done, and consider where and how and at what cost it may make sense to put these cables underground”. However, my own belief is that it will secure the supply and will also meet the environmental requirements of the public.

15:24

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for bringing this debate before us. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for their contributions so far.

The view coming through is clearly that none of us can underestimate the challenges ahead in being able to deliver the UK’s target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. It is intense, and it is fair to say that we are already witnessing unprecedented change in the way our electricity is being generated. We recognise the demands this is putting on the industry to deliver, but also on the capacity of the electricity grid to catch up and then keep pace with the dramatic investment and build required.

I think we all know the pressure there is on government. In fact, in talking to businesses about the timescales that they are being quoted for connection to the grid, some of the waiting times we hear of are, frankly, eye-watering. The years quoted—we are talking in years here—start at seven years and go up to 12; even longer waits are not uncommon. From our conversations, I think that these are some of the most problematic areas that industry generally and investors are having to grapple with at the moment. Fortunately, other places around the world have a more attractive set of circumstances; they can go more speedily.

Briefings from industry representatives suggest that it can take around 10 years to build a new transmission line, seven of which can be spent on the consenting and planning side, with just three years on construction. Clearly, our debate today with regard to a preference for underground transmission lines or overhead lines with pylons is critical to understanding some of the reasons for this lengthy process. As we have heard, the context is that the Secretary of State should grant development consent for underground or subsea sections over overhead alternatives only if they are satisfied that the benefits clearly outweigh any extra, economic, social or environmental impacts. The mitigation hierarchy must be followed and technical obstacles must be overcome.

The latest government guidance presumes that the lines will be built overhead, with notable exceptions, as we have heard, including areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. The responses on this have been split, not always in predictable ways. To cut to the point: will the Minister tell us whether the Government feel that expediency or landscape considerations should take precedence? Further, how can he ensure that the correct balance is achieved and delivered consistently across the country, when these planning applications are determined? With regard to the areas of natural beauty and other sensitive areas, can he confirm whether it will just be within the boundaries of those areas, or will consideration be given to the aspect—the areas outside those boundaries that are overlooked by people who go into our national parks to enjoy the natural amenities there?

A recurring concern with overhead lines is connected to their ecological impacts. I do not think we have heard much about that. Some of the evidence coming through in responses to consultations might seem slightly perverse, but this is not straightforward. The RSPB has stated that both overground and underground lines can have detrimental impacts on birds and other wildlife, depending on the terrain—for example, wetland habitats or through the impact of hedgerow removal. Can the Minister comment on this and give us his assessment as to whether a more discretionary, rather than prescriptive, starting presumption might be a better way to manage the ecological impact of implementing new electrical lines? It clearly is not possible to have a one-size-fits-all approach in this area.

We know that, before adding new parts to the electricity network, the transmission owners will always consider first whether they can achieve more capacity by upgrading or enhancing the existing networks. This is quite right and as we would assume. When this is not possible, a robust and transparent options appraisal will follow. Further to assessments flowing from this, planning authorities will work on the proposals in line with the national policy statements, ready to take proposals for decision.

Consultation with local communities and stakeholders then becomes a key component in making progress. A transparent process must be established to gain the confidence of all parties in an attempt to avoid confrontation. Achieving a balanced view on all the available considerations is then the responsibility of local planning authorities and, ultimately, the Government if still contentious.

We can all recall when we had a Question on this in the Chamber. It coincided with the Government’s announcement of their national plan, back in November last year. The Secretary of State announced an ambitious programme to deliver a transformation of the electricity network to support energy security and the transition to net zero. This will include plans to halve the time taken to build new transmission infrastructure and will therefore reduce the time taken for viable projects to connect to the grid.

As we know, local objections have delayed many of these considerations. The Secretary of State also announced plans to introduce “a community benefits package” and

“a national communications campaign to improve public understanding of electricity infrastructure and its benefits”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/23; col. 22WS.]

to enable local communities to make the choice before them. Do we have any more idea what these community packages will look like or what the communications campaign will contain? Could the Minster update us on the proposals and inform us when they will be implemented?

15:32

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Swire for bringing forward this extremely important issue. It is right that we should debate it. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.

I remind noble Lords that the revised national policy statements for energy infrastructure, including a specific one with the catchy title of EN-5 on network infrastructure, came into force less than two months ago. Among other things, these set out the Government’s expectations for the use of undergrounding, which is the practice of laying electricity transmission cables underground and the subject of this debate.

That National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure states, as other noble Lords also recognised, that

“overhead lines should be the strong starting presumption for electricity networks developments in general”.

However, in nationally designated landscapes, such as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty—for example, Dedham Vale, which my noble friend mentioned—

“the strong starting presumption will be that”

developers

“should underground the relevant section of the line”.

That accounts for the importance of protecting the natural beauty of these areas. That strong starting presumption for overhead lines remains flexible, however, and undergrounding may be used in other areas in certain circumstances—namely, where there is

“a high potential for widespread adverse landscape and/or visual impacts”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, acknowledged this point.

I hope that my noble friends Lord Swire and Lord Effingham are at least partly reassured on the flexibility available in certain locations. Such decisions will be weighed up by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, my noble friend Lord Effingham asked what proportion of overhead cables will be replaced with underground ones. I can advise that only those in protected landscapes would be. It is a relatively small or modest proportion. We acknowledge the beauty of our areas of outstanding natural beauty, hence our starting presumption of undergrounding in these areas.

My noble friends also asked about communications with Ofgem. I am not aware of any specific discussions that we have had with it on the possibility of increasing funding for the visual impact provision projected by the energy industry, but my officials will go back to Ofgem and I will write if we discover any further information or discussions on that subject.

The Government arrived at this policy position for various technical, operational, environmental and, of course, cost reasons. I seek the indulgence of the Committee to talk noble Lords through them, but before we delve into the depths of underground cables, if noble Lords will forgive the pun, and before I turn to the specific points raised I will give some context to the debate.

