House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.
Pet Abduction Bill
Friday 19th April 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pet Abduction Act 2024 View all Pet Abduction Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 April 2024 - (19 Apr 2024)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we begin, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of the debate on Report is the new clauses and amendments that have been selected. The scope of the Third Reading debate to follow will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points and then decide at which stage or stages they want to try to catch my eye.
New Clause 1
Guidance
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the enforcement of the provisions of this Act.
(2) Before issuing guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Crown Prosecution Service.”—(Sir Christopher Chope.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, after “if” insert “without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that an offence is only committed if the acts complained of are shown to have been made without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse, so that it is not necessary for the person alleged to have committed the offence to prove their innocence.
Amendment 2, page 1, line 3, after “to” insert “permanently”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that only acts where the dog is permanently removed from lawful control would fall under the offence.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 3, leave out “any person” and insert “its keeper”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that only where a dog is removed from the lawful control of its registered keeper falls under the offence, rather than removal from any person.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 5, after “to” insert “permanently”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that only acts where the dog is detained so as to permanently keep it would fall under the offence.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 5, leave out from “of” to end of line 6 and insert “its keeper”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that only where a dog is detained so as to keep it from its registered keeper falls under the offence.
Amendment 6, page 1, leave out lines 21 to 23.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 16, leave out “(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
“(aa) references to a dog are only to a dog which—
(i) has been implanted with a microchip pursuant to the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023; or
(ii) has been certified as exempt from such an implant under those Regulations”.
The above Regulations provide for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. This amendment ensures that the offence of dog abduction can only be made in respect of dogs which have been microchipped (or are certified as exempt) in accordance with those Regulations and will thereby incentivise keepers to comply with the rules about microchipping.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 34, at end insert—
“(aa) “keeper” has the meaning given to it under the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023”.
This amendment ensures that “keeper” is intended to have the same meaning as under the specified Regulations.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 39, leave out clause 2.
This amendment removes the offence of cat abduction.
Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out “or 2”.
This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.
Amendment 12, page 4, line 5, leave out “or 2”.
This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.
Amendment 13, page 4, line 8, leave out “or 2(5)”.
This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.
Amendment 14, page 4, line 38, leave out “or 2”.
This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.
Amendment 15, page 5, line 6, leave out “and 2”.
This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.
Amendment 19, page 5, line 6, leave out
“come into force in relation to England”.
and insert
“, so far as they extend to England and Wales, come into force”.
This is a technical amendment to ensure that it is clear how the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 operates in so far as those clauses extend to England and Wales (rather than just in relation to England).
Amendment 21, page 5, line 7, at end insert
“provided that the Secretary of State has fulfilled the requirement to publish the guidance required by section [Guidance]”.
Amendment 16, page 5, line 11, leave out “and 2”.
This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.
Amendment 20, page 5, line 11, leave out “in relation” and insert
“so far as they extend”.
This is a technical amendment to ensure that the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 is dealt with in the same way throughout clause 6.
Sir Christopher Chope
Before I begin to address the issues, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I, on behalf of myself and many others, express our condolences to Mr Speaker, who I know is unable to be present today because he is attending his father’s funeral? I had the privilege of serving with Doug Hoyle in this House from 1983 until 1992, and he was an exemplar for Back-Bench activity during that time. Our sympathies are very much with Mr Speaker.
Turning to the amendments, and particularly new clause 1, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, with whom I was privileged to have a meeting last week to discuss my amendments. They will have a better understanding of the way I work than quite a lot of other colleagues. I am pleased that as a result of that meeting there was essentially an agreement—an acceptance—that we must try to link communications about the appalling incidents of pet abduction or theft to the need for people to microchip their loved animals, particularly dogs and cats. In the course of that discussion, it was pointed out by the Minister of State that before the Bill is to become law, it will be necessary for guidance to be discussed with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding exactly what the enforcement provisions would be. I hope that in responding to this debate, my right hon. Friend will expand on that point.
Following that discussion, I thought I would table a new clause about guidance, so that any references in the debate could include references to the specific issue of guidance that would be issued following the enactment of the Bill. I would like that guidance to set out clearly the position for people who do not microchip their cats and dogs. Microchipping of dogs is mandatory and has been since 2010, but we know that something between 5% and 10% of the 9.5 million dogs in this country are not microchipped. In early June, it will be mandatory for all cats to be microchipped, and probably about 70% have been microchipped by now.
I hope that we can send out a message, in discussing this important legislation, that if someone does not have their cat or dog microchipped, they should not expect the law to rush to their assistance in the event of their cat or dog being abducted. Apart from anything else, if they complain to the police that their dog or cat has been abducted and it has not been microchipped, it is all the more difficult to identify it, search for it and so on. On that great principle of English equity, it seems to me that if someone seeks the protection of the law, they should come with clean hands. In this context, that means they should be able to say that they have complied with the law in respect of the pets for which they have responsibility and have microchipped them. I hope people will realise that if they do not—I hope that the Government will point this out in the guidance—have their pets microchipped, they will not be able to take advantage of the benefits and special provisions in this legislation.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fair point that if people want help when their dogs have been stolen, they should have them properly chipped in accordance with the regulations. I do not think puppies are included in that. It is important that we think about the pet owners for whom we are trying to get this Bill through. I know that he is not seeking in any way to block it, but these people would almost certainly have complied with the law, and I understand that the amendment would make it far more difficult for the police. While I understand the sentiments, I hope he will not press this to a Division.
Sir Christopher Chope
I will hold my counsel on that until I hear the Minister’s response. If I said now that I agree with the Minister before he has even said anything, I would be closing off an important option. Despite the temptation from my right hon. Friend, I will not do that. She herself has said to me in private that she thinks there is a lot to be said for what I am trying to achieve on microchipping. I have a specific amendment linking microchipping to the text of the Bill. The guidance is perhaps another way of achieving the same objective.
My right hon. Friend reminds me that when the Bill came out of Committee, it was originally put on the list of Bills to be considered without debate on a Friday, on the basis that everything that could have been said about it had already been said and it should now proceed directly to the statute book. It was with wry amusement that I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), the promotor of the Bill, has now taken advantage of the opportunity provided by having a debate on Report to put down her own amendments to the Bill. She could not have done that if her original intention of having the Bill go through all remaining stages on the nod had been implemented. I hope she will thank me for that.
Since the Bill was first produced, the Government have brought forward some important new measures related to microchipping to deal with the problems of the conflicting or complementary microchipping databases. The pet theft taskforce was commissioned to look into these issues of pet abduction, and it strongly recommended that something be done to ensure that there is one consistent database for microchipping that is accessible to vets, the police and local authorities. I was pleased to see that the Government have issued guidance, and that there will potentially be new regulations, on that. When we met, the Minister told me that that will come into force before the end of this year. Hopefully that will make the use of the microchip database easier and reduce the costs of enforcement.
Obviously, the priority that a Bill or an issue has in the House depends largely on the views of right hon. and hon. Members. The Government obviously believe that pet abduction is an important issue, as indeed it is, but we need to keep it in context with the burden on the enforcement authorities of bringing in new laws and, with that, new penalties and essentially new pressure for prosecutions. That is why the guidance will be important.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Perhaps he might consider that the instances of motor vehicles being stolen to order are a symptom of organised crime, just as we recognise that pet theft is now a key contributor to organised crime.
Sir Christopher Chope
I accept that behind the incidence of pet theft there is organised crime, but in the latest figures that we have, that organised crime has resulted in only some 2,000 incidents of dog theft, compared with more than 130,000 incidents of motor vehicle theft, many of which have been stolen to order. I accept that some of the pet theft we are experiencing is because pets of increasing value are being stolen to order, so I am not saying that we should not deal with that; I am saying that we should ensure that the guidance issued reflects the public priorities and does not divert too much police resource away to concentrate on pet theft rather than other crimes such as motor vehicle theft.
That is the background to new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. I hope that in responding, my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he will do that anyway, so there will be no need to include this provision in the Bill.
In our discussion, one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was that he would prefer the Bill to go through the House totally unamended. I suspect, however, that that aspiration has been abandoned, because the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, has tabled her own amendments. They seem perfectly reasonable, but that would mean the Bill would be amended in this place. If the Bill is to be amended, one or two of her amendments could be a complemented by other amendments, should they be necessary. In that respect there has been a development since our meeting, when nobody declared a need for the Bill to be amended. My hon. Friend will speak in due course.
I will speak briefly to some of my other points. The Bill, as drafted, states:
“A person (A) commits the offence of dog abduction if they—
(a) take a dog so as to remove it from the lawful control of any person,
or
(b) detain a dog so as to keep it from the lawful control of any person who is entitled to…it”.
It is only after having been arrested for that offence that a person could take advantage of the defence, under clause 1(2), that before the alleged abduction the pet was living in the same household as that person.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the House will be aware, very serious events have taken place overnight in the middle east, with Israel apparently striking targets in Iran. That could lead to further, very serious escalation. As a former armed forces Minister and now a member of the Defence Committee, may I take this opportunity to say that it is important, as the House is fortuitously sitting today, that a Minister from either the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office or the Ministry of Defence comes to the House as soon as possible to make a statement on exactly what we know about the attacks and what the Government believe the implications might be? Madam Deputy Speaker, have you or the Speaker’s Office had any indication that the Government intend to make such a statement, and, if so, at what time?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he says, he is an ex-armed forces Minister. There has been no indication either to myself or to the Speaker’s Office, so far as I am aware, that the Government intend to make a statement. Certainly, at the conference meeting this morning there was no indication that the Government intended to make a statement, but Government Front Benchers will have heard his point.
Mr Francois
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not for one moment wish to push my luck, but under the circumstances I believe that a statement is very important. As you know, the Government can interrupt business at any time to make a statement. Such is the importance of these events—and I notified the office of the Leader of the House that I would make this point of order—that I believe, before the House rises this afternoon, a Minister should come to the House to tell us everything that the Government know about what is going on. I will leave it at that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. I note that he has informed the Leader of the House of his strong views on the matter, so I think he is right that at this stage we leave that there.
Sir Christopher Chope
I take it from the ruling you have just made, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, unfortunately, there was no application for an urgent question on the matter that my right hon. Friend raises. If there had been such an application, in the circumstances it is likely to have been granted. Perhaps the Government, when thinking about whether they will make a statement, should take into account that so far they have been very lucky that there was not an application for an urgent question in the required timescale. They were probably prepared for such an eventuality, so it would be reasonable for the Government to come along and volunteer a statement, as my right hon. Friend has requested.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is rather pushing his luck. Could he return to his speech on the Bill?
Sir Christopher Chope
You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker, to emphasise the importance of the Bill we are discussing. This is not the only occasion when, compared with what is happening in the rest of the world, the legislation we are discussing seems to many people to be relatively unimportant, but pet abduction is a very important subject for those who are directly affected by it.
Before the point of order, I was seeking to make the point that people should not be charged or arrested for dog abduction if it is clear at the time of the initial investigation that, at the time of the taking or detention of the dog, the person who took or detained the dog, the person from whom lawful control was taken and the dog all lived together in the same household. Why should a household in that situation be faced with having to defend themselves against arrest and prosecution by using this defence? Surely it would be better and fairer to require that someone only commits an offence if they abduct a dog without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse. That is the background to my putting forward new clause 1. We increasingly put the cart before the horse in accusing people of crimes and then forcing them to defend themselves against the allegations, instead of requiring the prosecuting authorities to look into possible defences or excuses before making an arrest or instituting a prosecution.
Amendment 2 is designed to test out whether an offence is committed if a dog is not permanently removed from someone’s lawful control. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments in response to that.
Amendment 3 is designed to ensure that an offence is committed only where a dog is removed from the lawful control of its registered keeper, rather than where it is taken from any other person. I know it will be said that if someone is a dog walker or running some kennels and is not the registered keeper, the offence of pet abduction should equally apply, but in those circumstances the more serious offence of theft should be applied under the Theft Act 1968. Again, that would emphasise the distinction between somebody who is a registered keeper and whose details are set out on the microchip database, and another person to whom the dog has been given for safe keeping, for whatever reason.
Amendment 4 would test out the distinction between the requirement of permanence where someone is depriving an owner of their dog, which in essence comes under the Theft Act 1968, and the less stringent requirements under this Bill. Amendment 5 is a similar amendment to ensure that only where a dog is detained so as to keep it from its registered owner would there be an offence. Amendment 6 is consequential on amendment 1, and amendment 7 is consequential on amendment 6.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I declare an interest, as a cat owner—my cat is called Hetty. Part of the reason that cats have been provided for specifically in the Bill, a move I supported, was the excellent campaign run by Cats Protection. The briefing I have received from Battersea shows that there were 379 pet cat thefts in 2022 . I am not sure of the equivalent figure for tortoises, but I suspect it was a lot smaller.
Sir Christopher Chope
I suspect that the incidence of theft of tortoises is much higher, if we look at the percentage of thefts in the relative populations. My hon. Friend says there were only 379 cases of cat theft, and my understanding is that there are 10.5 million cats, so if we work out the percentage of cat owners who find that they have been deprived of their cat, I suspect that it is much lower than the percentage of tortoise owners who find that their tortoise has been abducted.
However, I think what my hon. Friend’s point shows is that, in the context of 10.5 million cats, 379 thefts is hardly a really serious issue. He is a cat owner; I am not—my family are dog lovers, but the two are not necessarily incompatible. I recognise the importance of microchipping cats. Obviously, this legislation will not get on to the statute book until after the microchipping of cats has become mandatory, and until there are criminal penalties if that is not complied with.
I am proud to have visited the premises of the Cats Protection League in my constituency, in Ferndown, which is a very important centre for the rehoming of cats, and that is one of the great tasks that that important charity undertakes. I am not against cats, but I tabled this amendment to test the Government’s thinking. The original taskforce set up to look into these issues reached the conclusion that dogs should take precedence, but the Government subsequently gave way because of behind-the-scenes lobbying by interest groups—not as a result of public consultation—and supported the extension of the legislation to cats.
The taskforce’s advice was to start off with dogs and then extend the measures to cats. All I am doing is, in a sense, repeating what the taskforce said. The essence of my amendments 10, 11 and so on is that they would enable cats to be included at a later stage under the provisions of clause 3, thereby bringing the Bill into conformity with the recommendations of the pet abduction taskforce. If the Government do not want to do that—I understand why they may not—then so be it, but I still think that is worth exploring in debate. That is why I tabled the amendments, including amendment 13, which is consequential on the removal of clause 2, as are amendments 14 and 15.
The next amendment on the amendment paper is amendment 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, who promotes the Bill. She says:
“This is a technical amendment to ensure that it is clear how the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 operates in so far as those clauses extend to England and Wales (rather than just in relation to England).”
Who could possibly object to that? However, when Back Benchers bring forward legislation and do not get it drafted by Government lawyers, there is always something faulty with it, and Ministers delight in saying at the Dispatch Box, “We agree with the intent, but the wording is inadequate.” The question I throw out for debate and discussion is this: why did the Government lawyers who drafted the Bill for my hon. Friend not get it right in the first place? Why did they leave it until so late in the day before insisting that this amendment, and Amendment 20, be included in the Bill? When she addresses her amendments, I hope that she can explain the background to that situation. It shows that instead of being all-knowing and beyond criticism, Government drafters have some of the same frailties as Members of the House when trying to draft legislation, even with all the expertise that the Public Bill Office is able to bring to bear when assisting us in that task.
Amendment 21 links back to my new clause 1, which would make the commencement of the legislation contingent on the necessary guidance having been issued. From discussions I had with the ministerial team, it seems that is the intent, but the amendment would put that in the Bill. Amendment 16 is consequential, and I have already referred to amendment 20, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West.
That is a quick run-through of the amendments. I hope it will generate a proper debate and discussion, and enable people who take an interest in the matter to become more familiar with the issues around microchipping, including the importance of ensuring that cats and dogs are microchipped, the burden on the enforcement authorities, and the deterrence that microchipping provides against those who are minded to engage in the theft of pets. I hope those issues can be shared more widely across the country. There is a lot more detail behind the Bill, but there is no need for me to go into any more of that at the moment. If the Government cannot accept new clause 1, I hope they will be able to provide undertakings that its measures will be implemented voluntarily.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for passing on his condolences to Mr Speaker. As he said, Doug Hoyle was a great parliamentarian and a very kind person, who was always there with a ready smile and good advice to all of us. I pass on our condolences to Mr Speaker from the whole House.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I am delighted to have another opportunity to speak about this important Bill, and to speak to amendments 19 and 20, which are minor technical amendments in my name. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his interest in the matter. I hope he will forgive me when I say that his amendments seem to fall into two broad groups: laudable concern about microchipping; and legal issues about the offence as drafted.
I will start with my hon. Friend’s amendments concerning microchipping. It is very clear that he has a great passion for ensuring that keepers microchip their pets. I am sure that we can all get behind that as a general point; that is a very responsible way for dog and cat owners to behave. Microchipping is a safe and reliable way of identifying animals. Whether they are found as strays, or whether, in keeping with the topic of this debate, they are recovered having been abducted, the microchip should be a lifeline to help them get home. That is obviously good for the animal and good for the keeper.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s wishes to ensure that we are more responsible and that we encourage microchipping, although I do not agree with his trying to lever those principles into the Bill. The microchipping of dogs has been compulsory in England since 2016, nine years ago. It has also been compulsory in Northern Ireland since 2012. As he rightly points out, microchipping has been a success story: around 90% of dogs in the UK are already microchipped. There is also good evidence that microchipping works. The Government’s recent post-implementation review of the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 concluded that the introduction of the regulations had increased microchipping and reunification rates, with obvious benefits for animal welfare and pet owners.