As Members of the Committee and, I assume, everyone taking part in this debate will know, the Government remain committed to our net-zero targets. To get there, we are accelerating domestic energy production. However, it is similarly critical that we expand our network infrastructure—a point recognised by all noble Lords. Without that, how are we to get the electricity generated in the North Sea, off the coast of Aberdeenshire and the rest of Scotland to the consumers who wish to use it?

To achieve this, we need to build about four times as much transmission infrastructure by 2030 as we built in the previous 30 years. I repeat that point: we need to build four times as much infrastructure by 2030—in five or six years’ time—as was built in the previous 30 years. It will require an estimated £40 billion to £60 billion of investment in our electricity transmission infrastructure by 2050. Let me be straight: in practice that will include building more overhead lines to connect supply to demand. I accept that will be an unpleasant pill to swallow for many in the Committee and, undoubtedly, within the country as a whole and some rural areas. However, it is one that we cannot shy away from.

The reason for that is that there are many benefits to so doing. Overhead lines are much easier to maintain. Trying to identify a fault in an underground cable is like finding a needle in a haystack, with multiple disruptive excavations needed, and often takes many weeks to complete. Overhead lines are much cheaper to build, as has been said. Some estimates suggest that undergrounding may be between five and 10 times more expensive, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned. Costs depend on the topography of an area and other factors. Those costs are ultimately passed on to consumers through their electricity bills. That is a difficult case to make to families up and down this country who are struggling with the cost of living, and it sets a high bar to meet for changing the Government’s policy.

I have talked about the urgent need to accelerate the deployment of new transmission infrastructure, and overhead lines are much quicker to build than underground lines. Some of us think that the time taken to build overground lines is long enough, but it would cost much more if we had to put them all underground. As noble Lords will well know, and have raised, time equals money and the longer the delays to rolling out transmission infrastructure, the higher developers’ constraint costs. Network constraints occur when the electricity transmission system is unable to transmit power to electricity users because the maximum capacity of the circuit is reached. The National Grid electricity system operator manages those constraints by paying generators to switch off or turn down in locations where the network is congested, and to switch on or turn off in locations closer to electricity users. Those constraint costs are ultimately passed on to consumers.

Analysis from National Grid indicates that, if delays to network build persist, annual constraint costs could rise from around £2 billion per year in 2022 to around £8 billion per year in the late 2020s. That would be the equivalent of an extra £80 per household per year. Undergrounding more of our essential transmission infrastructure would, I am afraid to say, only increase that cost to consumers even further.

Let me be clear that undergrounding has an important part to play in developing and delivering our critical network infrastructure, and is rightly the default starting position for protecting our most important landscapes, where overhead lines cannot be rerouted. This helps to mitigate the visual impact associated with overhead lines and pylons, which many communities are understandably concerned about—such as with those natural landscapes in East Anglia to which my noble friend Lord Swire referred. Burying cables underground, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, ably demonstrated and pointed out, also protects them against adverse weather conditions.

Another question that my noble friend Lord Effingham asked was about whether all future consultations on overhead lines can factor in the benefits of undergrounding. It is important for me to emphasise that developers, not government, are responsible for bringing forward the preferred design of an electricity networks project. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, asked how the balance was achieved in all cases by developers—and I assure the noble Baroness that developers take into account many things, including regulatory requirements, planning policy, cost, technical feasibility and environmental impacts. In doing so, it is all about striking a balance between all those different and often competing considerations. The consenting process considers and scrutinises those proposals. Undergrounding transmission is, I am afraid, not a simple change that can be made late in the process of a project’s development; it is something that needs to be considered very early in that process.

My noble friend also warned in his speech that something awful was about to happen to our countryside, by which I presume he is referring to the pipeline of overhead transmission infrastructure waiting to be built. It is equally important to emphasise that we must not downplay the environmental impacts of undergrounding. In fact, installing underground cables requires significant engineering works, which not only prolongs the construction time compared to overhead lines but causes significant damage to the surrounding area. The breadth of land needed for trench cabling, for example, is around the width of a football pitch. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about situating water pipes next to underground electricity cables, I am afraid that that might not be such an efficient prospect after all. Of course, it would serve only to widen that trench even wider.

I move on to the point about the environmental and ecological impacts of overhead cables. The environmental impact of undergrounding, as I said, can be significant and indeed permanent, not only during installation but during operation. It can, in essence, create a somewhat sterilised strip of land where there were once trees and hedgerows, causing habitat and species loss. We should ask ourselves whether that is a price worth paying because of the visual impact of overhead lines; we may have different opinions about that. As with many discussions and considerations of energy policy, it is about balancing out different risks and problems in every area.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but we have certainly had experience of quite a number of pipelines being laid from the north of Scotland right across Scotland. That was years ago, but you would not know where they are now. So, yes, there was disruption at the time, but it settled completely.

The Minister acknowledged as well that security of supply could be an issue. Is that a factor that should be weighed a bit more heavily where there are lines that are systematically prone to disruption on a regular basis, so that undergrounding might be a better offer?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Yes, I absolutely concede the noble Lord’s points but, given the modern policy environment and all the legal impacts, much energy infrastructure that was built many years ago would be very difficult to build today. In past generations, consumers were perhaps much more understanding of installations of nationally significant infrastructure than they are now. I absolutely accept the noble Lord’s point. In all these considerations, it is also about balance—balancing out competing factors, of which cost is one and convenience is another, but security of supply is an equal factor that also needs to be considered. I suspect that the noble Lord is probably considering the low-voltage distribution network rather than the high-voltage transmission aspect of the supply.

My noble friend Lord Swire talked about the different creative technologies available for laying underground cables and asked whether the Government had considered those factors. Ultimately, it is not for the Government to opine on those matters. Those innovative solutions are quite rightly being driven forward by industry and they are a brilliant example of how we can use such innovations to support the delivery of our energy infrastructure ambitions and our net-zero infrastructure. The transmission owners and others are the experts in this field and, of course, we will continue to liaise with and support them in their endeavours.

I hope I have—but I suspect I have not—succeeded in persuading noble Lords that undergrounding is far from being the silver bullet in our endeavour to expand our network transmission infrastructure and meet our net-zero targets. In fact, using underground rather than overhead lines may in some respects have the opposite effect and lead to more delays rather than fewer, given that the installation takes much longer. In some cases, the upfront costs are perhaps not worth it in the longer term, as my noble friend Lord Effingham suggested. In our bid to greatly expand our domestic energy production and meet the needs of households up and down the country, I am afraid that we need to act and build networks faster than we have ever done in the past.

It is for those reasons, which I have talked the Committee through, that the Government have decided to maintain our policy position of a starting presumption of overhead lines for electricity network developments in general. That is not to say that the Government stand idly by while communities living in the path of new transmission infrastructure are affected; it is quite the opposite. That is why, at last year’s Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced proposals for a community benefits scheme for communities living near transmission network infrastructure, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked about. The communications campaign is due this year and I invite the noble Baroness to get in touch directly so that we can provide more details on it.

I am afraid that I am running out of time, so I will move to my conclusion. I will write to noble Lords if I have not answered any of their points.

I do not need to tell the Committee that, as with so many issues, no policy is etched in stone indefinitely. In fact, the Government would not be doing our job properly if we did not keep policies under review. However, that falls far short of committing to look again at the Government’s current policy on undergrounding less than two months after it came into force. Now is not the time. The Government can determine whether this should be reassessed if and when more evidence is provided by industry. For now, the best place for the majority of transmission infrastructure is—I am sorry to say—up in the air, for technical, operational, environmental and cost reasons and, most importantly, to protect consumer bills.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

May I ask for a written response with reference to the community benefit packages and the consultation package, just to give us an update? Several months have gone by and we should be moving on this.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness on that matter.

15:49

Sitting suspended.

Myanmar: Health System

Thursday 29th February 2024 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:00

Asked by

[Lord Crisp]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role that the United Kingdom could play in supporting health workers in Myanmar and contributing to the reconstruction of the country’s health system.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords taking part in this debate, many of whom know Myanmar much better than I do. I also thank the people who produced briefings for us, because we got some very good briefings from a number of different sources.

My locus in this is my interest in global health. I am also patron of THET, which I ought to declare as an interest and which I will refer to later. I want the debate to raise the profile of the health crisis in Myanmar, to discuss what can be done to support health workers now and to contribute to the reconstruction of the country’s health system, which has been very largely destroyed over the last few years.

I will not dwell on the wider situation: the coup just over three years ago, the extraordinary repression and violence, the attacks on citizens, and the persecution of the Rohingya and other minorities, with the Gambia’s referral, supported by the UK, to the International Court of Justice on the basis of genocide. For the purpose of this debate, my focus is on the way that health workers and health facilities have been targeted.

To give just a few figures, health workers were among the first people to object and create the civil disobedience movement in Myanmar. Some 50% of health workers in the country were or are part of that movement. As a result, they have been targeted. Since the coup, there is documented evidence of at least 104 being killed and at least 870 being detained, and of 1,127 attacks on health facilities. These figures will be at a lower level, because these are the documented cases. I am sure that there will be others.

That is accompanied by the declining health of the population. In the World Health Organization’s estimate, a third of the population is in need and 12 million will need humanitarian health assistance in 2024. Some 2.6 million people are internally displaced within the country. Just as an indicator, perinatal deaths have been going up and vaccination rates are down by about 50% for children. This is a dire health emergency, which is affecting health workers as well as the health of the people in the nation.

A month ago, I had the privilege to be one of a number of parliamentarians from both Houses, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who had a Zoom meeting with four nurses in different parts of northern Myanmar. It was deeply impressive: these people were essentially in hiding but providing support to their local communities —not in proper facilities, but in whatever facilities they could find. They were really impressive. It was incredibly moving and horrifying, and they were incredibly brave. I think all of us came away asking what we could do to help.

Part of what I want to do is relay what the nurses said to us was needed. First, they were very grateful to the UK. They recognised what the UK has been doing. Indeed, I have seen the replies to the Parliamentary Questions from Fiona Bruce MP, which have just come out, and can see that the Government are indeed taking this very seriously.

The nurses were also very grateful to the Myanmar clinicians who were supporting them from this country through the internet and through training. Part of this is being co-ordinated through THET, the organisation I mentioned earlier. It does impressive work. THET loosely co-ordinates 20 health organisations in the UK and a number of individuals who, between them, have supported training of health workers in the country, because the medical and nursing facilities have been destroyed in a number of places, and with telehealth consultations.

The numbers here are impressive. Something like 2,000 medical students have been supported through their training, and 59 clinicians have gone through training for faculty development to increase the ability to train people outside the traditional medical schools, if you like. Some 280 GPs have been supported in 50 townships. On the telemedicine side, THET regularly runs 24 specialist and four general clinics, and has seen 158,000 patients over the three years. Clinicians in the UK, some of whom are from Myanmar and some are UK citizens, have been making this contribution; it is a big contribution, and they are very grateful to those people for that. There are other groups from the UK, particularly at the border and in the north, who are working on the ground. They represent the great links that there are between the UK and Myanmar.

The nurses, first, wanted their voices heard. In the circumstances where we have Gaza and Ukraine, it is not surprising that they feel that they have slipped off the agenda and want to be heard. They want the UK to do even more in international fora to raise the issues that they are facing and give this a much higher profile.

I shall ask the Minister some questions. First, what can the UK do to raise the profile more in international organisations and with international organisations? Secondly, the nurses are asking for humanitarian corridors to be set up so they can properly support the civilian population. I note that Thailand has reached an agreement with the junta and has taken the initiative about creating some humanitarian corridors, but I also note that there is some controversy about the safety of this. One question for us is how the UK can support the development of humanitarian corridors, and what the UK can do to monitor that they are actually safe and not, in some sense, a trap developed by the junta.