I am delighted that these benefits are soon to be extended to cats, through the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023. I agree with my hon. Friend when he says that all cats over 20 weeks in England will need to be microchipped from 10 June of this year, in a couple of months’ time, before—this is the key point—the Bill comes into effect. Indeed, already, more than 70% of cats in the UK are microchipped; the levels are similar in England and Northern Ireland. The amendments that my hon. Friend seeks to make today are totally unnecessary, because we will be overtaken by events in relation to the microchipping of cats.
The effectiveness of microchipping relies on keepers ensuring that the information on the microchip is up to date. That is what the police and the rescue centres need: accurate information to enable them to reunite the keepers with their animals swiftly and efficiently. As I keep saying, I could not agree with my hon. Friend more on the importance of that, but I do not think that it has anything to do with the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to go into more detail about ways in which he intends to encourage more microchipping.
I understand my hon. Friend’s motivation for his amendments 3, 5, and 8 to 16 to further incentivise compliance with microchipping, but as I have already made clear, there is a high level of compliance already, and further legislation is coming down the track shortly. There is also an effective enforcement mechanism: where a dog in England is found not to have a microchip, police in local authorities have the power to issue a notice. That notice will require the keeper to get that dog microchipped within 21 days. That will apply unless the dog has been certified as exempt from the microchipping, perhaps by reasons relating to health, and it is an offence to fail to comply with that notice. A person would be liable for a fine of up to £500, and the same regulatory regime will soon come into force and apply to cats.
As I have said, these amendments are not necessary, because we will soon be overtaken by events. However, far more importantly, amendments 3, 5, and 8 to 16 would restrict the scope of this Bill considerably. Amendments 10 to 16 would remove cats from the Pet Abduction Bill entirely, as well as removing certain dogs from the scope of the offence. I regard that as a very retrograde step indeed, and one that I would oppose entirely. This legislation has been a long time coming. It has been very carefully considered by the pet theft taskforce, involving three Government Departments, and to seek to undermine it in this way is entirely wrong.
Anna Firth
No, I will not give way. My hon. Friend had a very long time to speak and I would like to get through my remarks.
Cats are among the most beloved pets in the UK. There are around 11 million pet cats across the country, and a quarter of households have them. I must declare an immediate interest here, as I have two wonderful cats, Merlin and Marmalade, who are appalled by these amendments, which would take them entirely out of the protection of the Bill.
We heard impassioned stories on Second Reading about the importance of cats to people and the heartache it would cause them if they were lost. We heard about Mrs Landingham, the cat of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), and Liesl von Cat, the cat of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) about her beloved ragdoll cat and we have of course heard about Cats Protections today.
The “Cat Theft Report 2022” from Pet Theft Awareness shows that cat theft increased by 40% in 2021 and more than quadrupled between 2015 and 2022. This is a growing problem. Cats deserve the same protection as dogs.
Anna Firth
I have already said to my hon. Friend that I will not give way at this point—
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is a debate, and I wondered if instead of giving percentage increases she could give put a figure on the number of cat thefts.
Anna Firth
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that it is small. It is a matter of hundreds, not thousands. The point that I am making is that it is increasing. I do not believe that cats deserve less protection. As we heard on Second Reading from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who is not in her place, Bengal cats, which have a value of thousands of pounds, are among the cats being stolen. We can check Hansard, but from memory they might be worth as much as £5,000. The number of cats may be small, but the value of the cats both to the owner and in actual fact is significant.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. It is about not just numbers but the emotional impact on families. I declare an interest, as I lost a kitten at the age of four. It still comes into my mind when I think about this Bill and how important it is. It had an emotional impact on my whole family. Numbers do not give the full flavour of the impact on the community across the United Kingdom who are cat lovers as well as dog lovers.
Anna Firth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. She is absolutely right. Whether someone’s cat is a mongrel, a rescue cat or a stray cat that they have rightly adopted and looked after, or—I have just checked Hansard—a £5,000 Bengal cat, to the owner they are a member of the family, and they deserve the same protection. Merlin and Marmalade deserve exactly the same protection as my precious Cavapoochon, Lottie.
James Wild
The House of Commons Library helpfully prepares a brief for these debates and it refers to Pet Theft Awareness, which conducted freedom of information requests across a number of forces. Some of the biggest forces, including Greater Manchester and others, did not respond, but taking the figures from the Metropolitan police and applying them at the same percentage rate, we get a figure of around 1,500 cat thefts a year, rather than the 500 or so that were referred to.
Anna Firth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that more accurate information to the Chamber and illustrating that we are talking about a figure in the thousands for cats, just as for dogs. If we were to remove cat abduction from the Bill, as per the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, we would be sending a clear message that cats do not matter as much as dogs. That would be wholly wrong. It would certainly be met with a great deal of resistance from my constituents in Southend West.
While I am on the subject of cats, I would like to correct the record. It has come to my attention that, in Committee on Wednesday 31 January, responding to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about indoor pedigree cats such as ragdolls, I inadvertently misspoke. When speaking about extending some of the dog provisions to holding indoor cats, I said that clause 3 should enable further provisions to be made, but that is not the case. The enabling power in the clause relates only to the abduction of animals commonly kept as pets other than dogs and cats. I want to make that clear. However, as I said clearly in Committee, and as I assured hon. Members then and now, clause 2 already applies in relation to the taking of a ragdoll cat.
The amendments would exclude certain categories of dog. Although amendment 8 acknowledges that dogs can temporarily be exempt from microchipping requirements for medical reasons, it does not recognise that puppies do not have to be microchipped until they are eight weeks old. Were the amendment to be accepted, a person taking or detaining puppies would be entirely exempt from the offence of dog abduction, yet we know that high-value puppies may be the subject of organised crime. Yesterday, I consulted the police and crime commissioner for Essex, Roger Hirst, about the Bill, and he reminded me—as an Essex MP, you may recall this case, Madam Deputy Speaker—that a litter of blue merle French bulldog puppies, valued at £100,000, in nearby Basildon was stolen in its entirety, in a clear case of organised crime. To exclude puppies from the Bill would be another extremely retrograde step.
The amendment would have the same effect in relation to dogs that have been imported into England by their keeper for a holiday of less than 30 days, as the 2023 regulations do not require them to be microchipped. It would also exclude certain working dogs, such as police and Army dogs, that do not have to be microchipped until they are three months old; they would be unprotected before then.
In addition, there is a risk in relying on a definition laid down in secondary legislation that is crucial to the interpretation of the Bill. There is a risk of unintended consequences in the application of the offences were the secondary legislation to be amended. Furthermore, the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations do not apply in Northern Ireland, which has its own microchipping legislation. As a result, if the amendment were made, the abduction of most dogs in Northern Ireland would be excluded from the scope of the dog abduction offence—another backward step.
It is important to recognise that the abduction offences in the Bill are deliberately framed around the broad concept of lawful control. By not using terms like “keeper” or “owner”, the Bill recognises that different people have lawful control of our dogs at different times. By changing the wording as proposed in amendments 3, 5 and 9, a person taking a dog so as to remove it from the lawful control of a dog walker, for example, would not be committing an offence. I do not believe it is right for a dog to be afforded different levels of protection in law according to the individual the dog happens to be with at any given time. We know that dogs are commonly abducted from parks or gardens, when they may well be under the lawful control of a dog sitter, a dog walker, or another member of the family. Why should a dog that is stolen or abducted in those circumstances be dealt with differently? I do not believe that it should be, and think most people in this country would agree.
In summary, I believe that abducting a dog is an abhorrent crime—I think we can all get behind that idea —regardless of whom the dog was taken from, and exactly the same is true for cats. Although I am of course sympathetic to the underlying intention of amendments 3, 5 and 8 to 16, they move the Bill far away from its intended spirit. We simply cannot create a two-tier system in which only microchipped animals are in scope of the legislation. Given that the legislation implicitly recognises that cats and dogs are sentient beings, it is absolutely not right for only those that are microchipped to be protected, so I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press those amendments. I will leave it to the Minister to address my hon. Friend’s new clause 1 and amendment 21.
Dr Cameron
I rise to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) and the amendments in her name, and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for all the effort, thought and consideration he has put into the work he has done. As I mentioned, I lost my kitten when I was aged four, when microchipping was not a thing—it is one of my most prominent childhood memories. It still stays with me, but if microchipping had been possible then, we might have found that kitten and come back together as a family. It was such an issue for a young girl—losing my very first pet—so I thank my hon. Friend for all of his consideration. Microchipping is extremely important, as he says, and I am very glad that the Government will bring forward legislation in the near future.
I wish to speak briefly about a role that I had over the past few years until recently—that of chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group. I praise and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West for taking this Bill through Parliament. During my time as chair of that group, we were able to bring Lucy’s law into legislation, and it made such a huge difference to animal lovers right across the United Kingdom. I have chaired a number of all-party parliamentary groups, and that is one of the most popular that I ever chaired: during the pandemic, up to 500 members attended the meetings online, and well over 100 people would attend every single meeting in Parliament itself. We must recognise that the UK is most definitely a country of dog lovers.
I also pay tribute to the local animal welfare sanctuary in Bothwell, just next to my constituency, which I visit very regularly. It covers the whole of South Lanarkshire, including my constituency, and I thank it for its work.
When I chaired the dog advisory welfare APPG, pet theft was a huge issue not only because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West said, some of the dogs stolen were extremely highly pedigreed and valuable, but because the fate of some of the dogs was heinous. Often, people were taking the dogs as bait for dog-fighting purposes. The horrendous stories that we heard in that APPG underscore how vital it is that this legislation moves forward. It is an excellent step forward, and I think it sends a message to those who would try to abduct pets, particularly dogs and cats, that it is not acceptable. We wish to underscore that, and this Government have a mandate to do so.
Before closing, I wish to give my condolences to Mr Speaker for his loss. I did not have the privilege of personally knowing his father, but from my understanding, he has been a great servant to politics across both Houses. I wanted to pass on my condolences today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Let me begin by saying that Labour strongly supports the measures to tackle pet theft and abduction, and I thank the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) again for introducing the Bill. Let me also echo the comments about Doug Hoyle, and the condolences to Mr Speaker.
Much of the discussion in Committee was about timing—a subject that has come up again this morning—but I will start by addressing amendments that have already been discussed, particularly amendment 10, which would effectively remove cats from the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) seems to play an important role in this place on Fridays. Along with some of my colleagues, I have felt frustrated on occasion by the degree of challenge that he presents, but I think it important for legislation to be properly challenged, so I thank him for the points that he has raised this morning, especially in relation to the amendments relating to dogs, which open up a range of wider issues.
I will not go through the amendments in detail one by one, because the hon. Member for Southend West dealt very effectively with many of those points and I found myself in agreement with her on all of them, but there are bigger issues involved in the way in which we register and track dogs. All this is complicated, and I know from talking to vets in my shadow ministerial role that they worry about being dragged into ownership disputes as a consequence. I think it is part of a wider discussion, and I am certainly not opposed to our having that discussion, but I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a danger of our being drawn into delays and also into diminishing the scope of the Bill, which I think would be disappointing. Labour will therefore not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch.
Amendment 10, which relates to cats, strikes me as something much more fundamental, and we oppose it strongly. As my colleagues and I have argued throughout the long saga of this Bill and its predecessor, cat theft is a real issue. I note the discussion about numbers, but I suspect that there is a degree of under-reporting—the offence does not currently exist, so why would anyone report it?
Those who advocate for cats are, unsurprisingly, appalled by the prospect of the Bill’s being savaged in this way. Cats Protection tells me that
“with 11 million owned cats in the UK, we know how much cats mean to families and how devastating their theft is—both to the humans who love them and the cats themselves.”
It says:
“In just a few weeks of running some supporter actions, we had over 40,000 cat lovers get involved in campaigning for cats to be included in any pet theft legislation including over 10,000 letters to MPs. It is imperative that cats are included in the Bill.”
I am sure the hon. Member for Christchurch will say that a campaigning organisation making the case effectively does not necessarily lead to good law, but I think the point we can take from what it has said is that there is considerable public interest in the issue, and an expectation that action will be taken.
As for the microchipping issues that have been raised, I genuinely believe that they can be resolved. After all, we do not look at other theft offences and say that we will not tackle them because what was stolen could not be microchipped.
There was a particular irony in the discussion in Committee about timing and whether the Bill could be implemented within three months. I think Conservative Members know exactly what I am going to say: this could have been done fully two years ago. We need not have been here today. This is yet another private Member’s Bill that has appeared as a result of the Government’s abandonment of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. It seems to me that the real question about this Pet Abduction Bill is, “Who abducted the kept animals Bill, and for what purpose?” I have asked that question repeatedly but have never been given an answer, and I am certain that I will not be given one today. It is just another of those DEFRA mysteries—like the mystery of how the Secretary of State comes to override the advice of his permanent secretary, but that is one for another day.
The Government’s decision to ditch that major piece of animal welfare legislation has caused enormous disappointment to the animal welfare charities that had worked so hard on it for years, to pet owners and to members of the public, all of whom care deeply about protecting animals against cruelty. Most importantly, of course, it has allowed the mistreatment of animals to continue. We will never know how many animals might not have been abducted had this legislation been passed earlier—I am not the only person to have said that.
The same point was made powerfully earlier this month in a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:
“The Government’s withdrawal of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill stalled progress on key animal welfare issues. These delays have allowed the continuation of poor animal welfare practices. The Department must ensure that every provision from the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill is brought into force during the current Parliament. We welcome the introduction of Private Members’ bills that will take forward vital animal welfare measures, but note that the Government was relying heavily on Members who were successful in the Private Members’ bill ballot being willing to take on its handout bills to deliver its manifesto promises, rather than committing to bringing forward the legislation itself. While on this occasion it may prove successful, it was nonetheless a risky strategy.”
That is why we are here today, discussing this issue with a piece of legislation that, frankly, is at risk because of the process we are going through. There is no guarantee, given political uncertainty and the febrile nature of politics at the moment, that there will be time for the Bill to reach the statute book. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is right to make those observations, and it is deeply regrettable that, contrary to what the Government promised in their May 2021 action plan for animals, they have failed to take leadership in cracking down on the rising rates of pet abduction.
Labour will not be supporting the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch, but I hope that the Bill can proceed intact to Third Reading and beyond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
First, may I from the Government Benches send our condolences to Mr Speaker, who is unable to be here today because he is attending his father’s funeral? We send our sympathies to him.
It is a pleasure to speak about this Bill, which is so important to many people. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his considered attention to the Bill, not only today but previously and in the meetings that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State held with him in consideration of the points he has brought to the House. I also thank him for his support of some of the measures that we are bringing forward in the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for her considered responses and her contributions on Report.
Let me start by addressing amendments 1, 6 and 7. As was eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, the Bill already makes it clear that prosecutors bear the burden of proof. We want to create suitable offences that will crack down on cases of dog and cat abduction, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment that amendments 2 and 4 would undermine the scope for prosecutions to be brought for the offences of dog and cat abductions. I, too, urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to withdraw amendments 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 on the basis of the points that I have made and the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West.
New clause 1 and amendments 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 21 have already been discussed. I commend the dedication of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to microchipping. I know he has a branch of Cats Protection in his constituency, as does my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who rightly contributed to this debate, stating that Cats Protection has been instrumental in supporting the extension of the compulsory microchipping requirements to cats. I am pleased about both the extension and its support for this issue.
From the first moment that an offence of dog abduction was introduced in this place, MPs and stakeholders alike have asked for it to be extended to cats. The Department has received a significant number of letters from the public and parliamentary questions from right hon. and hon. Members in support of this proposal. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West that the Government cannot support removing cats from the scope of the Bill. However, I understand that the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to remove cats from the scope of the Bill was guided by the laudable intention of incentivising microchipping. I am pleased that we very much agree on the importance of microchipping, which is the best way to reunite people with lost and abducted animals.
The Government made microchipping compulsory for dogs in England in 2016, and we are now extending the benefits of that legislation to cats. From 10 June, all owned cats in England over the age of 20 weeks must be microchipped and registered on a compliant database. Microchipping is a safe, simple and effective procedure. The average cost is £25, plus an average £10 registration over the lifetime of the animal. Microchipping undeniably helps to bring displaced pets home. In the UK, around 90% of dogs have been microchipped. In 2023, more than 70% of cats have already been voluntarily microchipped.
Our post-implementation review of the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015—the predecessor to the 2023 regulations—showed that this legislation has had a positive effect on reunification rates. Stray dogs that have been microchipped and have up-to-date database records are more than twice as likely to be reunited with their keeper than stray dogs without a microchip. Police and local authorities can and do issue notices requiring a dog to be microchipped where it is not already. That has been demonstrated to be an effective mechanism to support compliance.
Since we introduced the English compulsory cat microchipping legislation, we have been working closely with a number of animal welfare stakeholders to develop a co-ordinated communications campaign to explain to cat owners the benefits of microchipping and the new legal requirements. Last summer, we even enlisted the support of our chief mouser Larry the cat, who himself was once an un-microchipped stray, before being taken in and rehomed by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Larry’s tweet on International Cat Day, explaining the importance of microchipping for reuniting pets with their owners, received half a million impressions.
I am also grateful to stakeholders who have helped to spread the message at the start of our 100-day countdown campaign to the introduction of these measures. With just over 50 days to go before the 10 June deadline, we are ramping up our communications strategy with stakeholders for that final push. I urge anyone who has not yet microchipped their cat to do so as quickly as possible. Our communications around the new cat microchipping rules, as well as around this Bill, will provide a clear message that microchipping will help bring abducted pets back home sooner.