Thirdly, the nurses wanted more aid into the country. There are two questions here. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why there was a cut in aid to Myanmar in the past year and what that was about. Furthermore, they were particularly asking about having more direct aid, not aid going through junta control—more aid reaching people in the increasingly large parts of the country where the junta is simply not in control. I expect that other noble Lords will raise this, but there is certainly demand for different methods of getting aid there. Is it time to relook at what is happening? A lot of the aid is going through international organisations and directly through the junta. Could the Minister provide some thoughts about why the aid was cut and how more aid could be provided directly to the people, without going through the junta?

Fifthly, they want more of the clinician-to-clinician help that I was talking about earlier, which is partly co-ordinated through THET, and some real recognition of the immense amount of work done by the four nurses. Their relationships with nurses in this country are incredibly important to them in terms of support and solidarity, but there are also very practical things that you can do through the internet today, which you cannot do in other ways. Will the Minister consider looking at what more support can be provided to these UK and Myanmar clinicians in this country, who are providing this direct clinical support to clinicians in Myanmar?

In summing up, the situation is appalling and is clearly deteriorating. The civil war is developing, which will have a very long-term impact on the country. At some point, there will presumably be a very long recovery programme. I hope that the UK can be part of that and play a leading role.

The UK is doing a lot at the moment, through the Government, and the nurses wanted us particularly to stress that and all the useful support of the individuals and institutions that are around and have been providing this direct support, clinician to clinician. In requesting this debate and, subsequently, a meeting with the Minister, I wanted to ask whether the UK Government could think about what more it could do—and, of course, for him to answer my five questions.

16:09

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, very much for initiating this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to those very pertinent and direct questions.

I have been involved with Myanmar, one way or another, for about 15 years. The first time was when the junta were in charge before. Although I was not able to visit the country, the International Development Committee, of which I was chair, went to a camp on the Thai border where we got a very direct insight into the appalling way in which the junta and the generals were treating their own civilians, for whom they seem to have nothing but contempt. The UK Government at that time were supporting the delivery of medicines through a whole variety of routes, obviously by focusing on diseases such as malaria and TB, but also anything and everything else that they could get. It is probably better not to publicise how they managed it, but they did.

I then had the opportunity to return to Myanmar, after the generals had backed off and the reforms towards democracy were in place. Initially, I went with a cross-party group led by John Bercow, the Speaker, who had also been a very active campaigner on the Burma/Myanmar situation. We were part of that group, along with Fiona Bruce MP and Valerie Vaz MP, and we travelled extensively across the country at a time of hope.

Subsequently, as things improved, I was able to engage with committees in the Myanmar Parliament, under the auspices of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, for which I should obviously declare an interest, having been supported by it to do that. Interestingly enough, my role at the time was in mentoring committees in how they could promote reform and deliver on policy. In particular, I engaged with two of the health committees, which were keenly focused on building up a service which would deliver for people across the country.

What was interesting was that these committees were chaired by medical practitioners who had been in exile and had come back, as they put it, to help the lady. That was how they expressed it. What was shocking was that when they arrived back, they found that the health system was pretty well non-existent. To the extent that there was any healthcare, it was provided only to support the mates of the generals. It was not really going to the people in need.

I have to express a little frustration there was at the time, because very good insights, reports and recommendations were produced by those MPs, but they were frustrated in getting any action from the Government there. I was really disappointed to hear that most of them said they had never met Aung San Suu Kyi, even though they were MPs in her party. They had real difficulty getting action. It is such a pity that things that could perhaps have been done were not done. The point, at the end of the day, was that they were beginning to build back a health service and focusing on how to do that in a fair and objective way. I was in the middle of an inquiry on trying to do just that. Obviously, we reached the situation where all that was swept aside as the generals came back and did what they are now doing.

That previous experience we had as DfID, operating for the UK through both Thailand and where we could within Myanmar, was really effective at reaching people. The situation has changed but there must be experiences there which are valid as to how we can get things through. Also, the junta are not having it all their own way. Unlike the way they were in control previously, it is a civil war now, and parts of the country are clearly not under the generals’ control where we can and should get access. We can support people there, and have to find ways of getting to people in areas where it is more difficult.

It is a matter of experience and ingenuity. We have done it in the past and should do it again. Clearly, it breaks anybody’s heart to see a Government, if you can call them that, who have such little interest in the welfare of their people. It is quite the reverse; they are hostile and the enemy of the people. Their interest in education and health is absolute zero, apart from for themselves, and they are literally destroying that infrastructure. We have got to do everything we can to help people. We can do it and have done it in the past. We could do it again and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some positive replies.

16:14

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Crisp, both for securing this important Question for Short Debate and for his long and distinguished career in global healthcare and international development. Last year, at his instigation, I took part in a call with health workers and nurses from Myanmar—I will refer to it as Burma, during the debate. That meeting was dramatically interrupted by a cyberattack, which reinforced some of the issues that we were talking about and the fears and anxieties of some who were on the call. From what my noble friend has said to us, it is clear that the situation has not improved and has only worsened, in the meantime.

I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Burma and the Rohingya, and as patron of the Epiphany Trust, which supports humanitarian projects along the Burma/Thailand border.

I first visited Burma—illegally—in 1998, when I met the Karen refugees and internally displaced people on the border. It led to a subsequent letter to me from Lady Mountbatten of Burma, which touched me enormously. She talked about her father’s high regard for the Karen people, whom she described as “our forgotten allies”.

On subsequent visits, I met Aung San Suu Kyi, who is now incarcerated with thousands of other political prisoners. Reports of her poor health in prison, and the concerns that emerged last year that she was being denied proper medical attention, are deeply alarming. Until very recently her son, Kim Aris—I request of the Minister that the Foreign Secretary should meet him—had no contact with his mother and did not know whether his letters and parcels to her were reaching her. A recent letter to her son was, he said, the first confirmation that his mother is still alive.

Since the coup, over 26,000 people have been arrested and over 20,000 political prisoners remain in jail. Their conditions, including inadequate healthcare, are appalling. The humanitarian crisis in the ethnic states is even more shocking with, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the military engaged in a brutal campaign of air strikes, bombardment and ground attacks against civilians, with devastating consequences. At least 2 million people are internally displaced and thousands more have fled across borders to neighbouring countries.

This week, I received a letter from the UNHCR representative in Bangladesh, Sumbul Rizvi. She described the plight of Rohingya refugees from Burma who fled across the border and are in Cox’s Bazar, and said there had been a 179% increase in serious protection incidents, including 88 killings, torture, abductions and sexual-based violence. What impact will reduced humanitarian aid have on their protection and well-being?

The military is also committing barbaric atrocity crimes at a level of intensity not previously seen. Thousands have been killed. Hospitals and clinics, as well as schools and churches, have been bombed. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, says that the junta’s crimes include

“burning them alive, dismembering, raping, beheading, bludgeoning, and using abducted villagers”

as human minesweepers. He says that it is

“inhumanity in its vilest form”.

According to the UN, at least 18 million people in Burma—one-third of the population—are now in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. The World Health Organization says that the entire population of 56 million are now facing some level of need, with at least 12 million people in need of humanitarian health assistance this year.

The military regime has directly and deliberately targeted the health system and health workers, as my noble friend described. New restrictive laws target NGOs and health providers. The Government have imposed sanctions, which I welcome, as do my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, but are we still trying to put Burma back on the Security Council agenda? Perhaps the Minister could tell us what discussions are being had with the UN Secretary-General about what more he could do to address the crisis.

We should increase efforts to seek the enforcement of a global arms embargo and, in particular, co-ordinate with like-minded countries on sanctions on aviation fuel, which would be a very practical and much-needed measure to impede the military’s ability to bomb civilians.

Lastly, will the Government urgently increase funding for humanitarian aid? Can the Minister tell us precisely what this year’s figures are, particularly for cross-border help for healthcare initiatives in the border areas to help internally displaced people and to provide much-needed healthcare for those displaced by conflict, including the Rohingya, who have been forced to flee the genocide unleashed upon them? If the Minister has not seen the letter that I received from the UNHCR this week, I would be very happy to share it with him. I have tabled Written Parliamentary Questions to him; if he is unable to give the answers today, I will look forward to reading them in due course.

16:20

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and to very much agree with his points in terms of the need for more diplomatic action on sanctions on aviation fuel and small steps we can take to stop the flow of arms that are being used to repress the Burmese population. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate. Unfortunately, I was not on that call with the nurses but, given what I heard today, I can only pay tribute to them. I have encountered other people in similar situations who can be utterly amazing.

My connection is that I was in Rakhine state in the late 1990s, up country in the amazing archaeological site of Mrauk-U, where the only other westerners in town were two Médecins Sans Frontières doctors. That was a testimony to the state of the medical system then in that poverty-stricken part of Burma.

I do not wish to repeat the points that others have made but will focus on two issues. One of them arises from what I was doing last night: I was with the High Commissioners of Barbados and Bangladesh, the Ineos Oxford Institute, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and the APPG on Antimicrobial Resistance. The meeting was preparing for the forthcoming high-level meeting in September of the General Assembly on the issue of antimicrobial resistance. I wish to cross-reference that with a couple of matters. One is the fact that there is increasing research coming mostly out of the Middle East that shows how AMR can be amplified by the impact of modern, heavy weapons, involving heavy metals going into the environment. That can induce resistance to antibiotics in microbes in the environment. There is also an increasingly amount of research that shows how AMR is strongly related to conflict. Obviously, that is partly due to the breakdown of medical systems, wounds that become infected for long periods, and so on. However, there is also increasing understanding about the impact of weapons.

As regards the issue of antimicrobial resistance, a figure that I suspect may shock even the knowledgeable noble Lords in this Committee is that about 50% of medical facilities in the world do not have running water. Wash water and sanitation are crucial. One would think that they are basic in 2024 but I have no doubt that these fundamental issues are enormous in Burma.

My direct question to the Minister—I will understand if he does not have an answer now—is: what are the Government doing as regards three key matters in the AMR area in terms of Burma? What is being done to support the provision of wash facilities, water and sanitation? What can be done to support provision of the appropriate antibiotics? Often in those situations, people just buy whatever antibiotics they can find, which may amplify problems. What can be done to increase the capacity for diagnostics that can operate at a small level, so that, crucially, one can test infections and find what antibiotics they are susceptible to and which they are resistant to? Then one can use the correct antibiotics. So, either now or later, perhaps the Minister can tell me of any work being done in that AMR space, which is getting much global focus this year, in terms of Burma.

I want to look at that, too, in the broader sense. I was in Burma many years ago with the World Health Organization, looking at the process of writing a report on women’s health. One of my more unusual claims to fame is that I appeared on the front page of the New Light of Myanmar shaking hands with the Health Minister. One might say that that was the previous junta’s propaganda rag. I did not have any choice in that. However, seriously, my question is about focus on women’s health and the efforts being made. We know that that issue is crucial to the health of whole communities but it often gets ignored. Rather more broadly, the focus on women’s education and the provision of support for women in those conflict zones and circumstances can be tremendously difficult.

Just as an example, some women from Afghanistan who I have heard from recently were working very hard to provide education—where girls are being denied it—by Zoom. Those technological means are open practically anywhere now. Is any work being done to support women’s education in Burma?

16:25

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this important debate and for his commitment to raising the profile of this important issue. This time nearly a year ago, the noble Lord asked an Oral Question about health workers in Myanmar in your Lordships’ House. The picture then was stark, but NGOs agree that in the intervening year, the situation has deteriorated further.

As we have heard, 104 health workers have lost their lives and many more have been detained in the three years since the coup. Although I certainly echo the congratulations to the UK Government on a number of impactful training and partnership programmes, it is clear that more needs to be done. We have heard about the appalling attacks on health workers, which have rightly been thoroughly condemned. However, it is important too to consider the broader humanitarian situation and its impact on the country’s health system. I do not personally have any specific connection with Myanmar but, like many others, I have a concern for how this country can play a positive part in places in the world that are suffering humanitarian disasters and injustice.