However, compulsory cat microchipping is just one of a number of planned microchipping reforms. Last month, we published our response to the consultation on English pet microchipping reform. We are committing to a number of improvements to the microchipping regime around three themes: first, making it easier for approved users to access records; secondly, improving the accuracy of records; and thirdly, standardising database operator processes. Those reforms will implement one of the key recommendations of the pet theft taskforce that more robust processes should be in place to stop stolen pets being registered to new keepers by ensuring that the current keeper has up to 28 days to object to a transfer of keepership request made to a database operator before any transfer can go through, and by preventing database operators from creating a duplicate microchip record for a pet. We are also making all database operators record whether a pet is reported as missing. That will assist enforcement bodies and flag concerns to a database operator, should they receive a transfer of keepership request. We are looking to legislate specifically to deal with that issue in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West has eloquently outlined how the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would overly restrict the Bill, and the Government cannot support them. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch rightly made some points on guidance in his new clause 1 and amendment 21 and asked for statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. I agree that guidance will be essential for frontline workers enforcing new pet abduction offences, ensuring that those are used appropriately. The Government are committed to working with key stakeholders to ensure that appropriate guidance relating to this Bill will be available before the Bill’s offences come into force. The cross-Government pet theft taskforce already establishes relationships with police officers, operational partners and animal welfare organisations working in the area, so we have a network already in place, and I can confirm that conversations are already under way. I will ensure that the points that my hon. Friend has rightly raised are part of the conversations that are already under way. Enforcers will have the support and information they need to effectively implement the legislation once it comes into force without the need to legally require enforcement guidance.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is concerned about people benefiting from the legislation when they have shirked their responsibility to have their pets microchipped. I assure the House that we are doing work with police colleagues to make them aware that, in the event that they recover an abducted cat or dog that is not microchipped, they have the power to issue a notice under the English microchipping regulations requiring those pets to be microchipped within 21 days.
For completeness, failing to comply with such a notice is an offence and subject to a fine of £500. In addition, the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023 provide for the police to be able to take the animal in question to be microchipped without the keeper’s consent, and allow the costs associated with that to be recovered. The enforcement regime for the English microchipping legislation is designed to ensure that an animal will end up being microchipped if it is found not to be. We understand that most people comply with such a notice where issued, so only a small number of such cases are taken through the courts.
In addition to the existing enforcement mechanism, we are considering enabling penalty notices for the offence of not microchipping a cat or dog through the Animal (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2023. In summary, I cannot, therefore, commit that we will work—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I can commit—I want to reiterate that—that we will be working closely with enforcement partners to ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are addressed. We are working at speed to prepare for this engagement.
On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, I thank her for bringing forward these minor, technical adjustments to the Bill. The Government support them and agree that their clarity help to progress the Bill, specifically in relation to clauses 1 and 2. I urge all hon. Members to support them.
Sir Christopher Chope
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. We have made great progress, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for facilitating that. My amendments—particularly amendments 10 to 15—were designed to address the problem of potential waste of police and local authority enforcement resources in trying to trace pets that had not been microchipped. My hon. Friend, in saying what he did about the guidance and advice that will be given to enforcement authorities, got to the core of my concerns.
It has never been my intention to be anti-cat. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) suggested that I do not think that cats matter. I will not put myself into a category where cats do not matter, because I have enough emails coming in already on other issues. [Laughter.] Cats do matter, and so do dogs —and, for the sake of completeness, so do tortoises.
I have never been against including cats in the Bill, but I have been nervous about doing so when many cats are still not microchipped. From 10 June, that will be compulsory and, as the Minister said, there will be stronger enforcement measures. Given the number of local authorities issuing notices, I do not think they are applying their minds to it, but perhaps when they link that in with the prospect of complaints if cats have been abducted, they will realise that there is a strong link between the two issues. I hope that the consequence of all this debate will be that we have a much better, more complete database, and that more cats and even more dogs will be microchipped. Having a million-plus dogs not microchipped at the moment is unacceptable.
One cannot always say on a Friday that we have made progress, but I think that we have on this issue. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6
Commencement
Amendments made: 19, page 5, line 6, leave out
“come into force in relation to England”
and insert
“, so far as they extend to England and Wales, come into force”.
This is a technical amendment to ensure that it is clear how the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 operates in so far as those clauses extend to England and Wales (rather than just in relation to England).
Amendment 20, page 5, line 11, leave out “in relation” and insert
“so far as they extend”.—(Anna Firth.)
This is a technical amendment to ensure that the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 is dealt with in the same way throughout clause 6.
Third Reading
Anna Firth
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
May I put on the record, on behalf of everybody in Southend West, our condolences to Mr Speaker and his family on the loss of his esteemed father, Doug Hoyle?
I am delighted to present this Bill for its Third Reading. I am grateful to all Members who have engaged so passionately and shared their stories at all stages, and I will keep my remarks as brief as I can so that other Members can get in. I will start, as I did on Second Reading, by taking a moment to reflect on my predecessor, Sir David Amess, who was a true titan when it came to championing our pets, particularly dogs. As I mentioned on Second Reading, he chaired and spoke in the last debate that we had in this place on pet reform, and I know that he would be so proud that Southend West is playing a pivotal role in bringing forward this legislation. I, too, am proud to be building on his legacy again today.
When I introduced the Bill, I started by saying that Britain is a nation of animal lovers and that pets are part of our families. I believe that our discussions, both today and at all previous stages, have illustrated that perfectly. We are showing that cats and dogs are not just items, and that abducting them causes real distress to families and individuals, because actions speak far louder than words. This Bill will send a signal that we take animal welfare seriously in the UK.
One wonderful thing about the House is that we are often united when it comes to issues of animal welfare. We are united in sending a signal to the world that we believe in, and are proud of, our record on animal welfare. Of course, I have lots of people to thank. I thank the people who have made significant contributions in this area over many years, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Witham (Priti Patel); my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt); the former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), with whom I was at Bar school; my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke); Dr Daniel Allen; and Debbie Matthews, the daughter of the late Sir Bruce Forsyth.
I thank the many organisations that have given input and support, including the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which is so ably led by Chris and Lorraine Platt; the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance; Pet Theft Awareness; Cats Protection, which we have heard about again today; the Dogs Trust; Battersea Dogs and Cats Home; Refuge; and of course Southend’s own Tilly’s Angels, which prompted me to take this Bill on board.
I also thank the brilliant Essex police, fire and crime commissioner, Roger Hirst, for his help and support, and, more importantly, for all that he does to tackle pet abduction in Essex. Tackling pet abduction, in particular dog theft, is a key objective in his police and crime plan. As a result of his focus and the extra resources he deploys, we have seen a 10% reduction in the dog theft figures over the past year. He does fantastic work. If anyone in Essex wants to help him to keep fighting pet abduction, they will have the opportunity to do so on 2 May.
I want to emphasise the timely nature of the Bill. Since Second Reading, new figures have been released by Direct Line showing a 6% uptick in the number of dogs abducted in the past year, with only one in six found and returned. That is the lowest recovery level since 2015. Those figures should concern us all, because of the number of pets who are traumatised and separated from their owners, most of them permanently. Families are going without a beloved member of the family. As I have said throughout, that is exactly what our pets are.
We have also seen distressing articles in my local paper about attempted pet abductions, which also seem to be on the rise. Only last month, my local paper, the brilliant Southend Echo, carried an article about two thugs in Benfleet who jumped out of their van and hit a pensioner over the head with a lump of wood in an attempt to force him to hand over his beloved cocker spaniel. Thankfully, the pensioner incurred only minor injuries and the dog was unharmed, but he was obviously deeply shaken. This week, there has been a report of another incident in Benfleet; a man was attacked by two men in Woodside Park who were attempting to steal his dog. Those reports underline how important it is that we get the Bill on the statute book, and that the police start taking action to enforce it. These really are shocking incidents, and I implore all hon. and right hon. Members to back the Bill.
Pets need to be recognised in law for the sentient beings they are. Their place in society needs to be properly recognised by the law of the land. The Bill is the opportunity to do that. I hope all Members support it.
Ben Everitt
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) on her work on the Bill, which is much needed, and I am very pleased to speak in favour it.
We are a nation of dog and cat owners, and many Members will be able to say that those animals are like family, and to speak about the fact that they play such an important role in our life and the life of our children. I do not know where Marmalade and Merlin came from, the newly famous Southend West residents, but Magic and Ninja came from Cats Protection, which has had so many mentions today. I know, through Magic and Ninja, what an impact cats can have on families, in particular children.
In Milton Keynes, we have an abundance of green spaces, with miles and miles of lake shoreline and canal towpaths—ideal for walking dogs. If you need to walk a dog, come to Milton Keynes. But that brings with it the added risk of pet theft. As an animal lover, and the representative of a beautiful constituency in which to walk the dog, I have to say that the very idea of stealing pets, often for profit and breeding, is sick.
The Bill fills a gap that has existed in law for far too long. Until now, pet theft was categorised as a type of property theft. That is in no way reflective of the nature of the crime and its impact on victims. We spoke briefly about the link with organised crime. It is increasingly worrying that, like other types of theft, such as the theft of farm machinery and prestige vehicles, pet theft seems to be done to order by gangs of organised criminals. The supply chain of organised crime is obviously horrendous. To think that pet theft is financing it is abhorrent.
In Milton Keynes and the wider Thames Valley, our rural crime taskforce has recently been nearly doubled in size, which will be a significant comfort to the many legitimate breeders based in our villages. I applaud our police and crime commissioner, Matthew Barber, for making that decision.
It is critical that the punishment for this crime is enough to deter individuals and groups from engaging in this despicable criminal activity. The Bill ensures exactly that; I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and the Government for the work that they have done to develop it so far. Under the legislation, offenders will face the possibility of up to five years in prison, a fine or both. The spectre of such punishment should have the desired effect. Organised crime groups profit particularly from the trade in pedigree cats, but such groups will think twice about offending, should the Bill become law.
The Bill addresses differences in the behaviour of dogs and cats really well. Dogs spend much more time indoors than cats. Try keeping cats indoors. They tend to roam outside freely, at their own will, visiting neighbours—“Six Dinner Sid” springs to mind. The Bill understands that distinction, and ensures that for cats, the offence applies only when a cat is taken, not when it is detained. That will mean police can focus on cases of clear criminality without undue interference. He is no longer in his place, but my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) raised concerns about police time; this aspect of the legislation goes some way to ease those concerns. This is sensible and practical law-making. The new offences mean that we can start to record the crimes with better accuracy. As we have heard, some forces record these crimes specifically, and others do not. We will be able to spot patterns that could be linked to certain factors, such as organised crime.
This Conservative Government can be proud of their achievements on animal welfare. The Bill will widen the scope of the Government’s action plan on animal welfare. It is another step forward in putting the UK at the forefront of animal welfare globally. Toughening the country’s laws against animal cruelty is a key priority. That is why we have already passed legislation such as the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which raises the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years, and the landmark Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which became law two years ago and formally recognises animals as sentient beings in domestic law. The Bill almost acts as a strong-arm extension of that Act. Pets are sentient beings, whom we have to love and cherish as our own. We need laws that recognise that fact and, crucially, protect them. In that regard, this Government have delivered and then some.
Our progress on animal welfare does not stop there. We have also passed legislation requiring the microchipping of cats, as we heard from the Minister; cat owners must microchip their cats by June this year. That will make it easier to pick up cats that have been abducted, and to identify stray pets, so that they can be reunited with their owners.
It is always a pleasure to speak in support of Bills that have clear cross-party support and cut through party political battle lines. Issues such as these remind us of the common ground we have in this place, and that we can put party politics aside to make progress on areas of policy such as animal welfare, which matters to millions of people across the country.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) on her work on this Bill. She has worked tirelessly on this issue, and I have been pleased to support her at every stage, including by serving on the Public Bill Committee.
We are a nation of animal lovers. As the owner of three dogs—I will not name them again, as they are already extensively recorded in Hansard—I can say that this Bill provides us all with greater confidence that those who would seek to steal our beloved pets will pay the price. Our pets are not just possessions, as the law has previously treated them. In the Bill, we are acknowledging the important relationship we all have with our pets, who are cherished members of our family. The theft of a pet is an incredibly distressing experience, for both the pet and its owner, so it is no surprise that the vast majority of the public support making pet theft a specific offence.
My constituency postbag regularly contains correspondence from constituents who have concerns about animal welfare, be it puppy smuggling, dog-on-dog attacks or the theft of a beloved family pet—an issue that the Bill addresses. I have yet to meet anyone who does not acknowledge that the theft of a family pet would cause far more pain and anguish than that of a wallet, purse or phone. Pets simply have far more than simply monetary value to us, and it is right that the law seeks to acknowledge that, and marks them out as different from inanimate objects.
In preparing for today’s debate, I checked with Durham police on the rate of pet theft in their area, and was pleased to learn that it has fallen significantly, from 66 recorded thefts in 2019 to only nine in 2023. Although I welcome that reduction, nine is still many, and this Bill will send out a real signal to further address the issue. Although Durham has had a welcome reduction in such thefts, parts of our country sadly still see worrying levels of pet theft. Pets will be stolen purely for the selfish retention of the animal, depriving the family it belongs to of the pet’s companionship, and inflicting a sense of loss. Alternatively, pets may be stolen for onward sale, breeding or fighting. Whatever the reason for a theft, it is unlikely that the place the animal ends up in will be better than the loving home it has been taken from.
The Bill must be seen in the context of the wide range of animal protection legislation we have enacted, which recognises animal sentience; increases sentences for animal cruelty; gives new protections to service animals; revamps local authority licensing; implements Lucy’s law; bans third-party puppy and kitten sales; and mandates microchipping for cats and dogs. Of course, we must also not forget the Bill, which I was proud to support, bought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) to deal with puppy, kitten and ferret smuggling.
In conclusion, our pets are our constituents’ dearest companions and most loyal friends, and we need a specific offence with specific penalties for their theft. I wholeheartedly support this Bill, and look forward to it completing its remaining stages today.
Mr Francois
While we earnestly await a statement from the Government on the Israeli strikes against Iran last night, I wanted to take the opportunity to pay full tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for her wonderful work on this Bill. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who mentioned that he had read the names of his three pets into Hansard. If he is like most of us, he will now have sent each pet a copy of Hansard so that they know they were mentioned, and we hope that went down well with them.
I will come on to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West at the end, but perhaps I may briefly tell the House about some other people who I know will be very pleased to see this legislation pass in the House today. Let me begin with a great friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who, unfortunately, is detained on other important business today. The issue before us has always been close to his heart. He has had some horror stories from his constituency about pet theft, so I know that he, a former leader of our party, will be delighted at my hon. Friend’s success with this Bill.
Next is our very proactive and hard-working police, fire and crime commissioner in Essex, Mr Roger Hirst, who takes this issue very seriously, ably supported by our dynamic chief constable, Mr Harrington—perhaps his dynamism is due in part to the fact that he used to be a paratrooper. Between them, they have ensured that Essex police are now fully integrated into the national pet taskforce, tackling crime through the review of all investigations, the introduction of a proactive ability to respond to intelligence and joined-up working with partners, including Crimestoppers, the RSPCA and DogWatch. As a practical example, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West tells me that this proactive approach was put into action earlier this year when police released footage of the dachshund, Twiglet, struggling to get away from a thief. With help from the public, the police were able to return Twiglet safely home to her family. I will allow my hon. Friend to send Twiglet the Hansard.
I declare an interest. In my boyhood, I had a pet dachshund called Tiger—my parents had a sense of humour, Madam Deputy Speaker. I loved that little dog dearly. When I told him that I was taking him out for a walk, he went completely bananas. I have fond memories of Tiger and, if he were still with us, he, too, would be delighted. Unfortunately, he has passed away, so there is no one to send the Hansard to.
I also thank the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, of which my hon. Friend and I are avid supporters, brilliantly led by Lorraine and Chris Platt and their team, who are absolutely passionate about animal welfare—the clue is in the name. They, too, will be delighted that this legislation is going through.
Finally, I know that our great friend Sir David Amess would have been delighted to see this day. David, as the whole House well knew, was passionate about animal welfare. One of his great skills, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, was working cross-party; it was forming coalitions for the common good. I look up at his plaque and across to that of Jo Cox, who also died in the service of this House. She once said that we had more in common. This is a nation of animal lovers and what my hon. Friend has done brilliantly today is to get cross-party support. She has motivated that sense of having more in common across the House to do something that will make animals safer. They cannot speak for themselves; we must do it in their lieu. She has done brilliantly, and she had another win recently on banning zombie knives. I will, if I may, be presumptuous and say that, if David were still with us and somehow my hon. Friend were still the MP, he would be very proud of what she has done today. She is turning out to be an incredibly worthy successor to my great friend and she has come up with an incredibly worthy piece of legislation. I and Members across the House wish her Bill godspeed.
James Wild
I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has said about Sir David. Like other Members, I strongly welcome this legislation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) on her work. I am pleased that her Bill has made it to this stage, with wide-ranging support in North West Norfolk and, obviously, across the country.
The Bill introduces new criminal offences in relation to the taking or detaining of a dog or cat from the lawful control of any person. As I mentioned in an intervention, I declare an interest as the owner of a cat, Hetty, and I pay tribute again to the Cat Protection League for its successful campaign, which I supported, to ensure that cats are in the Bill, in clause 2, along with dogs.
Someone found guilty of abducting a dog or a cat under these new offences will be liable to a maximum of five years imprisonment, a fine, or both, which is a significant step forward and aligns with animal cruelty offences covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I am pleased that the Bill includes an enabling power to allow these provisions to be extended to other animals commonly kept as pets—a bid has been made for tortoises already in the debate.
Pets are stolen for many reasons: because of the breakdown of relationships, or for breeding, resale, extortion or even dog fighting. Those thefts have a traumatic effect on the owners and the pets, so it is right that pet theft is tackled through the creation of specific offences. The origins of the Bill are in the work of the pet theft taskforce, which recommended the creation of the specific offence of pet abduction, which is being implemented through this legislation, because the Theft Act itself was not proving effective.
There has been discussion during the debate about the scale of the problem. The taskforce concluded that reliable data on pet theft was limited. The most accurate figures that I could find for my area, Norfolk, was through an FOI response from Norfolk police, which showed that, between 2019 and 2023, 40 cats and 85 dogs were recorded as stolen. Overall, Battersea reports around 1,300 dog thefts and nearly 400 cat thefts in 2022. That is likely to be significantly underreported, for obvious reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West mentioned, it is about the individual cases; there do not need to be tens of thousands of cases for this to be important legislation. However, I welcome the Bill’s intention to improve the recording and monitoring of these offences.
When we legislate and pass important powers such as these, it is important that they come into effect rapidly, so I welcome the amendment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) secured in Committee, which set a date for the legislation to come into effect three months after Royal Assent.
In 2019, the manifesto that I was proud to stand on committed to improving animal welfare standards, and this Bill delivers on that commitment. As a nation of animal lovers with a proud history of championing and taking action on animal welfare, the Government have already passed a host of measures, including CCTV becoming mandatory in slaughterhouses, compulsory microchipping and tougher sentences for animal cruelty.
To conclude, around a third of households own a dog, and a quarter of households have a cat. We need to protect these family members, and this legislation does just that. I therefore commend my hon. Friend for her hard work in bringing the Bill forward, and I look forward to supporting it through its final stages.
Daniel Zeichner
Let me reiterate how strongly we in Labour support these measures. I again thank the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for bringing the Bill forward. I also echo her comments, and those of others, about Sir David Amess. I think he absolutely would have been thrilled to see this legislation going forward today. I would also echo the hon. Lady’s comments about the many animal welfare charities that work so hard on this and provide such excellent briefings. Again, I think they too will be very pleased to see the legislation going forward.
As has been said, we are a nation of animal lovers. Pets are very much a cherished part of our families. We know that companion animals are sentient beings who can experience pain, fear and distress, just as we can, and we can all imagine—some Members have spoken passionately about it today—the heartbreak that is experienced by any pet owner when their beloved animal is abducted.
Yet—we talked about the numbers earlier—the Kennel Club estimated that there were 2,355 cases of dog theft in 2020, amounting to approximately 196 dogs stolen every month. As we have heard, cats are also increasingly victims of this crime, with a report by Pet Theft Awareness finding that, in 2021, police recorded a 40% increase, and a quadrupling since 2015.
As we have heard throughout this process, the law, as it currently stands, is ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Under the Theft Act 1968, pets are wrongly treated as inanimate objects. Their value is diminished to that of physical property, like a TV or a toaster, and that cannot be allowed to continue. That is why the pet theft taskforce recommended in 2021 that a new offence of pet abduction be created—a new kind of offence that would put the emphasis on the welfare of the animal abducted and pay due regard to their status as sentient beings.
That is what the Bill does, with those two new criminal offences of dog abduction and cat abduction attracting up to five years imprisonment, a fine, or both, to deter those who are looking to exploit animals for financial gain by stealing them from their owners and selling them, or using them for breeding. Through the creation of those specific offences, pet owners will now have a clear legal framework by which they can ensure that their cases are actively investigated. Creating those specific offences will also require police to collate better data, allowing any patterns emerging to be properly analysed. Collating more accurate data will help to formulate the best prevention strategies .
I am delighted that we have managed to ensure that cats are covered as well as dogs. With compulsory microchipping, it should soon be much easier for anyone attempting to ascertain whether a cat is owned or lost to establish those details. I am also pleased that there is an enabling power, so that the appropriate national authorities may create pet abduction offences in respect of more species of animal where there is significant evidence of incidents involving the unlawful taking or detaining of animals of that species, or a significant increase in the number of such incidents. I note in passing that the amendment is a sensible, simple future-proofing provision, like the amendment we proposed to the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, which went through this House earlier this year, but which the Government chose to reject.
Although we welcome the Bill, the Government have fallen far short of the lofty claims on animal welfare that they trumpeted at the last election. There has been none of the promised action to stop British farmers being undercut by low-welfare imports—a huge issue for famers, consumers and animal welfare, which the Government have ignored. Indeed, when I challenged the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions this week, he actually cited some of the trade deals as things to be proud of—quite incredible, given the damage we know they will do. There has been no implementation of promised regulations banning electric shock collars for cats and dogs, no sign of the promised consultation on banning snares, and no action on banning hunting trophy imports, which is why last month another private Member’s Bill was before the House, this one promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), seeking to do exactly what the Government promised in their 2019 manifesto.
I could go on—you will not want me to, Madam Deputy Speaker—but so many promises made by the Government in their 2019 manifesto and their 2021 action plan for animals have been abandoned for no good reason, but only to avoid more splits in an already divided Conservative party. Labour believes in introducing the strongest possible legal protection for animals that depend entirely on us. I am proud that it was a Labour Government who brought in the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006—still this nation’s leading piece of animal welfare legislation. I am proud that is was a Labour Government who banned cosmetic testing on animals, ended fur farming and stopped the hunting of wild mammals with dogs. If we are fortunate enough to form the next Government, we will advance that proud legacy by promoting the highest standards of animal welfare, not only for cats and dogs but for all animals. In the meantime, we will continue to support private Members’ Bills, including this one.
Robbie Moore
I am pleased to speak again on this important Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for expertly guiding the Bill through the House. She has been a passionate advocate of measures to improve animal welfare, and I congratulate her on introducing this important piece of legislation. Given how strongly the late Sir David Amess championed animal welfare causes, it is especially poignant that it is my hon. Friend who has championed this Bill. Sir David expressed the hope that this place would come together to enable animal welfare Bills to get on to the statute book quickly, and I think he would have been delighted to see this Bill get this far.
To say that we are a nation of pet and animal lovers is an understatement. More than half of all adults own at least one pet. Cats and dogs are the firm favourites, with at least 29% and 24% of adults owning a dog or cat respectively. Whether it is Joe or Pip, the sheepdogs who help me on my farm, or Harvey the cat, who belongs to Max in my team, I assure the House that my team and I are also animal lovers. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) is right to say how important the Bill is, alongside referencing how beautiful his constituency is for dog walkers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) is another strong animal lover, and I shall have to read his comments in Hansard about the various pets he has owed. I am pleased to see that he too welcomes the Bill, as does my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who I know has worked closely with Cats Protection to ensure that the Bill works its way through this House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for, quite rightly, mentioning our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has championed the Bill. I am pleased to hear that Twiglet was reunited with its owner. The coronavirus pandemic in 2020 led to many households deciding to buy or adopt new pets in their homes, many for the first time. Those pets helped to provide owners with emotional support during those difficult times. As we have heard, it was in that period that there were concerns about increases in pet theft. The Government’s response was to set up the pet theft taskforce. The Bill builds on the work done by the pet theft taskforce in 2021. It acts on one of its key recommendations—to deliver a pet abduction offence —and it helps to improve the recording of unlawful taking of cats and dogs..
In 2021, the Government made a commitment to crack down on pet theft in our action plan on animal welfare. Our support for the Bill demonstrates that commitment. We further strengthened the Bill by accepting the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) in Committee, which added a commencement date for England. We have said it before and I will say it again: the unlawful taking of a pet is an abhorrent crime, and it is right that the perpetrators are brought to justice. The Bill recognises that. We have given the Bill a thorough review, not only on Report but through all its stages. I cannot thank right hon. and hon. Members enough for their engagement and support. I am delighted with the support of Members of the House, and I look forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book very soon.
Anna Firth
With the leave of the House, I thank everyone here for their contributions to the debate, and I extend that thanks to Members who are unable to be here but who contributed to past debates. In particular, I thank those who attended Second Reading and/or Committee stage, including the hon. Members for West Ham (Ms Brown), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather); my right hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey); my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland); and my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for Bury North (James Daly), for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder)—and I of course thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). It really has been a huge cross-party effort.
I would like to echo the thanks to those who have spoken today. It has been wonderful to hear many of the points that we talked about at length on Second Reading refreshed, echoed and underlined so ably. To my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), I give my regards to Magic and Ninja. I thank him for reminding us again of “Six Dinner Sid” and the beauty of his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who is such an able advocate for cats, reminded us of the figures from Cats Protection.
I thank my hon. Friend—I hope I can pronounce the constituency correctly—the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—[Interruption.] Almost. I thank her for speaking so movingly on Report about cats and their sentience, and her experience with her kitten. It will stay with me for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is such a true animal lover and has backed the Bill right from the beginning. With uncharacteristic modesty, he did not mention Clemmie, Peppy and Ebony today, but please send my regards to them.
Finally, I thank very much my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for coming today and for everything he said, including the wonderful tribute to my predecessor. I cannot help but think of the saying that people sometimes become like their pets. He mentioned that he had a dachshund called Tiger, and the way he champions his causes in this place brings that magnificent beast to mind.
Mr Francois
Is my hon. Friend saying I am like him because he was tiger-like or because he was small?
Anna Firth
I was of course being nothing but wholly complimentary. It was about the strength, tenaciousness and effectiveness with which my right hon. Friend makes his points—and that killer blow he so often brings to mind with his advocacy.
Of course, I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his interest in this matter, for campaigning on microchipping and for the progress that we have made on that today. Equally, I thank the Opposition for their support, particularly the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I think back to all the stages of this brilliant cross-party cause for which he has been with us. In that spirit, I would like to take a photograph to celebrate this groundbreaking legislation leaving the Commons, and I invite everybody who wants to take part to Westminster Hall at 2.40 pm—everybody is absolutely welcome.
I thank the Clerks and the DEFRA officials for their advice, and the excellent team in my office, who have worked so hard to make this happen. Of course, special thanks go to my constituency neighbour and Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is also a huge animal lover. Without her advice, we would not have got this and so many other private Members’ Bills to this stage so swiftly. She is both the queen and the unsung hero of our sitting Fridays—I am not sure you can be both, but she manages it. I thank Lord Black of Brentwood for making the Bill a truly Essex affair by agreeing to take it through the other place. It will be in an incredibly safe pair of hands. I cannot help but observe that where Southend and Essex lead, the nation so often follows.
Once again, I thank everybody. Animal welfare unites this House. I look forward to the House sending a clear message that the abhorrent crime of pet abduction will not be tolerated and needs to come to an end; pets are so much more than just a piece of personal property. Through the Bill, I hope that that day comes very soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill
Friday 19th April 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 April 2024 - (19 Apr 2024)
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 9, leave out from “(9B)” to end of line 11 and insert
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment changes the procedure that applies to an SI containing regulations under new subsection (9B) of section 7 of the Building Societies Act 1986 (inserted by the Bill) so that it is subject to the affirmative procedure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, page 2, line 10, leave out from “to” to end of line 11 and insert
“approval by both Houses of Parliament”.
Julie Elliott
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The variety of Bills is in the strange nature of this place. We are going from the warm and fluffy Bill that we have just discussed, which I am delighted has received its Third Reading, to what is rather a dry Bill —but an important one none the less.
Amendment 2, which stands in my name, changes the procedure that applies to statutory instruments relating to proposed new subsection (9B) to section 7 of the Building Societies Act 1986. They will be subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than to the negative procedure as the Bill currently states. I tabled the amendment after talking to colleagues on both sides of the House. On reflection, it provides for closer scrutiny of the potential changes that could be made via secondary legislation under the Bill. The amendment does not change the immensely positive effect that I believe the Bill will have on the building society sector by bringing it in line with current practices, nor does it change the Bill’s aims, which will, in my view, enormously improve opportunities for people to get on the housing ladder. The result of the Bill will be a better landscape for first-time buyers, and the amendment just improves scrutiny.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I rise very much to support amendment 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). I am grateful to her for effectively taking forward my amendment 1, which we were told was defective because, although it would achieve exactly the same purpose, it does not use the normal wording that Government drafters like.
After some discussion, it was agreed by the hon. Lady and the Minister that it was sensible to use the affirmative procedure in relation to these delegated powers, and that affirmative procedure is now reflected in amendment 2. It could have been reflected in amendment 1, but what is important is the substance of the matter. These are potentially very significant changes that could be made, and if they are to be made, it is important that they are open to proper scrutiny.
As we know, the negative procedure does not really enable proper scrutiny. As an example, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that legislation was brought forward at the end of last year extending the breeds covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to include dogs of the XL bully type. I tabled an early-day motion to try to amend that. That early-day motion was on the Order Paper, but it was never accepted or debated, meaning that that change, which affected hundreds of thousands of dogs and their owners, was made without any proper scrutiny in Parliament. That is why it is important to have the affirmative procedure where possible, and I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for having brought forward this amendment, which I support.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Third Reading
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a pleasure to bring this Bill back for further debate, as it now exists in an amended form. It is a key moment for a Bill that is important to the building society sector, and I must thank all colleagues from both sides of the House who have taken part as the Bill has gone through its various stages—they have been so supportive of the Bill. I am going to keep my remarks short so that if other Members wish to speak, they can do so, and to try to make sure that the Bill’s progress is as smooth as possible.
The Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill will help level the playing field between building societies and banks, and will support building societies to be able to lend more money in a safe and secure way. To trade as a building society, the Building Societies Act 1986 requires the company to obtain a minimum of 50% of funding from its members—what is known as the wholesale funding limit. This Bill does not change that, and it does not dilute the unique ownership model of building societies. The fundamental nature of a building society—being run in the interests of its members—is not changed by the Bill; in fact, that is what makes the sector so special.
What the Bill does is disregard the following from the 50% wholesale funding limit: Bank of England liquidity insurance facilities, debt instruments raised to meet the minimum regulatory requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities requirements, and sums received under sale and repurchase agreements with a view to complying with Prudential Regulation Authority rules. This means that in times of national economic crisis, building societies will have more options within their gift for remaining comfortably solvent, and will therefore continue to serve in their members’ interests. The Bill is designed to allow future Governments to respond to the financial landscape of the day. That is why it does not specifically define funds, but instead defers the specification of funds to a later date through secondary legislation passed in this House. All the responses from the sector to the Government’s 2021 consultation on this issue, in advance of the Edinburgh reforms, were positive. Those reforms make the sector more robust.
The Bill also seeks to modernise the sector. It amends the 1986 Act to explicitly allow the option of real-time virtual member participation, bringing the sector in line with the requirements that the Companies Act 2006 places on businesses. It also enables the Treasury to introduce more flexibility for societies in relation to common sales and the execution of documents, in line with companies law.
The Bill is important because it would achieve a great deal in a very succinct manner, allowing the sector to operate on a more level playing field with banks. This is positive for a number of reasons, but especially in view of the sector’s support for first-time buyers. More than half building society lending goes to first-time buyers, and since 2020 building societies just in my region, the north-east and Cumbria, have lent them some £3.4 billion.
This Bill follows a number of previous private Members’ Bills—including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), which received Royal Assent last year—that continue to modernise the sector. I will not restate all the facts that I presented on Second Reading, powerful as they are, but it is important to acknowledge that, while the housing sector has recovered significantly since the record low mortgage approvals during the covid pandemic and has recovered from the acute economic shock caused by the last Conservative Administration, mortgage approvals are currently still below the level that that we saw before the pandemic. That is why I think that a Bill such as this, which gives more choice to the building society sector to operate in the interests of its members, is a good thing.
As I have said, the sector has a strong record in supporting first-time buyers, and given that every £10 million of lending could support an additional 20,000 mortgages, I am proud to be introducing a Bill with the potential not just to support the housing sector and the wider economy, but to allow building societies to help more people on their journey to home ownership. I have spoken to many constituents in Sunderland who are struggling to get on to the housing ladder—young couples and families who just want the chance to have a place that is theirs and in which they can feel comfortable, away from a volatile and often unfair rental market. The Government’s failure to reform the sector is a debate to be had elsewhere on another day, but I expect this Bill to do more to support a sector that often goes above and beyond to support its members, and to help people get on to the housing ladder and secure a future for themselves. Its passing would be a landmark moment for the sector, and I look forward to seeing the positive effects that it would bring.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on presenting the Bill and bringing it this far. Having presented a private Member’s Bill myself, I know all about the joy, and the ups and downs, of the process.
Building societies are financial institutions with the principal purpose of providing residential mortgages, and are funded substantially by their members. I have seen at first hand how their membership system brings people together, and gives many a shared sense of interest and purpose. Darlington—this will come as no surprise—is home to Darlington Building Society, which has been serving the people of Darlington and the surrounding area since 1856. Its commitment to our community is second to none; indeed, only last night at the Tees Business Awards event it walked away with the Community Champion award, which recognises its contribution to our community. While many high streets are seeing the loss of financial institutions, just a few months ago the Minister himself opened a new branch of Darlington Building Society in High Row.
Darlington is also the birthplace of the railways—bear with me here—and some years ago Darlington Building Society commissioned a children’s book by Peter Barron, the former editor of The Northern Echo, to tell the story of Darly the engine. As we approach the 200th anniversary of the railways—a very big year for us—the building society, in collaboration with the west end composer Stuart Brayson and Darlington Operatic Society, is turning the story of Darly into a musical, which will premier in September next year. I am proud to represent a town with such a strong track record of supporting our community.
The Bill is about putting building societies such as Darlington Building Society on a more level playing field with banks, in relation to their capital raising and corporate governance requirements, so that they can compete more effectively in the financial services sector and better support their members. It will help to deliver key asks from the sector itself. I welcome the provisions in the Bill, which largely mirror proposals that the Government consulted on during 2022, and I welcome that both the Government and the building society sector are supporting it. Indeed, Andrew Craddock, chief executive officer of Darlington Building Society, has also voiced his support stating:
“Darlington Building Society supports the proposed reforms to the Building Societies Act. The modernisation will cut archaic red tape by removing outdated corporate governance requirements, which building societies face but banks don’t.”