To emphasise what other noble Lords have said, we know that where there is internal displacement and humanitarian need, it can become all but impossible to access reliable and high-quality healthcare. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health describes Myanmar’s health system as having all but collapsed, while the number of internally displaced people has now risen to over 2.5 million. In such situations, how is it possible for adequate healthcare provision to be made?

Communicable diseases are on the rise and progress that had been made against diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis has been reversed. Infectious diseases invariably spike in times of humanitarian crisis. Between 2019 and 2022, there was a sevenfold increase in malaria cases in the country, which can primarily be attributed to unrest and a weakened health system. This is having a knock-on effect on neighbouring Thailand, where cases more than doubled over the same period. Displaced people are crossing the border to seek the medical treatment that they cannot access in their own country.

The UK is a significant funder of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. What steps, then, does the Minister think can be taken to ensure that interventions from multilateral organisations such as the Global Fund can be accessed by those who need them in Myanmar? What other interventions, multilateral or bilateral, might effectively be offered by the UK to alleviate the pressing medical need?

The long-term effects of depriving anyone of healthcare, particularly children—I am not sure that they have been mentioned yet—cannot be overstated. Children are not receiving vaccines; that could have an impact on them for the rest of their lives. The WHO has described Myanmar as having one of the lowest health worker availability levels in the whole region. I echo the calls from noble Lords for increased humanitarian aid to tackle immediate need, but might the Minister also be able to report on how the Government might support efforts to build up a larger healthcare workforce in the country for the longer-term?

16:29

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate gave me an idea and I was about to write something down, but it is too late.

There are wars we follow on television every day and there are hidden wars, as in Myanmar. We owe a huge debt to my noble friend for focusing on the plight of the health services there. Knowing him quite well, I am sure he will not let this subject go.

I have some nostalgia joining this debate as it takes me back to two visits on behalf of Christian Aid in the 1980s. One was to the Thai border to see how the UN and NGOs managed to successfully reach the ethnic minorities, which they still do with great difficulty. The second visit was to Mandalay, where my host was a famous Karen soldier called Saw Lader. He fought with the British on two expeditions with the Chindits and won the MC. Later, I came to learn of the extraordinary courage and endurance of the people of Myanmar, personified by people such as Aung San Suu Kyi. Now, as we have heard, since the 2021 coup, innocent people, including doctors and nurses, have had to face an onslaught from their own Government.

What we have been watching daily in Gaza is the politicisation of health and education—the destruction of services which were already of a high standard. Something similar is happening in Sudan. In Myanmar, it is an outright attack on the very people charged with the physical and mental care of their compatriots. They are seen by the army as legitimate targets simply because these workers, many of whom are from ethnic minorities, are protecting their own patients and institutions. Then there is conscription, which is finally being enforced and causing a lot of distress to families.

The world needs to protest louder if the people of Myanmar are going to be heard. Thankfully, the FCDO has been quite active. Anne-Marie Trevelyan sounded the alarm a year ago when she said that the 2021 coup had led to millions needing assistance—16 million after two years. These numbers are going up. OCHA now estimates that 18.6 million are in need, about one-third of the population. Millions are displaced, and about 6 million children are cut off from education and healthcare. This also directly hits the national immunisation campaign. Then there is the problem of training, which has fallen away.

We have already heard the shocking figures for the number of outright attacks on health workers. Of course, the numbers are impossible to verify, but there can be no doubt that nurses and doctors, whether or not they protest openly, are being targeted like armed forces. Many have now left institutions for fear of being attacked, and they have to work through much smaller teams.

Despite the ravages of the pandemic, which is also an important factor, health workers are professionally well organised and have set up a shadow health service—a network of volunteers who were part of the National Unity Government, before they were closed down. They have also been skilled fundraisers through NGOs—I know that, like me, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, values the weight of NGOs in development—and international contacts, even recruiting staff to work behind the lines.

However, the army is resorting to brutal methods. Our own medical teams are risking their lives. We must do all we can to raise this issue in Parliament. Internal protest and resistance in any country may be perceived as insurrection. The same is happening in Gaza. As outsiders, we should never be deceived by this idea ourselves.

16:34

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I appreciate being allowed to speak briefly in the gap. Some of us will have had the pleasure—indeed, the overwhelming experience—of hearing Aung San Suu Kyi when she addressed both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. A gentle light of hope emanated. Now, we see a country that is almost in freefall, with so much collapsing. There has been a collapse in health care, maternal mortality has increased to a level that one could not have imagined, and there has been such a drop in immunisation, as has been said, that infections are rife.

I was privileged to be on the call that has been referred to, and prior to that had been on a call with doctors from that country. They were risking their lives simply to tell us what was going on. They knew that if they were traced, they would be no more. They knew that their families were at risk. Many of them leave their families to go to provide health care to others, because they cannot bear to see their country’s collapse.

The attacks against hospitals are appalling. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is providing support through its global mechanisms, as other organisations are. I hope the BMA will raise this with the World Medical Association. We cannot just leave this. The journalists cannot get the images out, so we have quite a problem, because people do not realise just how terrible the situation is.

Even drivers transporting medicines are arrested, so trying to move supplies around is really difficult. It all has to be done subtly and underhand. If any of these people are caught, I am afraid that families sometimes find their family member delivered to their front door the next morning, dead. It is awful.

We cannot not intervene somehow. Many of the hospitals that are being bombed could do with early warning systems to detect aircraft, so that people can at least seek shelter. At the moment, they cannot.

16:36

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate and pay tribute to him for all his work on global health. I am a former trustee of THET and am very glad to hear that it is playing a major part.

As we have heard, the situation in Myanmar is very worrying. Various noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bruce, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, have demonstrated their personal knowledge of that country. Health workers should be protected under international law. We have seen that in the debates on Gaza. Certainly in Myanmar, health workers and health facilities, far from being protected, have become a particular target. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, many health workers resisted military rule, but most have sought to assist those who have been wounded by the military. Burma Campaign UK notes that they faced beatings, arrest, torture and death.