As a vital part of our financial framework, and with a deep-rooted interest in communities in Darlington, I believe the Bill will help building societies to survive and thrive. It is right that we do all we can to ensure that businesses flourish, so the cutting of red tape is welcome, as is the removing of outdated, bureaucratic governance systems that are not faced by big banks.
To conclude, I welcome the Bill as a way of ensuring that building societies are embraced and enabled to do business with fewer hurdles and red tape. It sorts out certain questions about funding, and it levels the playing field. I am pleased to support the Bill, and trust that the House will give it its full support.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Every day is a school day, and I am delighted to learn about Darly the engine. I am equally excited about the forthcoming musical, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for her efforts in getting the Bill through its initial stages. It is a Bill we can all get behind because it benefits our constituents, and I am pleased to give it my backing. At the back end of 2021, the Government ran a consultation on amendments that could improve the Building Societies Act 1986. The responses were pretty positive, and I am glad that the Bill reflects many of them.
Building societies play an unique role in the UK economy, serving around 25 million people and going back nearly a quarter of a century, particularly in Darlington. In my constituency, I was pleased to visit a branch of Nationwide Building Society late last year, to receive assurances that it was going to stay open—I am happy to place that on the record in this place—but more to see the impact that it has in the community. It is more than just banking services. People go in there for a chat, or more than a chat. Older members of our community are going in there and having lessons on online banking, how to use an iPad, and receiving advice on countering fraud, either online or on the phone. There is a real place in our communities for building societies.
As member-owned financial institutions, building societies are known for delivering excellent services, particularly on mortgage lending, often to a high level of customer satisfaction. For that reason, anything we can do in Parliament to ensure they remain competitive in the financial sector must be a good thing for both our economy and for local communities. The Bill will rightly put building societies on a more even keel with banks. In a broad sense, the Bill is about levelling the playing field in the financial sector, helping building societies to increase their lending capacity. That can be hugely helpful to first-time buyers, and more people on the housing ladder is something that Members across the House can get behind. In Milton Keynes, getting people on the property ladder is a real priority: it is incredibly frustrating that the average cost of a new-build house in Milton Keynes is about £475,000, while the average cost of any house sold in Milton Keynes last year was about £335,000. Access to finance and anything we can do to support that is a key part of any solution.
On the role that building societies play in mortgage-lending services, according to the Building Societies Association, they are responsible for a third of first-time buyer mortgage completions. It stands to reason that if we can increase the fundraising capacity for building societies, we can get even more people on the housing ladder. As clause 1 describes, the proposed changes can get us there.
The Bill is another good example of cross-party collaboration, with colleagues across the House recognising its clear benefits. From both personal experience and engagement with our constituents, Members can attest to the pivotal role that building societies play in our communities, Strengthening building societies is bound to have a positive economic consequence across the board. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress into law.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
I place on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for bringing a pragmatic and important Bill to the House, and I give it my full support today. As always, she works assiduously in making lives better for people across the United Kingdom and in her constituency, and she works in an extremely positive manner across parties to achieve her aims, and I thank her for that, too.
As others have mentioned, building societies are extremely important to the fabric of the financial institutions in our constituencies. I make regular visits to the Nationwide Building Society branch in East Kilbride, as I did just a few months ago. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), I was reassured to find out that my local branch had no plans to close and was thriving in the community. Many people were coming in to speak and to chat, as well as for socialisation and reassurance regarding finance and debt and how to engage with the new digital banking sector. The reach-out into the community is second to none.
I was impressed by that, particularly as I have had terrible news from East Kilbride just this week that the Royal Bank of Scotland is closing its branch there. That follows on from the bad news just last month that the Bank of Scotland is closing in Strathaven and Lesmahagow, leaving those communities without essential banking, particularly as those branches are the last banks in those local communities. It is distressing for the residents. I am pleased to be able to raise their concerns today and to praise Nationwide for the work it is doing and its assurance that it wants to be at the heart of our community for the foreseeable future.
I declare a personal interest, as my first mortgage was with that building society. I did not know an awful lot about finance or mortgages at the time, but Nationwide took the time to go through the different options with me, and I felt reassured by the manager. Having that face-to-face contact is so important. For first-time buyers who are not sure about the steps to take in getting their first mortgage—it is such a pivotal part of our life journey—these institutions play such an important role in our local communities.
I also place on record my thanks for the work that Nationwide is doing on mental health. I am part of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, chaired by Martin Lewis. We know that there is a huge link between mental health and finance. Debt, in particular, correlates with people’s mental health spiralling downwards, and we need to make sure we address those issues through all our banking institutions.
As has already been said, this is an important Bill, which places building societies on par with banks for corporate governance and solvency, and will keep them competitive and at the heart of our communities for the future.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). As we all know, it is sheer luck to come top of the private Member’s Bill ballot, but drafting a Bill that generates strong cross-party support and becomes law is the result of tremendous hard work. This is a classic private Member’s Bill that, as she suggested, might look technical in nature but will make a huge difference to those people affected. The Bill is also true to Labour and Co-operative values, and we in the Labour party are delighted to support it.
My hon. Friend has worked painstakingly over many months to draft and develop the Bill, engaging with Treasury civil servants and Ministers. She has also worked closely with Labour’s sister party, the Co-operative party, and the wider mutual sector, including the Building Societies Association and Nationwide. We have heard excellent contributions in the debate that have highlighted the importance of the sector and the positive impact that the Bill will have for communities and families, not least in the context of bank branch closures across the country.
Building societies and mutuals have a long and proud tradition of supporting working people in accessing affordable finance. Today, the sector continues to play a crucial role in promoting financial responsibility and resilience among its members. Building societies also enable families to get on the housing ladder. As we have heard, they direct a significant proportion of their lending to first-time buyers, and the Bill could unlock significant additional lending capacity from building societies, supporting more working people to become homeowners, not least in my constituency of Bristol North West, where so many people are struggling to buy their first home.
Since the Bill first came before the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has launched the Labour party’s financial services review. That landmark review outlines Labour’s plan to work hand in hand with businesses and the financial services sector to drive economic prosperity. It also reaffirms what the first priority will be of a Labour Government: to provide a secure platform for growth, which builds on the strengths of our economy and gives citizens across the UK financial stability. To deliver on those priorities, a key aspect of the review is Labour’s commitment that the next Labour Government will aim to double the size of the co-operative and mutual financial services sector under. The Bill is an important step towards achieving that aim, as it will help to level the playing field for banks and building societies.
While Labour strongly welcomes the measures in the Bill, we believe that further legislation is necessary to deliver on our ambitions and ensure benefits for communities across the country. That is why our review set out measures that will help to underpin rapid mutual financial services growth, including new requirements on regulators and policymakers to: consider properly the needs of mutuals and actively reduce barriers to their growth; support credit unions in offering more products; and strengthen the small and medium-sized enterprises bank referral scheme, in order to support businesses in securing financial resources from co-operatives and mutuals.
Labour’s ambition, working together with the Co-operative party and the wider co-operative and mutual sector, is clear: to support the sector, so that the vital contribution that it makes to our economy can go further and drive much needed growth in the future. Labour recognises that the Bill is an important step forward, and we are delighted to give it our full support. May I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central on her excellent work?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on reaching the Third Reading of her important Bill, which will help to ensure the future growth and success of the building society sector. She is a strong advocate for the sector, and has introduced a Bill that will help it to grow and compete with retail banks, so that it can continue to provide vital diversity to the UK financial services sector.
I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who I was delighted to join back in November to open the Darlington Building Society in the middle of town. I saw from him and the employees just how impactful they are in his community, and I am sure that they will go from strength to strength.
Peter Gibson
While the Minister is on his feet, I wonder whether he could outline to the House the gift he received from Robin Blair, our veteran fruiterer and vegetable trader in our historic market hall, who joined him on that opening day.
Gareth Davies
I was not expecting an intervention on that of all subjects, but I did enjoy the satsumas that were provided by the very nice gentleman, who I understand is an institution in the town of Darlington.
As I was saying, building societies are important to all our communities, not least mine in Grantham and Bourne. In Grantham I have the Nationwide Building Society, the Nottingham Building Society and the Melton Mowbray Building Society, a new branch of which is opening in Bourne in April.
Today I wish to outline a few things: first, the Government’s support for the mutuals sector; secondly, the importance of mutuals to our overall financial services sector; and, finally, how this Bill will further support the future growth and success of mutuals. The Government want to promote the growth of mutuals, which make a vital contribution to the UK economy. As outlined in the mutuals prospectus, there are over 9,000 mutuals operating throughout the country, with a combined annual turnover of some £88 billion in 2022, which equates to 3.5% of UK GDP. However, beyond their vital financial contribution to the UK economy, mutuals play an important role in supporting people across the country. Their unique ownership model means that these businesses are rooted in their local communities, and working to make society better.
It is for those reasons that the Government are committed to supporting the growth and success of the mutual sector. For example, last summer the Government amended the Credit Unions Act 1979 so that credit unions in Great Britain can offer a greater range of products and services. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Sunderland Central said, last year the Government supported the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), which achieved Royal Assent in June 2023. The Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 will allow the Treasury to pursue further secondary legislation to give co-operatives, mutual insurers and friendly societies greater flexibility in deciding what to do with their surplus capital and the restrictions on their assets. The Government continue to develop a modern and supportive business environment for mutuals. As part of that, we have asked the Law Commission to conduct reviews of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 and the Friendly Societies Act 1992.
Building societies are perhaps one of the best-known types of mutuals. There are 42 building societies operating throughout the country, providing mortgage and savings products to around 26 million members. They play an essential role in supporting their members in building savings habits and buying their own home, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) outlined. That cause is supported by Members from across the House, but particularly by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, who has consistently championed the importance of supporting first-time buyers—not just in her constituency, but across the country.
Building societies are especially well represented in communities outside the south-east. For example, the Melton Mowbray Building Society provides vital support in all areas neighbouring my constituency, and I note that the Newcastle Building Society has a significant presence in the constituency of hon. Member for Sunderland Central. It builds on a 160-year history, and its amazing commitment to its members in the communities in which it operates remains strong. It has partnered with the citizens advice fund to provide expert advice to members, answering questions on a variety of important issues. She also has the Yorkshire Building Society in her constituency, which has done great work on financial literacy through its Money Minds programme.
It is clear that building societies contribute to the wellbeing of communities throughout our country, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. The Government are fully supportive of this private Member’s Bill, which will help the sector to compete more effectively with retail banks, so that building societies can continue to work.
This Bill is about enabling building societies to grow and compete with retail banks. We are achieving that by updating the legislation in three short ways. First, the Bill excludes three specified sources of funding from the 50% wholesale funding limit for building societies. This will provide them with greater flexibility in raising additional wholesale funding, while still operating within the mutual model. The detail of the funds will be further specified by the Treasury through secondary legislation in due course. Furthermore, the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central means that the statutory instruments will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing for greater parliamentary scrutiny; that comes on the back of very constructive work from across the House. The amendment does not change the policy outcome of the Bill in any way, but simply amends the parliamentary procedure that will be followed when subsequent regulations are made.
Secondly, the Bill allows for the option of real-time virtual participation at building society meetings. This will improve meeting accessibility and promote wider membership engagement, should the members of any building society choose to permit virtual participation under their rules.
Finally, the Bill will provide His Majesty’s Treasury with the power to further align constitutional provisions. Specifically, it will align provisions in part 2 of the Building Societies Act 1986 on common seals and the execution of documents with modifications made to company law. This will remove outdated and burdensome legislative requirements, and update the 1986 Act, in line with modernisations made to company law.
In conclusion, the Government fully support the hon. Lady’s Bill. We recognise the importance of the building society sector, which supports people and communities across the country. I extend my thanks to the hon. Lady for introducing the Bill and for progressing it to Third Reading. She can be assured that the Government share the vision set out in the Bill for supporting the future growth and prosperity of the building society sector.
Julie Elliott
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all Members who contributed at various stages of the Bill. On Second Reading, I had not expected the political history lesson we had from Members on both sides of the Chamber, but it was quite entertaining. It is an honour to have a debate on a Bill on which everybody agrees; everybody can see the very tangible benefits it will have for all our constituents.
It has taken a lot of work from a lot of people to get to this point. I thank not only colleagues who have taken part at every stage, but Treasury officials, who have been extremely helpful; the Clerks, whose advice, support and guidance is, as always in this place, invaluable; the Whips; the Building Societies Association; and our sister party, the Co-operative party. They have all contributed, and helped with advice and support, as I have taken the Bill through the House. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill
Friday 19th April 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Zoological Society of London (Leases) Act 2024 View all Zoological Society of London (Leases) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 April 2024 - (19 Apr 2024)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call Sir Christopher Chope to move amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you. Consideration is complete. [Interruption.] I understand that King’s consent will need to be signified for Third Reading.
Sir Christopher Chope
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can we move on to the next business, please?
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At what point can we make speeches on the Bill?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Once the Third Reading debate has commenced.
Third Reading
King’s consent signified.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who had an amendment down on the amendment paper, may I just say that that was the subject of a great deal of discussion and debate between the Ministry, the sponsors and myself?
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for having, in effect, withdrawn his amendment, following various discussions. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) explain why it is important and timely that we ensure the Bill receives its Third Reading today and progresses to the other place?
Bob Blackman
Let me explain the situation with the length of lease, which is the point of contention. It was the subject of discussion and debate with the Ministry. The Minister’s original proposal was for a 100-year lease extension, which would not have allowed the Zoological Society of London to get the investment required to lengthen the lease and renovate the site of London zoo. It has literally had its big animals moved up to Whipsnade zoo so that they can roam freely, as we would all like. That means the cages in which they were kept are now redundant and need to be completely removed, with modern facilities provided. As a result, we have agreed the compromise at 150 years.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
For clarity, will my hon. Friend outline when the ZSL’s current lease commenced?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not have that detail to hand. What is important is that the lease is ongoing and therefore running out. In respect of the Crown Estate’s provision, London zoo was unfortunately left out when we did the extension to Kew gardens, so this Bill seeks to be in keeping with the provision for Kew gardens, as for other parts of the Crown Estate. That is the crucial element.
It has been a privilege to take this Bill—my third private Member’s Bill—through Parliament. Since visiting the zoo in January 2023, I have worked with a range of people to get to this stage, without whom it would not have been possible. The zoo is situated in Regent’s Park and is home to more than 14,000 animals. It is a true London landmark. If colleagues have not visited, I recommend it as an abundantly enjoyable, interesting and captivating day out, with the added bonus of being only a short tube journey from this place. Every year, tourists from London and the wider UK, and indeed from around the globe, visit the zoo, which contributes to the UK’s wider economy, as visitors are more likely to spend money in the surrounding areas, particularly as the zoo is only a stone’s throw from many of London’s cultural hotspots.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important topic. That visitor economy is essential to all parts of our country, but it is really important to London. Does he know how many international visitors travel to visit the zoo each year?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will come to that point in a few moments. The key point is that the zoo contributes £24 million to the local economy, as well as making the income it needs to maintain its research and keeps threatened species safe. Community outreach projects are instrumental in the philosophy of the zoo. On my visit, I was very impressed by the new garden area, where volunteers with complex needs can spend the day gardening and visiting the animals for much-needed respite and wellbeing.
The zoo has also recently implemented a community access scheme to enable those on income support and other benefits to visit for as little as £3. In the recent February half-term, 50,000 visits were facilitated through that scheme. It is essential that everyone, regardless of where they live, has access to nature and outdoor space. I am therefore pleased that ZSL is committed to providing access to those who need the extra help so that no one is left out.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The reputation of the wider zoo sector has come in for a bit of examination in recent decades, and it has been criticised, perhaps correctly, for enclosures that were too small, and concerns were raised that we were starting to look at animals as objects for entertainment, rather than considering the preservation of rare species. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend expanded a little on the steps that this zoo has taken to move away from the outdated approaches of zoological societies in the past and to lead the fight to retain really rare species for reintroduction in the wild.
Bob Blackman
Clearly, the decision has been made to move the larger animals to Whipsnade zoo, which ZSL also runs, so that they have the space they need to roam in and feel more like they are in the wild, while still being protected. That means those facilities at London zoo are now redundant and—this is precisely the reason for the Bill—need to be replaced with modern facilities for other protected species, and so that visitors can see them in suitable accommodation. Those species obviously do not need to roam, but they will be given modern facilities. I encourage other zoos across the country, and indeed across the world, to consider the same thing.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. This brings me to the zoo’s built structures. The zoo has been in that location for well over 100 years —perhaps it is 200 years—and some of the structures that I saw when I visited as a child are of considerable architectural merit, and perhaps historic merit. What steps is the zoo taking to ensure that its structures are appropriate for modern usage and that its listed buildings, if there are any, are protected and that the architectural merit of the historical Victorian enclosures is recognised?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, many of these structures are protected, which is one reason why it is so expensive to bring them up to modern standards while retaining the original architecture. If it were a simple case of demolishing and putting in new facilities, there would be less cost. That is why a very large investment is required, which the zoo cannot raise from its own resources; it has to borrow the money, and as a result it needs a lease that is long enough for investors to know that the revenue will come in from visitors and other attractions and that they will recover their funds. This is why the Bill is so vital for safeguarding London zoo for the future.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be well aware that ZSL has highlighted that the existing lease conditions are limiting its ability to fundraise, to create partnerships, to expand its support programmes and, of course, to invest in that vital renovation of the physical infrastructure. Can he confirm that this law would not automatically extend the lease to 150 years in and of itself, but would allow the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to offer this lease, so it is not automatic but a step in the right direction to enable that support for the zoo?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is what we hope to hear from the Minister later on. Clearly, we are in a position whereby we are making the offer, but we will have to see about that negotiation to ensure that there is suitable protection so that, were such terrible events to occur such that ZSL should no longer have the lease, it would be removed. However, it has operated very successfully on the site for many years, so I do not think that is likely.
Moving on, the educational offerings provide a critical supplement to classroom working for many children. In fact, many of us will have had the opportunity to visit the school as children. The workshops, which are specifically tailored to cater for all age groups and learning needs, educate children on such hugely important topics as wildlife conservation, climate change and the impact of pollution.
The zoo’s research has perhaps benefited animals the most, shaping the future of many previously endangered species. Many animals at risk of extinction have participated in the zoo’s breeding programme to ensure that they are saved for future generations. In 2021-22 alone, £17.4 million was spent on conservation science and field conservation programmes, with £38.5 million spent on conservation, animal care, breeding programmes and conservation translocations. I am pleased that, in the coming months, the zoo will be returning the previously endangered Guam kingfisher back into the wild, and only recently, over the Easter break, three endangered Asiatic lion cubs were born at the zoo to doting parents—seven-year-old mum Arya, and 14-year-old dad Bhanu.
The animals do not recognise working hours, annual leave or bank holidays; they need supervision and care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure that they are fed and cared for whenever needed. That emphasises the need for the dedicated and thorough programme that the zoo operates on. It is profoundly clear that the zoo is an integral part of society, and thus we must protect its heritage and position. I am pleased that we have made it to Third Reading, and I am confident that, hopefully on receiving Royal Assent, the future of the zoo will be much more stable, and a brighter, increasingly attractive opportunity for investment purposes.
Jerome Mayhew
Looking at the wording of the Bill, there is a question mark over its drafting, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain it to me. We can see in clause 1 that the Bill is
“in relation to certain land in Regent’s Park”,
with the potential to substitute “150 years” for “60 years”. It is very specific; the potential powers are in relation to certain lands and leases relating to Regent’s Park in London. Yet clause 2(1) states:
“This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
Can my hon. Friend clarify that for me? What is the need for the extension to the jurisdictions of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland when the lease is particular to Regent’s Park in London?
Bob Blackman
Clearly, we are looking at a lease and leasehold law. That is the reason for clarifying that particular issue in that particular way.
I would like to thank Matthew Gould, the chief executive officer for ZSL. Matthew and I have crossed paths on several occasions prior to his appointments to his previous positions as the Government’s first director general for digital and media at DCMS and as Britain’s ambassador to Israel. Therefore, it feels fitting to have come full circle and to have worked with him on this Bill over the past year. His devotion to the welfare and happiness of the zoo’s animals is steadfast, with a commitment to the research and development of species across the globe and to tackling the world’s challenges, including the current biodiversity crisis.
My next thanks go to Vicky Godwin, senior public affairs officer for the zoo. Vicky has been on hand throughout the progress of the Bill, facilitating the discussions between the Department, my office and ZSL. She has also come in to provide support every step of the way, watching the debates at the Bill’s various stages.
I am very grateful to my colleagues who helpfully sat on the Bill Committee and allowed the Bill to pass unanimously with no amendments. It was super to hear the support for London zoo from so many highly respected Members from both in and outside London. Some—such as a previous employee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin), who was a keeper at London zoo in his distant past—had a more vested interest. My hon. Friend’s personal experiences that he shared in Committee were interesting, to put it mildly.
I also thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office who bore with us through the process, informing my office on procedure and developments. I particularly thank them for their patience during the mad scramble to ensure that we had enough Members serving on the Committee ahead of the deadline. They often get overlooked in this place, but their work is crucial to ensuring the proceedings of the Chamber run smoothly, and we are all very grateful for all that they do.
The Minister and officials in her Department have supported the Bill throughout, for which I am exceptionally grateful. Their advice and assistance with drafting the Bill have been invaluable—indeed, they redrafted our original draft. It is great that the Government are supporting this worthy change in the lease, which benefits the zoo, the local area and obviously all the potential visitors. I have no doubt that should the Minister, or indeed any other colleague, wish to visit the zoo, they will be greeted with open arms and met with many friendly faces, both human and animal. I also thank my parliamentary assistant, Hattie Shoosmith. As always, when she drafts these speeches, she misses herself out of the thanks, but I put on record my thanks to her.
I will just remind colleagues about some of the endangered species and particular zoo animals that have been protected as a direct result of this Bill coming to fruition. The first is one of my favourite animals, Guy the gorilla. On Guy Fawkes day in 1947, a very small gorilla arrived at London zoo clutching a tin hot water bottle. At first, he would only respond to French, as he had spent the previous six months in the zoo in Paris. Guy became one of the zoo’s best-loved characters —I remember seeing him as a young boy. When sparrows entered his enclosure, he would scoop them up gently and peer at them before letting them go. Tragically, he died of a heart attack after having a tooth extracted in 1978, and his statue is much loved by London zoo’s visitors today.
The second is Goldie the eagle. I remember that in 1965, when I was in primary school, Goldie escaped. We became obsessed with Goldie for almost a fortnight; he appeared on TV and in the press, and was cheered wildly—even when mentioned in this place, in the House of Commons. Some 5,000 people caused traffic jams around Regent’s Park as he flew from tree to tree. After 11 days and 19 and a half hours, he was finally recaptured and brought back to the zoo.
The only quagga to ever have been photographed alive was at London zoo. There are officially five photos of a quagga, providing the only insight into what a living quagga looked like after the species became extinct in 1883. Thousands of quagga once grazed the plains of southern Africa; today, they provide a reminder of the importance of wildlife conservation.
Pipaluk, a male polar bear, was born at London zoo on 1 December 1967. He was the only male polar bear cub successfully reared at the zoo. The name Pipaluk, meaning “little one”, was chosen from a list of Inuit names. Pipaluk’s parents, who had arrived from Moscow zoo in 1960 as young cubs, were called Sam and Sally— they were named after the zoo’s bear keeper, Sam Morton, and his fiancée. Pipaluk left London zoo in 1985 when the Mappin terraces, which housed all the bears, were closed, and very sadly died at the age of 22 in a zoo in Poland.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend is giving us fantastic stories of the remarkable work that London zoo is doing. Does he have any statistics about the number of animals it has been able to protect and return to the wild through its amazing conservation operations?
Bob Blackman
The reality is that there are 10,000 animals of various species in the zoo. I suspect I would try your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, were I to list all of them, but I will talk about some of them.
Jumbo the elephant is believed to have been born in 1861. He arrived at the Jardin des Plantes zoo in Paris when he was still very small, and in 1865 he was sent to London zoo. On arrival there, he was in a dreadful condition, but after he was placed in the care of Matthew Scott, a former antelope keeper, Jumbo flourished. He was so famous, he has had a lasting impact on the English language, helping to make “jumbo” a synonym for big. A female African elephant, Alice, arrived a few months after Jumbo, and the two elephants became associated in the public mind. Jumbo was soon trained to give rides and became a great favourite, largely because he had such a good nature. By the early 1880s, he was nearly 11 feet tall. Sadly, Jumbo was killed in a railway accident in Canada in 1885.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I do not wish to appear churlish, and the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that I have a personal interest in these matters, but it would be helpful if he were to relate the catalogue to the reasons for extending the lease.
Bob Blackman
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take your remark into account.
The reality is that among the well over 10,000 animals at the zoo are many endangered species that could not be preserved were the zoo to cease operating. If we do not extend the lease, the zoo will not continue. Endangered species there include the Annam leaf turtle, the Asiatic lion, the Lake Oku clawed frog, the mountain chicken, the northern white-cheeked gibbon, the Philippine crocodile, the ring-tailed lemur, the Sumatran tiger, of which there are only 400 left in the world, the Waldrapp ibis, various species of gorilla, all of which are endangered, the white-naped mangabey, the Chinese giant salamander, and finally pangolins.
Jerome Mayhew
I very much hope that the Bill is passed and that by extending the lease we can secure the future of these endangered animals. Were that not to happen, though, what is plan B for the Zoological Society, for the maintenance of its programmes and, indeed, for the future of the animals its staff currently look after?
Bob Blackman
I have not mentioned the immense zoological research done at the zoo by world-famous scientists. For example, Darwin performed research at London zoo; he might not have come up with the theory of evolution without the zoo. Currently, thousands of scientists at the zoo do brilliant work and conduct wonderful research. I recommend that any colleague interested in zoological research visits the zoo and sees some of the work being done there, and I urge them to recognise that were the zoo not to have visitor attractions that bring in revenue, it would cease to exist. If we do not extend the lease, the zoo will continue to run down, it will not have the investment that it requires, and it will be unable to continue its excellent work. Unless we pass the Bill and it becomes law, the zoo will not be able to raise the money that it needs to do all that wonderful work and preserve endangered species across the world, which will unfortunately become extinct. That is the harsh reality, and that is why the Bill is so important.
Let me end by reminding Members of the vital contribution that London zoo and the Zoological Society of London have made to our world over the last 200 years. As I have said, Charles Darwin conducted many of his studies at London zoo, and without it we would not have the theory of evolution.
Another notable character connected with the zoo is Winnie the Pooh. Lieutenant Harry Colebourn was a member of the Royal Canadian Army Veterinary Corps during the great war, and while travelling across Canada to join his regiment and serve in the war, he bought a female black bear cub in White River, Ontario from a hunter who had killed her mother. Colebourn named the bear Winnie after his then home town, the city of Winnipeg, and when his regiment was sent by train to England in 1914, Winnie accompanied him. She became a pet, and an unofficial mascot to the 2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade during its time on Salisbury plain. Colebourn was not, however, permitted to take her with him when the brigade was deployed to the battlefields of France. He left her in the keeping of London zoo on 9 December 1914, hoping to return after the war to reclaim her.
Colebourn served heroically during the war, rising to the rank of captain. Although he visited his beloved Winnie when he was on leave from France, he ultimately decided that the zoo was the best place for her to live, and in 1919 he donated her permanently in gratitude for her care. Among the children of London who continued to be smitten by Winnie in the coming years was a young boy called Christopher Robin, who repeatedly begged his father, the author A. A. Milne, to take him to the zoo. He would feed Winnie spoonfuls of condensed milk in between big, furry hugs—and from that came the stories of Winnie-the-Pooh. As we know, the late Queen was a great fan of Winnie-the-Pooh as well.
Peter Gibson
May I ask my hon. Friend whether the zoo has a current royal patron, and if so, who it is?
Bob Blackman
The King is, of course, greatly enamoured of both wildlife and London zoo, and I am therefore delighted that he has given King’s consent to the Bill, but the actual royal patron—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is chuntering from a sedentary position. I will take an intervention from him if he will be good enough to make one.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is really a sort of point of order. I do not think it appropriate for anyone presenting a piece of legislation to claim the monarch’s support or otherwise. That is not what royal confirmation means.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously we want to ensure that we proceed effectively and properly, and I take his point and will adapt my remarks accordingly.
Sir Christopher Chope
In two years’ time it will be the bicentenary of the Zoological Society of London. Are we not being rather churlish in discussing only an extension of the lease? Why do we not let the society have the freehold of London zoo?
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend and I share the view that leasehold should be abolished completely, with freehold the norm and commonhold in flats. However, the zoo is part of the Crown Estate, so this is a matter for the Crown Estate. If the freehold were to be negotiated between the Crown Estate and the society, that too would be a matter for them, but it goes beyond the scope of the Bill.
Sir Christopher Chope
The Crown Estate has discretion to provide either an extension or a freehold. The Government are enabling those with long leases to acquire freeholds. Why are the Government not ensuring that the zoo can have the freehold? Why is there one standard for Crown Estate property and another standard for private landlords?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely correct to say that that goes slightly wider than the scope of the Bill under discussion. I take his point, but that is perhaps a matter for another day.
Bob Blackman
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your guidance. I agree with my hon. Friend that that could and should be potentially negotiated. That is, of course, a matter for discussion with the Crown Estate. It may well be that, following the general election and a new Parliament, we might consider taking that forward in a future Bill and a future debate, but for today the debate is about the extension of the lease.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I, along with a number of other Members, have been involved with the Society of Antiquaries’ discussions with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about extending the society’s lease. I am very pleased that it successfully secured a 999-year lease extension. Was a similar length considered when my hon. Friend was putting together the Bill?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We started with a provision to extend the lease from its current form to 100 years. The investors who were approached by ZSL to consider whether that would allow them to do what is required said, “No, this is not enough. It would take a minimum of 150 years.” So it is fair to say that, in the negotiations between the Department, ZSL and me, we have come to a compromise of an extension to the lease of 150 years. Were the Department and the Crown Estate so minded, we could look at a 999-year lease extension, but that is what the Bill’s sponsors requested and what I am pleased to propose. I hope the House will go along with that proposal and that it can be put into law and come to fruition after the other place has had a look at it. If there is then another suggestion that we go for a much longer lease, that can be the subject of yet another Bill in the new Parliament and we could take that forward, if required. At the moment, it is not required, but as we know 999 years is effectively a freehold.
Jerome Mayhew
If any one of us are homeowners, we will know that periodic renovations are required to refresh a commercial offering or our own homes. It gives me some cause for concern that the Bill is based on the premise of a single renovation of the offer at Regent’s Park. My hon. Friend suggests that the full 150-year extension is required to secure the current round of investment. Is it not rather shortsighted to bring forward a Bill that solves only today’s problem and is blind to the entirely foreseeable problems that will come in 25, 40 or perhaps 50 years?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. How long a lease extension will be granted for is obviously a matter for debate. The decision on how much funding is required is a matter for the operators who are considering what they want to do and why they want to do it. Clearly, matters may change in the future, but that is what is required to do the work that is required over a lengthy period. I believe that they have made the right assessment. Things can change, in which case that would lead, I think, to another negotiation and another consideration of what else is required. However, a 150-year lease extension allows substantial investment to be made over a number of years, so as matters change, the investment can be called down, utilised and built upon.
I will end my remarks there. I thank everybody for listening and for their interventions. I look forward to hearing colleagues, including the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to speak on Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on piloting this Bill on a subject that has been a passion of his for some time, and I am hopeful not only that we will give the Bill its Third Reading today, but that it will sail through the other place.
My hon. Friend has set out pretty well the reasons why this matters, but I think it worth adding some points on the strength of London zoo in what it brings to wildlife not just in this country but around the world, and why the extension of the lease matters. I sympathise with concerns about whether we should be looking to change the 1961 Act to allow for a freehold in this situation, but we have to be pragmatic in what we do. My understanding is that the Crown Estate’s standard lease for buildings is 150 years and, as a consequence, that is the sensible conclusion that my hon. Friend has put into the Bill. There is good reason for that, as has already been outlined, in terms of the potential not only to generate funds to undertake redevelopment, but to predict the future income necessary for many of the zoo’s activities.
One thing that right hon. and hon. Members may not be aware of is that several London zoo buildings have had to be closed. Some have been closed in order then to provide better environments. A good example is the reptile house: it closed in October last year, and a brand new reptile experience was opened over the Easter recess. I must admit that, while bearded dragons may be lovely and glamourous, I am not particularly a fan of snakes, but I have overcome the fear that meant I could not even look at a picture of a snake. Nevertheless, the environment and habitat are absolutely key if those animals are to prosper, and the amount of careful work required is not cheap. Other buildings have simply been closed: London zoo has two listed buildings that need to be maintained to a certain standard, and as we know, the cost of doing so seems ever-increasing.
People should not think that London zoo can carry on as it is. In 1992, the ZSL council actually ordered that London zoo be closed because it was losing money. That would have been devastating for this great city of London, and for the ZSL, given the work that it does not just in this country, but around the world. That is why I am pleased that we have made the progress that we have. Ultimately, London zoo has to generate income in order to ensure that it can continue to function and operate.
On redevelopment, certain buildings have been closed simply because they are not necessarily safe either for the animals or for humans, so it is important that new sources of finance go into London zoo to ensure that the environment for animals is the best it can be, and that it can be a visitor attraction. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain that the zoo is the 10th most visited attraction in our great capital, but there has of course been significant investment beyond London. When the elephant house was closed down, for example, an appropriate environment was set up at Whipsnade zoo to reaccommodate them. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs hired the Mappin pavilion last year, when I gave a speech on the progress of the 25-year environment plan. Of course, this is done primarily for the animals, but it has to be attractive so that the organisation can thrive and raise funds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East talked extensively about the research that is carried out. This is a vital part of zoos. It is only just over 30 years ago that this zoo could have closed. For the sake of global diversity, it is essential that we see our zoos thrive—and all the facilities that go with that and, as I said, the underpinning research.
My hon. Friend referred to the programme on Sumatran tigers, one of the most endangered species in the world. Mr Deputy Speaker, I had the great privilege last year of feeding one of those Sumatran tigers. I have to admit that it was somewhat at arm’s length, understandably, and through bars, but it was an amazing experience. We need to recognise that the work that happens in this country supports the work that is being done around the world, and that is why I shall continue to support any zoo. In particular, it is why I have been so keen to support my hon. Friend’s Bill and to make sure that London zoo has an opportunity not only to keep these animals alive and well, but to thrive.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on bringing forward this Bill and on the amazing way that he dealt with so many interventions on a range of technicalities that have pushed not only his knowledge, but the knowledge of all of us in respect of London zoo. We know that zoos have changed very much over the years. They are far from being what they once were: some of us would think they were cruel places where animals were kept in conditions that would now be deemed unacceptable. We have a proud record in this country of zoos and safari parks being places of education, protection, conservation and enjoyment.
The London Zoological Society might be a bit of a trek for many from my constituency of Darlington. I think our nearest zoo is at Flamingo Land, near Pickering, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). This debate is an excellent opportunity to highlight to my constituents who are coming to London for whatever reason that they could add London zoo to the list of places that they want to visit.
I know that much of the work that our zoos do, particularly London zoo, is groundbreaking and vital to conservation. They ensure that the children of the future can see animals such as Nelly the elephant, Bilbo the baboon, Fletchie the flamingo and, indeed, Patronella the pangolin, to observe their beauty and learn more about these amazing creatures, but we must ensure that worries about London zoo’s lease are put to rest.