It is therefore not surprising that many health workers have sought to escape to areas beyond the control of ethnic armed organisations. We hear that, once there, some health workers have joined existing health networks, some have established new clinics and others may have joined new armed forces set up by the resistance. We have heard today how the military has targeted clinics and hospitals in areas not under their control with deliberate and repeated attacks. We just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the effects of this.

The health service was not strong before the military action, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, had been working to strengthen it over a period of years. Having been asked to set up a hospital, he recognised the need for a whole health service, which he worked on delivering. My noble friend Lord Bruce spoke of those who returned to Myanmar to help rebuild the country. It is desperately sad that this has come to absolutely nothing.

As in other countries, the pandemic affected medical and allied health professional universities and training schools in Myanmar. This resulted in the closure of all training institutions in 2020, with no graduation of the health workforce. Since the coup, Myanmar’s health provision has been further severely damaged. The BMA and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—we have heard about their efforts—are working in Myanmar and note that, since the military coup in February 2021, the health service has largely collapsed, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said. The number of skilled birth attendants has fallen, infant mortality has risen, and acute malnutrition has shot up. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others have said, vaccination rates have fallen dramatically—below 50% of the relevant population in 2021—leaving Myanmar open to large-scale disease outbreaks and unprotected against potential new pandemic diseases. Does the Minister see this as undermining global health security? How might it be tackled? I note the warning that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just issued.

There has been an increase in violence, including against women and girls. Is the FCDO monitoring this, and what is being done to ensure that women and girls have access to family planning? Noble Lords detailed the kinds of attacks, and I see that 385 attacks were recorded against healthcare infrastructure or personnel, in direct contravention of international humanitarian law. The WHO said that the number of people in need of humanitarian health assistance was estimated at 10 million in 2023. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has updated this to 12 million this year—four times the previous rate.

Routine disease surveillance systems have become dilapidated, raising the risk of Myanmar becoming an ungoverned source of potential new pandemic emergence, threatening economic recovery in the region and globally. But the UK’s long engagement in Myanmar has been hit by a 70% decrease in funding. Could the Minister say whether this will be reversed?

Civil society organisations have proposed bans on aviation fuel, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just mentioned, which would hinder the military’s campaign. Could the Minister comment? It is difficult to get aid into conflict areas; it is always a problem. Could the Minister comment on how this is being tackled? I look forward to his replies.

16:41

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for initiating this debate on an area which we often take our eyes off. The situation is pretty dire. I also welcome the Government’s continued support for NHS partners through the Tropical Health and Education Trust. As the noble Lord said, many of those clinicians are Burmese, and are helping their friends and colleagues there—they do a tremendous job—but also serving the NHS. We should not forget that.

The military are widely opposed by the public and have been accused of war crimes against their own people. Two-thirds of the country is gripped by conflict. The military now appears to have lost control of the country. Of course, the Covid pandemic and military coup left in ruins the already minimal healthcare system in the country. As we have heard in the debate, following the post-coup crackdown on peaceful protests, health workers created informal networks to help to treat those injured by the military. They then become the targets and face beatings, arrest and torture. Fleeing those military-controlled towns and cities, they work with other organisations—some join new armed forces set up by the resistance and civil society organisations.

However, as we have heard, most aid, including for healthcare, is channelled via the military-controlled Yangon and then to international and UN agencies. As was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I ask the Minister what assessment the FCDO has made of the effectiveness of aid going through the ever-shrinking areas of Myanmar that are still under military control. While there is now some welcome flexibility in the way that aid is being delivered, there is a case for a complete review of how it reaches those most in need. They are very often not in those military-controlled areas.

I want to touch on another issue. Despite UN Resolution 2669, the Myanmar military has been targeting clinics and hospitals in areas that are not under its control, with deliberate and repeated air strikes and artillery attacks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, many civil society organisations in Myanmar have repeatedly called for sectoral sanctions to limit deliveries of aviation fuel to Myanmar. I know what the Minister will say when we ask for additional sanctions—that we do not normally announce these in advance. However, I hope that he will address the issue of what we are doing with our allies to reduce the Myanmar military’s access to aviation fuel. What other support can we give those health centres in terms of an advance warning system? With those few comments, I hope that the Minister is able to respond to the questions in the debate.

16:45

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I have known for many years, for tabling this debate. I know his commitment to this cause, among many others, and I thank him for his dedication to healthcare provision in his role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health. I also thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.

As the humanitarian situation in Myanmar continues to deteriorate and the Myanmar military commit more and more atrocities against innocent civilians, this debate is timely. A number of noble Lords asked how we can give voice to the healthcare workers doing incredibly courageous work, despite the regime. In a small way, this debate does just that, but we want to give much more voice to what they are doing. I pay tribute to those health workers, who continue to demonstrate true heroism in hugely challenging circumstances.

I too commend our partners in the UK, including THET, with which the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, works closely, as we know, for working tirelessly to support Myanmar’s fragile health system. Its work makes it possible for doctors and nurses to provide life-saving assistance to vulnerable adults and children, and we are proud to support it. We have to appreciate the benefit of technology, despite the cyberattack that was mentioned, and the diagnostics that are now available online. We hope that we can continue to support THET. I also recognise the work of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to support nurses in Myanmar, which is enormously important. This addresses some of the points that have been raised about women and girls, sexual health and paediatrics. It is so important that those are supported.

The Government remain deeply concerned about healthcare provision in Myanmar. Since the coup in February 2021, the healthcare system has collapsed and many are unable to access even the most basic services. Child immunisation has fallen significantly, creating the potential for a regional health crisis, and there is limited support for pregnant women, increasing the risks to them and their children. Humanitarian access is challenging, with many parts of the country cut off to the UN and international NGOs.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Northover, made a key point: on top of this, the military continue to target healthcare workers and undertake air attacks, striking hospitals and demoralising the civilian population, as well as injuring and killing healthcare workers. Indeed, according to the World Health Organization, there were 385 attacks against healthcare infrastructure between February 2021 and August last year.