While preparing for this debate, it has been quite fascinating to learn that London zoo is leading the way in protecting pangolins, which are the most trafficked animal in the world, with one being poached almost every five minutes. London zoo is a leading partner in their protection, restoration and ecosystems and works alongside those living with these beautiful, shy and critically endangered creatures.
Ben Everitt
The work on pangolins is a great example of the international reach of our precious asset of London zoo. I wonder what the need is for that protection. Why are pangolins so endangered and what is it that we are doing in London and internationally to protect them?
Peter Gibson
I know very little about pangolins, but what I have read in preparation for this debate would indicate that they are trafficked for their scales and meat in the far east.
Dr Coffey
When I attended the convention on international trade in endangered species conference back in 2016, pangolins were the big issue. As my hon. Friend rightly says, people assume that their scales are of benefit, but they are also a delicacy. Pangolins are brilliant at protecting themselves against predators by rolling up into a ball. Unfortunately, that makes them the easiest animal to pick up and poach, and that is why the ongoing work is so critical.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her clarification. It is right that we do much in this place to protect animals, including the dogs and cats that we have done so much good work for already this morning by passing the Pet Abduction Bill. Indeed, through a relatively dry Bill about lease reform and the Crown Estate, we can do something that helps conservation around the world. We must help to ensure that London zoo can continue its good work by amending the Crown Estate Act 1961 and increase the society’s lease on that land to 150 years. Then anxieties about its tenure can go away, and the society can continue to be a place of enjoyment, leading the way in all it does. I am pleased to support the Bill.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on the progress made on the Bill, which has all our support. Of course we should extend the lease. To echo the point that has been made about London zoo, it is 200 years old—the oldest zoo in the world. It had humble beginnings, I am sure, as a sort of entertainment for the public, and it has become an incredibly important conservation charity of great global importance. While my hon. Friend was speaking, I thought of how, as barbarism took over the world, learning and culture retreated into the medieval monasteries. It is almost as if the endangered species of the world have been saved by some of these zoological institutions, and are then able to return. It was interested to hear about the species that have been saved or preserved—kingfishers, tigers, the quagga. Well, I am sorry to hear that the zoo did not in fact help to save the quagga, but at least it has some photographs of it, which is encouraging. I did not know about the mountain chicken, and I had no idea of the story of Winnie the Pooh. I am only sorry that Winnie did not stay on Salisbury plain, which is part of my constituency, where we would have given him or her a happy life. It is a very good thing that Winnie ended up in London zoo, and we can all be very proud of that.
I commend the Bill. The zoo is an historic institution, which is one of the reasons we should be so proud of it, and it has a very bright future. I was encouraged to hear from my hon. Friend about the plans for the zoo. I was not aware that Matthew Gould had taken over as chief executive. I knew him slightly when I was a civil servant at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and he was in charge of the nation’s digital policy. It is amazing how people move around in our elite. Why should he not be running the zoo? He is obviously doing a great job, and I commend the plans for it that I hear about, and the skills that he brings from his background. I am interested and inspired by what I hear about the modernisation of the zoo; it is looking forward, and using digital skills and immersive technology to give visitors an enhanced experience that gets them closer to the reality of the natural habitat that these animals come from, and to which we hope that they or their descendants will be able to return.
What I hear is encouraging. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s argument that to raise the capital that is needed for long-term investment on the site, the investors who finance that work will need certainty that the zoo will be around long enough. This change is the right thing to do, and I echo the point that it would be nice if the zoo was there in perpetuity with a freehold. I commend the Bill. I am pleased that Members across the House support it, and I will be happy to do so myself.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). He gave an excellent speech, and I must say that there is a certain air of a Victorian zookeeper about him today. It is a pleasure to speak in favour of the Bill, which I support. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on bringing it forward; it is the right thing to do. This is a very small piece of legislation—a tiny blip on the legislative agenda, only a few lines long—but it is important that we amend the Crown Estate Act 1961 to increase the maximum term of lease.
As we have heard, the change we are making does not automatically grant ZSL a lease of 150 years, but crucially—I am looking at the Minister—it allows the Department to offer this length of lease in the future. This is important for so many reasons, as was capably covered by the previous speaker. It is a UK institution, but also a groundbreaker internationally as the world’s first scientific zoo. The Zoological Society of London is an international conservation charity that saves animals that are on the brink of extinction, protects species and restores ecosystems. It is also much more than that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East described. The tourism that ZSL London zoo brings to the UK is phenomenal; it provides £24 million to our economy every year, and that is just its specific impact on tourism; there is its wider tourism pull, as one of many institutions in London that tourists come to.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend’s constituency in Milton Keynes is far closer and much better connected to London than mine. I wonder if he knows how many of his constituents visit London zoo, and whether schools in Milton Keynes North engage with the zoo to learn about its conservation work.
Ben Everitt
That is a fantastic intervention. The short answer is no, so there is a huge opportunity for me to investigate whether schools in Milton Keynes North have taken the chance to visit ZSL London zoo. The educational benefits would be superb. On my hon. Friend’s point about connectivity and getting to the zoo from his constituency and mine, I can only assume that he has not tried Avanti trains recently. On occasion, I am not sure that the journey from Darlington would be much slower than the journey from Milton Keynes.
London zoo is one of the many attractions—educational, leisure or otherwise—in London, but it can be proud of its position as the 10th most popular tourist attraction in London. The zoo is about more than just education and tourism. A core function of its output is conservation, and it has global reach. It has conservation activities in over 70 countries worldwide. We have seen the reintroduction of many species. All that work is born out of the premises that we seek to support through this lease extension.
On species reintroduction, I think in particular of the reintroduction of the partula snail. On conservation breeding programmes, I think obviously of the northern bald ibis, a species that has not been mentioned yet, and the fen raft spider. The conservation breeding programme occurred partly due to the reintroduction of the partula snail. The work done with conservationists in other countries has meant a huge increase in support for wider reintroduction programmes, such as for griffon vultures, hihi birds and amur tigers.
We have already heard about Goldie the eagle and the story behind Winnie the Pooh, Jumbo the elephant—it was news to me that he added the word “jumbo” to our vocabulary—and Guy the gorilla. I was amused to hear that Guy the gorilla only understood French, and that there is now a statue—
Jerome Mayhew
It is obviously a matter of deep concern for the House that Guy the gorilla spoke only French. I meant to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) to ask whether Guy, at the end of his life, was bilingual.
Ben Everitt
We will never know, but perhaps a clue can be found in whether the statue of Guy the gorilla is wearing a beret.
This change to section 7 of the Crown Estate Act 1961—this small tweak to the lease length—will allow London zoo to operate in a much more future-proofed way. It has ambitions to create the world’s first campus for nature. It wants to reimagine the zoo as a series of natural landscapes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned, it wants to make the zoo truly accessible for all. That goes to the heart of what we are doing: we want to share the benefits with everybody for generations.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that issue. One of the grounds for giving ZSL planning permission for further work is that it would make available facilities for people with special needs, and children from the local area, who could use both the garden area and other zoo premises at a reduced price. As I mentioned, allowing local people with special needs to come in for £3 is a great contribution to allowing community access. As we pursue these changes, it is vital that community access continues.
Ben Everitt
I am grateful for that intervention, which leads me to my winding-up remarks—[Interruption.] I can carry on if the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) wishes me to. The zoo is a jewel in the crown of not just London tourism, but conservation generally. If we succeed in this attempt to allow it to extend its lease and bring in finance to secure its physical assets—the site—and its conservation and education work, done here in London and across the world, that will be of benefit to generations to come.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on bringing the Bill to this stage. Hopefully it will pass today and make its way through to become law. It is yet another private Member’s Bill that he has successfully shepherded through the House; I will have to get some tips from him on how to follow his lead and come higher in the ballot.
I recognise the important role that the Zoological Society of London plays as an international conservation charity. It restores wildlife in the UK and around the world, saves animals threatened with extinction, protects species and ecosystems, and conducts a lot of research internationally with partners. It also plays a fundamental role in inspiring the next generation of conservationists, which is obviously key.
We are here to talk about the impact that the Bill could have on the zoo, and that brings us to the animals. In January, the annual stocktake took place at London zoo, which is no mean feat, given that it is home to over 300 different species, from the endangered Galapagos giant tortoises—we heard about tortoises in an earlier debate—and Asiatic lions, to critically endangered Chinese giant salamanders and Sumatran tigers. It is very good news that three Asiatic lion cubs were born only a few weeks ago. That is a major boost to conservation, given that there are only around 600 to 700 such lions living in the wild. People will be reassured that the annual stocktake, which involves checking how many animals there are and that they are still in the zoo, is part of the licence requirements to which the zoo is subject in order to ensure public protection.
The kernel of this Bill is about safeguarding the future of ZSL and its important work. The society has been very clear about the effect of the current lease’s limitations, particularly on its ability to fundraise and create new partnerships that will enable it to enhance its work, including the support programmes that are available and the great community programmes that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East talked about, such as discretionary access and cheaper tickets for local people to come to the zoo and see what is on offer. The benefits that a longer lease would offer have also been set out by the society. As we consider extending the lease, it is obviously important that we capture those benefits and then hold the society to account on delivering them, should it be granted the lease.
At its core, it is about having the world’s first campus for nature, with a centre of research and innovation that is dedicated to protecting biodiversity and strengthening nature, but it is also about enhancing technology. I came across Matthew Gould when he was head of NHSX, where he did a lot of work in developing apps and technology in the NHS. Bringing that knowledge and insight to the zoo in order to have more immersive experiences would be highly commendable.
The zoo is also looking at accessibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East talked about the offers to local communities, but this is a world institution. It is one of the most visited attractions in the country, and I want my constituents in North West Norfolk, including children and people with special needs, to be able to benefit from such offers. There are obviously travel costs involved, but coming to see such a great facility is invaluable for them.
As it happens, my first date with my wife was at London zoo.
James Wild
Check out my surname. We had a lovely time, and obviously it paid off. My wife and I were at the zoo a few weeks ago with one of her friends and her young twins, and its ability to inspire is incredible. I watched those two little girls run off to look at the animals, and it was great. When my wife and I went on our first date, which was some time ago, we were a bit concerned about the state of the facilities. Some of the cages had signs to assure visitors that the animals were not in distress, even though they may have been pacing backwards and forwards. There was an urgent need for modernisation, and when I went back a few weeks ago I noted that some of the enclosures had been improved. I am thinking in particular of the penguin area, which is now a great facility and one of my favourite parts of the zoo.
A few Members have spoken about Guy the gorilla. I understand that his tooth decay was caused by him being fed sweets by people visiting the zoo, so it is very important that only zookeepers should feed the animals. It is important to get that on the record.
Bob Blackman
Gorillas are herbivores, so they should only be fed by keepers, as my hon. Friend rightly says. They should certainly not be fed sweets. Does he realise that gorillas share 98.4% of their DNA with human beings? They are very close to human beings. Just as tooth decay in humans is concerning, particularly among young children who eat sweets, the same thing applies to gorillas.
James Wild
From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman mentions dentistry. I could talk about the need for more dentists and dental vans in North West Norfolk, but that would obviously be beyond the scope of this debate—I will not encourage you to stand up to make me be quiet, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) has pointed out, this is an enabling power; there is no guarantee of an extension, with that coming back to the plans put forward by the ZSL to convince people that it is deserving of this extension. It will be held to account and so it will be able to go off to raise the funds to enhance this world-class facility.
To conclude, having opened in 1826, the zoo will soon be celebrating 200 years. This important Bill will help to ensure that it continues to play the crucial role it has had since then in protecting animals by providing better enclosures and better facilities for them, and ensuring that vital research continues, while remaining a leading visitor attraction where people can come to learn more about our wonderful world.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for introducing this Bill on the ZSL and the maximum lease term that may be granted to it, which has now reached its concluding stages in the Commons. I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for casting his beady, expert eye over the Bill and for not moving his amendment, which led to a degree of shock and perhaps even gentle chaos. That should be seen as a tribute to his fearsome reputation for ruthless and relentless scrutiny. I would like to see that mantle of scrutiny taken up by my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). It was good to hear her particular expertise, as a former Environment Secretary. I thank them for their scrutiny of the Bill.
James Wild
The amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was about differentiating between residential areas within the zoo and other properties. Obviously, some discussions have taken place that I was not privy to, so I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on what residential properties there are within the zoo and whether they are purely there for the zookeepers. Obviously, there is no working time directive for animals, as I believe one of my colleagues said, so there is a case to be made in that regard, but it would be good to understand a little more about the footprint of the residential areas.
Julia Lopez
I will come on to that later in my speech. I understand that we are talking about three properties, but I will probably contradict myself later.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the Government’s sponsor of this Bill and our interest lies in the location of London zoo, in Regent’s Park, where the proposed extension of the maximum lease term grantable will be enacted. Regent’s Park is under the management of the Royal Parks charity, which is sponsored by my Department. Ultimately, the eight royal parks are owned by the Crown, with responsibility for them resting with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I take an interest also as a London Member of Parliament, as the Tourism Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned that the zoo is an important part of the visitor economy, both locally and nationally—and as I have two young children who would benefit from visiting this tremendous attraction.
Ben Everitt
We have recognised the importance of London zoo as a tourist attraction in its own right, but what are the Minister’s thoughts about its fit with the wider tourist ecosystem within London and within the UK?
Julia Lopez
This debate has proved that simply by talking about London zoo we can learn about all the other animal-based visitor attractions across the country, including Flamingo Land near Darlington.
The Bill proposes a small amendment to the Crown Estate Act 1961 to extend the maximum lease grantable to the ZSL from 60 years to 150 years. Although the lease was most recently renewed in 2021 by the current maximum term of 60 years, as any well-managed and forward-thinking organisation should do, the ZSL wished further to extend the maximum lease term, in order to secure longer-term investment and to continue to develop the historic site at Regent’s Park.
James Wild
In an earlier intervention, I talked about the campaign that a number of colleagues were involved in on Burlington House, where a lot of expert societies are based. The freehold for that is the responsibility of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We finally got agreement from the relevant Minister there to extend the lease to 999 years. I would be interested in any reflections that this Minister has on the comparison between that length of time and the 150 years proposed in the Bill.
Julia Lopez
My understanding, which I have gained during the course of this debate, is that the 150-year lease is specific to the Crown Estate. I imagine that is for all sorts of historical reasons, but I am happy to go into those by writing to my hon. Friend.
The Government view the extension of the maximum lease term grantable to be a relatively uncontroversial change that will positively impact the organisation, allowing it to build its resilience, develop strategic philanthropic relationships, and increase the scope of potential commercial partnerships that will ensure its continued growth. It is also important to note that establishing the mechanism for a longer lease term will bring the Zoological Society of London into line with similar organisations that hold leases on Crown Estate land, including the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. The maximum allowable lease for the Royal Botanic Gardens in respect of land in Kew gardens was extended from 31 years to 150 years following the introduction of a Bill in 2019.
Granting a maximum lease term of 150 years to the Zoological Society of London will significantly and positively impact the organisation’s aims. For example, the society is at the forefront of efforts to reverse biodiversity loss, which is one of the biggest challenges of our time. A longer lease will allow for the creation of the world’s first campus for nature, a trans-disciplinary centre of research and innovation dedicated to the protection of biodiversity and strengthening nature. It will also help to reimagine the zoo’s landscape, providing ecosystem-driven spaces designed with an understanding of how each animal now thrives, and providing the assurance that our most at-risk species will be cared for and protected well into the future.
Jerome Mayhew
We talk a lot in this House and in Committees—I sit on the Environmental Audit Committee—about the challenges of biodiversity net loss across the world, as well as in this nation. About 70% of biodiversity has been lost since I was born in 1970, but a lot of that is driven by climate change. Would the Minister be able to expand a little on the zoo’s plans to deal with climate change in its educational programmes, while also dealing with it in its programmes to protect the long-term future of those species?
Julia Lopez
My understanding is that part of the zoo’s offer in relation to this lease extension is that it will deepen its partnerships and relationships with some of the nearby institutions, including local universities and other scientific institutions. I imagine that that shared learning will help to advance our understanding of climate change and its impact on biodiversity. I should also note that this Government, through the Environment Act 2021, brought in the concept of biodiversity net gain, with the impact of construction on wildlife offset by commitments from developers to enhance our local environments.
The Zoological Society of London’s future aims are befitting of an organisation of its high calibre. The society will extend and contribute to London’s knowledge quarter, which I have just referred to: an established landscape of world-leading science and research institutions that spans from Camden Town to Holborn and Covent Garden. The Zoological Society of London has always worked closely with its neighbours—other world-class institutions including University College London and the Royal Veterinary College. The society wishes to deepen those connections to form a network of learning, knowledge sharing, and scientific exploration and practice. We are confident that the society has the ambition, expertise, place and drive to realise the opportunities ahead and bring this amazing, special campus to life.
As conservation zoos, both London zoo and its sister site at Whipsnade care for more extinct-in-the-wild species than any other zoo in the UK. London zoo is part of vital breeding programmes for more than 100 endangered species, from the Socorro dove to the Sumatran tiger. Limiting the maximum grantable lease term to 60 years would curtail the magnitude of the zoo’s impact. As we have heard today, London zoo’s animals have inspired a lifelong love of animals in its visitors for over two centuries. Some notable names include Winnie, an American black bear deposited at the zoo in 1914 at the start of the first world war. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has set out, she was visited by A. A. Milne and his son Christopher, and to this day lives on in the stories of Winnie-the-Pooh and Christopher Robin. As we have heard, there is also Guy the gorilla, spoken of lyrically by my hon. Friend.