The UK is a leading donor in the response to the humanitarian situation in Myanmar. Despite the substantial operational challenges, that includes work to support the healthcare system. Since the coup, we have provided approximately £125 million in life-saving assistance, supporting those affected by conflict and displacement and providing emergency healthcare and education. The UK is working with local partners to access remote and conflict-affected areas of the country and respond to the Myanmar people’s most pressing health needs.

The UK is the largest funder of the multilateral Access to Health Fund, which we also chair. In answer to the key point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, over 80% of the funding goes directly to local healthcare providers within Myanmar, providing assistance and training to help increase their resilience. These programmes have provided essential health services to approximately 3.3 million vulnerable individuals in 154 townships in Myanmar over the last five years. More than half a million women and children have received maternal, newborn and child health services—a key point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

Over a million people have received education and health services promoting the well-being and rights of women. Some 36,000 children under five and over 6,000 pregnant women in opposition-held areas have received vaccinations. In the wake of the coup, we have had to alter our approach in Myanmar. We shifted away from working with the authorities and created new partnerships with local civil society organisations. The UK has been a pioneer in working with local organisations in Myanmar, allowing us to serve the most vulnerable in areas that other donors simply cannot reach and to respond rapidly to emerging crises by empowering first responders.

In October last year, when new conflicts broke out in the north-east, our pre-existing relationships with local partners enabled us to make a difference immediately. In the first week alone, UK government support reached 18,000 people affected by the conflict. As well as responding to immediate needs, our work with local organisations is designed to support the construction of a much more comprehensive healthcare system for the future of Myanmar—a key point made by a number of noble Lords. Many of our programmes provide supplies and funding to organisations employing doctors and nurses who do not want to support the regime but are committed to serving the people of Myanmar. Our assistance makes it possible for them to continue to respond to the substantial needs of their communities, even when access is constrained. All that sits alongside the training we offer to improve their skills, expertise and capacity.

The UK Health Partnership Scheme, which is delivered through our excellent partner, the Tropical Health and Education Trust, leverages British expertise to address healthcare workforce challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is a patron of that. We have improved the quality of healthcare provision in Myanmar by offering training to 3,000 nurses and by providing healthcare workers with access to learning materials online. We have supplied direct medical services to some of the most vulnerable people, including migrants, and women and girls in volatile areas, through telemedicine services and digital healthcare. This has provided 94% of the population with access to some type of qualified health professional.

A point was raised about the Thailand corridors. We are looking closely at that and will seek to use them as and when they are available but there is some doubt, as was said, about how that agreement will work.

The groups that we support champion a peaceful, inclusive and democratic vision for Myanmar that reflects the aspirations of its people. By assisting them, we are helping to build organisations that will become the backbone of a future healthcare system in that country. Indeed, the UK plays a crucial role on the international stage, encouraging international partners to channel more funding through local organisations, and sharing lessons from our work in order to create a strong, co-ordinated international effort to reconstruct Myanmar’s health system.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about Aung San Suu Kyi and her son. Her imprisonment is an affront to all who believe in the rights and freedoms that we expect around the world. Her son is as courageous as her but she is just one of a great many people who have been held by that Government quite illegally.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Before the Minister leaves that point, will he respond to the request from Kim Aris that he should have a meeting with the Foreign Secretary at some stage? Will the Minister at least relay that back to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I will certainly do that. A number of noble Lords asked about the support that we give. Spend in 2021-22 was reduced following the coup. The UK ceased providing funding for policy and capacity development to the Myanmar Government and prioritised humanitarian assistance, and direct support for healthcare and education. Spend rose in 2022, as the number of those in need of humanitarian assistance increased from around 1 million to 17.6 million as a result of the conflict and insecurity.

ODA spend in Myanmar decreased again in 2023-24 due to broader fiscal constraints but, given the unprecedented global humanitarian need, the UK has adjusted annual allocations for specific crises, including that in Myanmar. During 2023-24, the UK will have provided over £40 million in ODA support. This will increase as we return to 0.7% of GNI in, I hope, the near future. The UK is one of the leading donors to the country, having provided approximately £125 million in healthcare support.

A number of noble Lords asked about the diplomatic work that we are doing multilaterally. The UK is the penholder in the UN Security Council on this, and we have consistently demonstrated our ability to use the Security Council to keep the spotlight on the situation in Myanmar, particularly talking about the health of its population in the context of the insecurity created by this wicked regime.

A number of noble Lords asked about the Rohingya. The UK has continued to call for an end to the crisis, including through the UN Human Rights Council and UN Security Council. Earlier this month, we held a Security Council meeting calling for an end to violence in Myanmar and stressing the need to address the root causes of the crisis in Rakhine state and to ensure the conditions necessary for the voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of Rohingya refugees. We have done a lot more, and I do not have time to go through it today, but am very happy to talk to noble Lords more about this.

The UK is continuing to support women and girls through our efforts—and I wish that I had more time to go into that. However, the UK welcomes the Thai Government’s commitment to providing humanitarian assistance, and we are working through them to try to reach regime-controlled parts of the country.

On aviation fuel, we are looking to see how we can provide sanctions. We have sanctions against individuals and a great many members of the regime. If we can stop aviation fuel getting to the Myanmar regime’s air force, we will work with partners to achieve that.

There is a long tradition of Myanmar and British healthcare workers collaborating to bring benefits to both our countries. Indeed, 800 members of the Burmese diaspora in the UK work for the NHS, making an immeasurable contribution to our national life. Healthcare needs in Myanmar are increasing and healthcare professionals still face unacceptable threats. Yet in spite of all these challenges, we continue to leverage the UK’s substantial healthcare expertise to train doctors and nurses in Myanmar.

Our work alongside the Tropical Health and Education Trust enables UK health institutions to support medium and longer-term health workforce planning and the development of the ethnic health system. This is improving the quality of healthcare and is making a crucial step towards universal health coverage in Myanmar. When peace returns to that country, the UK will work with local healthcare organisations because we will have laid the foundations for a future healthcare system in Myanmar which can respond to all its people’s needs.

Committee adjourned at 4.58 pm.