Ben Everitt
Throughout the course of this debate, we have consistently referred to him as “Guy” the gorilla. However, he spoke French, so surely it should be pronounced “Ghee”.
Julia Lopez
That surely has to be one of the best interventions on record. I apologise, but I must correct the record: I should have pronounced Guy the gorilla lyrically, like my hon. Friend.
Julia Lopez
That is true. As we have heard, Guy the gorilla would at first respond only to French, having spent the six months preceding his arrival in a Parisian zoo. His statue remains much loved by the zoo’s visitors. We have heard about Goldie the eagle, but I add to this collection my admiration for Ricky the rockhopper penguin, whom I met when I was keeper for the day. I now find myself heading to google the quagga, which I had not heard of before. The touching account of the life of Jumbo the elephant brought a solitary tear to my eye. That was quickly wiped away by the tales from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk of how the wild animals of London zoo lit inside his heart his inner wild animal.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recognises the immense value that the Zoological Society of London has within London and the nation at large and wishes to support all initiatives to ensure it has a strong future. Throughout its 195-year history, London zoo has solidified its reputation as an important and unique part of our capital’s heritage, culture and tourism offer. It is the capital’s 10th most-visited attraction and contributes more than £24 million annually to the local economy and more than £54 million to the national economy. It is also the world’s oldest scientific zoo, operating since 1828, and a world-leading force in wildlife conservation and biodiversity.
Charles Darwin, with his significant contributions to our understanding of science, became a fellow of the Zoological Society of London in 1839. During his time at London zoo, he studied the behaviour of animals and developed his revolutionary theories. Today, Darwin’s history is safeguarded in London zoo’s library, and the zoo also safeguards the pangolin, on which there has been extensive debate. The issue is close to my heart, as my niece and nephew held a successful pangolin bake sale when they were most in the news. They are, as we have discussed, the world’s most trafficked animal. Just to clarify for Members, that is because of their value as bush meat and as a delicacy, and their scales are used in traditional medicine and their skins are used for boots and belts.
James Wild
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. The chief executive of the Zoological Society of London has said how the Bill will secure the future of ZSL and London zoo, ensuring that they continue to inspire and educate millions, to do world-leading science and conservation, and to keep strong an important and much-loved institution. Does she have a sense of the scale of the investment that extending the lease will unlock in terms of the modernisation and improvements that will come from the world-class research facility that will be created through the Bill?
Julia Lopez
As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill will unlock substantial investment in the site. It will lead to the renovation of historic listed buildings, but also the creation of new, more appropriate habitats, now that we understand more about the animals that they contain. I firmly believe that the zoo is a historical asset worth championing and protecting for future generations. From its beginning, many leading architects have contributed to the zoo’s built environment. The collection of buildings includes two grade I and eight grade II and grade II* listed structures. The grade I listed penguin enclosure designed in the international modernist style by Berthold Lubetkin and constructed in 1934 is described by Historic England as:
“A key symbol of British (and International) Modern Movement architecture”.
Advances in our understanding of animal welfare have shown that many of the current structures within the zoo’s premises are simply no longer suitable for their intended purposes. Although the zoo has achieved many firsts—including the first reptile house, public aquarium, insect house and children’s zoo—work is ongoing to reimagine those spaces in innovative and sustainable ways.
Throughout, the Zoological Society of London’s efforts will ensure its central aims of conservation and care for endangered species remain at the core. The work of the society and the zoo supports the environmental principles outlined in the Environment Act 2021. The continuing existence of the zoo will preserve wildlife and other natural assets within its built environment and champion measures to reduce biodiversity loss. It is also important to note that the extension of the lease does not equate to extension of land occupied, and the remainder of Regent’s Park will be unaffected by the change.
There is reason to question our support of this Bill in respect of the impact on the public purse. I take this chance to confirm that neither the Zoological Society of London nor London zoo specifically receives any grant in aid from the Government. While the society is the recipient of research grants from Research England, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for international and domestic conservation work, those are applied for through official programmes. There would therefore be no significant impact on Government funding or accrual of public debt if the organisation’s maximum lease term were to be extended.
As a charity, the Zoological Society of London raises the vast majority of its income from its members and visitors to its conservation zoos, including London zoo. Additional field projects, including its community access initiative and rhino bond scheme, are funded through partnerships with funders across the globe. Looking forward, in 2028 London Zoo will celebrate 200 years since its opening, and I am sure I am not alone in wishing it success in the next 200 years. Continued modernisation and redevelopment will allow its animals to thrive, including through the development of the biodiversity campus to champion the needs of nature across sectors and to increase public engagement and learning opportunities.
In addition to benefiting its animals, research and scientific aims, an extension of the Zoological Society of London’s lease for London zoo will provide essential opportunities to access nature, respite and wellbeing for people of all ages and every background. In the February half-term last year, London zoo’s community access scheme enabled over 50,000 people on low-income and other benefits to access the zoo for only £3. Accessibility is a core aim of the zoo, which also runs audio-described tours, sign-language tours and early opening mornings aimed at autistic and neurodiverse visitors.
Over 80,000 school students visit the zoo each year, learning about wildlife conservation and the effects of climate change and plastics pollution. Protecting the future of this organisation through the extension of the maximum lease term makes sure that it will continue to educate and inspire the next generation. The Government are committed to supporting the Zoological Society of London’s ambitions to improve and invest to secure its continued role as a leader in the field. Extending the lease term is part of that much-needed support. We are sure that the Bill will offer the necessary support and protection to the Zoological Society of London and London zoo. I am very pleased to affirm our support for the Bill, and once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for bringing it to the House.
Bob Blackman
With the leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her contribution today and her support throughout the progress of the Bill, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), for his very brief expression of support for the Bill. It is great to pass the Bill on a cross-party footing in this House, which sends a signal to the other place that it has cross-party support.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for the interventions that tested my knowledge of the position and for their contributions to the debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) who, when she was Environment Secretary, was heavily involved in the construction of the Bill and gave it her blessing.
I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who managed to propose an amendment to reduce the lease and then, during his speech, argue in favour of extending the lease. I know we often take contradictory positions in debate, and he managed to do that today. I am grateful to him for not pressing his amendment and so allowing us to move on to Third Reading.
I draw the House’s attention to one of the problems raised during the debate: that because of its inefficient buildings, London zoo’s energy costs rose from £1.4 million in 2021-22 to £3.7 million the following year. The fact is that these old buildings house many endangered species that need consistently high temperatures. Tigers cannot put a jumper on or fill a hot water bottle; they have to be provided with the heating appropriate to their species.
I thank Matthew Gould and his team for inviting me to take the Bill through its Commons stages. I reiterate my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its help, support and guidance during the Bill’s progress, to my office and to my parliamentary assistant, Hattie Shoosmith, for her help in formulating my speeches. I also thank the Members who served on the Bill Committee: my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), the hon. Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright).
All those Members gave their support, and although we were not able to have a full Second Reading debate, I think we have tested the Bill both in Committee and, very thoroughly, on Third Reading. I hope that it will now be passed without dissent, and that we can wish it Godspeed through the other place. No doubt their lordships will look at the Hansard report of our deliberations and allow it to proceed so that we can safeguard London zoo for the enjoyment of people long after we have all left this Earth. We all welcome its conservation work and scientific research, and, of course, the joy that people gain from visiting it to see endangered species and species that they would never see otherwise except on their television screens, and we all want to preserve that. We wish the Bill well, we wish London zoo well with its work, and I trust that we can ensure that the lease is extended as we wish it to be.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill
Friday 19th April 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill 2023-24 View all Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have always believed that politicians and political parties should show leadership rather than simply following public opinion, and that that leadership should be based on well-known values, principles and policies that have been communicated at the time of election. However, I also believe that if it becomes clear that something is having a detrimental impact on our constituents, it is our job to listen to them and do whatever we can to alleviate any suffering.
The Bill may stand in my name, but I present it in honour of my constituent who lost his life when he was struck by an off-road vehicle. David Gow—also known as Davie—died on 12 February 2023. I did not get to meet Davie, but I know his brother Allan, and I met his son Craig when he approached me some time after his father’s death. Craig Gow told me that his dad had been crossing the road to reach his home in High Possil when he was struck, on the road, by an off-road vehicle. That fact is not in dispute. An arrest was made but no charges have been brought, so I will say no more about what happened that day—which means that I cannot go into detail about why I think that the Bill would certainly reduce, if not prevent altogether, the incidence of similar tragedies. What I will say is that Davie Gow never got to celebrate his 80th birthday, and his family were left devastated.
I want to take a moment to celebrate Mr Gow’s life by using the words of his son Craig, who said:
“I could be here all day. Firstly he was a devoted family man, a loyal friend and a fiercely independent and extremely intelligent man…full of life and full of carry on.”
“Carry on” is Glaswegian for fun, I suppose. Craig also said his father was
“A real man’s man. He…loved a game of Dominoes”
and
“a good crossword or Quiz show…and when younger he was a right good Football player. I miss him every day and I know I always will.”
Mr Gow died where he had lived, in the flats that had previously been High Possil School, where he had been educated, as had his father, also David Gow. His grandchildren, Cameron and Jessica, lived nearby. Three generations of the Gow family either lived in the area or spent years being educated in the spot where Mr Gow died. He took great contentment from the fact that they all lived in the area, and I hope his family can gain some peace from knowing that his death was not in vain and that he has motivated me to introduce the Bill.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I join my hon. Friend in offering condolences to the Gow family, not least to Councillor Allan Gow, David’s brother and a constituent of mine. Tragic accidents such as these can often be avoided, and if a registration scheme was in place, the police could much more easily track down and identify vehicle owners to ensure justice can be done. While I am sure that many Members will want to speak about their experiences, we should acknowledge the work of our colleague in the Scottish Parliament, Bob Doris, who has taken up these issues on behalf of the Gow family and other constituents in the north of Glasgow.
Anne McLaughlin
I thank my hon. Friend for those words, and I echo what he says about our colleagues Bob Doris and Councillor Allan Gow. Constituents in Glasgow North East have been calling, emailing and messaging me about the antisocial and completely improper use of off-road vehicles, be that off-road motorbikes, quad bikes or high-powered electric motorcycles. They simply cannot get peace from them. Thus, my Bill calls for the compulsory registration of all off-road vehicles.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this Bill forward, because she has identified an important issue. The use of off-road motorbikes especially, but also of high-powered e-bikes—battery bikes—is a problem in Leyland. I was recently subject to some quite unpleasant antisocial behaviour from what looked like young men on off-road bikes with no registration. I had to follow them into the back of the Leyland estate, and, in being so discourteous to the people of Leyland, they nearly knocked a child down. Does the hon. Lady agree that anybody going out on the road on a vehicle that they should not be on, should think very hard?
Anne McLaughlin
I agree with the hon. Lady, although electric bikes are not—yet—included in the Bill. According to my mother, who is 84, anybody on a bicycle should have to have a registration plate, so that she can report them to the police when they whizz past, disorientating her, on the pavement. I have said to her, “I’m not including that, Mum”, but I join the hon. Lady in urging users of all powered vehicles, and all pedal bikes, to be courteous and aware of pedestrians.
To be clear, the Bill is not a ban, or a clampdown, on fun. I know—well, I am told—that off-road biking is fun, and I would like there to be somewhere, possibly in my constituency, for people who use them for fun to be able to do so safely without disturbing the peace for residents. I also know that there are people who use them legitimately in their line of work, such as farmers and construction workers. This Bill is not about them; it is about the people who choose to use off-road vehicles antisocially, dangerously and completely improperly. I will explain what I mean by that when I share the experiences of some of my constituents.
A compulsory registration scheme could help to alleviate the widespread theft of off-road vehicles from both rural and urban areas, so my proposals could benefit those who use off-road vehicles correctly. Getting those vehicles registered would hardly be the biggest deal in the world. In fact, that would most likely take place when they are initially purchased from dealers, much like the way our cars are registered. We all have to do paperwork that we do not want to do, but if it is for the benefit of the wider community, surely that is not too much to ask. When we say “off-road vehicles” in the Bill, we are talking about any vehicles specifically designed to be used off-road—I suppose the clue is in the title—such as quad bikes, trail bikes, scramblers, and four-wheeled motorised buggies. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the scope to define that in a non-exhaustive list.
The hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) mentioned electric bikes, which have become contentious as the technology moves on; there is a consultation on them at the moment. This Bill will include electric motorcycles, but not electric bicycles, which use electric motors as an aid to pedal power. However, if it was felt at some point in the future that the power in those bikes was sufficient to require registration, the Bill would allow them to be included by a future Secretary of State.
The Bill calls for all off-road vehicles to be registered in much the same way as cars. It calls for an identifying mark to be required on each of these vehicles, similar to a car registration plate but tailored to the size and shape of the vehicle. We need to consult on how they might be fixed to the vehicles and how that might affect their normal operation. The reason I am determined that a registration is displayed is that if we see a car without a registration plate, it will be immediately apparent that something is not right. It grabs our attention and, more importantly, that of the police. It needs to become the norm for off-road vehicles to have a visible mark, so that if it is removed or replaced and does not match an identifying mark from the body of the bike, the police can do something about it.
The Bill has scope for an exemptions list. I have deliberately kept that open, because much as I have consulted, the Secretary of State will be in a far better position to fully consult users; I note that there are some concerns in farming communities. Exemptions could be made for those who use the vehicles in association with professional sporting bodies. Motorsport is expensive, and anything that adds to the cost of enjoying it or deters people from taking part must be taken into consideration.
I have consulted widely with my constituents, who replied to my campaign in their hundreds. They are overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill, for reasons that will chime with many Members here. Children are unable to play outside because these vehicles are mounting the pavements or racing through the play parks at speeds of up to 60 mph. People are unable to sleep because it is happening through the night and the noise becomes unbearable. My constituents are unable to relax in their own home after a long day because they cannot even hear the TV.
Older people are nervous about going out. I have talked about my mum, but I heard from a constituent who likes to assist their 90-year-old, visually-impaired mum on a walk with the aid of her stroller. They cannot do that now because of the number of these bikes in the area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this very important debate to the House. Time is limited, so I wanted to intervene to welcome the debate. She is raising the issue of significant antisocial behaviour offences committed up and down the country. We are all aware of them. As we discussed earlier, I can guarantee that I will set up a taskforce with the Home Office and key stakeholders to get to the heart of the issue. Some recent ASB work has been done by the Home Office, but I see no reason why we cannot build upon that to address this specific issue and the impact it has on communities across the country.
Anne McLaughlin
I very much appreciated the conversation with the Minister and his remarks. I am not somebody who stands here and says, “I demand that the law be changed immediately.” I welcome any progress that we can make towards this. A taskforce is an excellent idea, because, of course, I do not have all the answers. By bringing together experts and the people we need onside to make this work, progress will be made.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I put on the record my support for what the hon. Lady is seeking to do. Many of us in the House are blighted by this issue, and I welcome her bringing forward this legislation. I appreciate that time is short, but I put on the record my sincere thanks for the engagement with the Minister and the discussion about bringing forward a group to look in serious detail at this scourge on our streets. The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and I thank her sincerely for the Bill.
Anne McLaughlin
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Before the issue came to my attention, he was speaking about and campaigning on it, so I thank him for that on behalf of my constituents.
Littlehill golf course, in my constituency, is a fantastic facility, not least because it is accessible and affordable to low-income families, but it regularly becomes completely unusable when quad bikers get in and wreck the greens. I am bringing forward this Bill because those families deserve to be able to have their leisure time. The greens are kept beautifully and so much effort is put into them, but then someone, who nobody can identify, comes in and wrecks them.
How lucky are my Barmulloch constituents to have families of deer and other wildlife in Robroyston Park, in the heart of their urban community, in the middle of many tenements? They are not so lucky that off-road vehicles, speeding through unfettered at all times of the night and day, have scared away the animals—it would be tragic if they did not come back. My constituents call the police but it is hard to catch the culprits. However, if they can give the police a registration number, the police can catch up with the culprits later, if not at once. If such vehicles do not have a registration number, their drivers are in constant danger of being stopped by the police anyway and having their vehicle possibly confiscated, even if they are not using them improperly. Either way, the legislation would give the police and my constituents a far better chance of identifying the culprits.
Peter Gibson
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the ability of these vehicles to be registered and to display a registration plate as a means of identification. A compulsory registration scheme would, however, provide a deterrent to many off-road bikers seeking to abuse their vehicles because they would not be prepared to pay the money to register the vehicle in the first place.
Anne McLaughlin
My intention is not to make registration financially prohibitive, but the hon. Gentleman is right that such a scheme would be a deterrent in other ways. If people know they cannot go around unidentified any longer, then they are far less likely to get on to those vehicles in the first place.
The people of Barmulloch, Balornock, Wallacewell, Milton, Possilpark, Lambhill, Springburn and anywhere else in my constituency, or anybody else’s constituency, deserve to live in peace and to be safe. These are good people because so many of those who replied to me expressed concerns about the people on the vehicles. While they are angry with them, they are also fearful that they too will end up injured or losing their lives, just as Davie Gow did.
I end by thanking the Public Bill Office for its incredible help—I am laughing because I needed a lot of help—and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to present the Bill in honour of Davie Gow.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I extend my sympathy and that of the whole House to the family of David Gow. I have suffered personally as a result of the actions of quad bikes and motorbikes, although my experience pales into insignificance in comparison with the consequences that the Gow family have suffered.
Before I came into the House, I ran an outdoor leisure company that had 36 locations around the United Kingdom. We were building on a new site in an urban park in the north of England, but during the construction phase it was terrorised—that is the best way to describe it—by teenaged boys on quad bikes and motorbikes. They were 100% boys or young men, riding through the public park and, after the site was opened, frightening paying members of the public who were walking around. It led to concern, fear, including fear of injury, and increased cost. Security concerns at the site meant that 24-hour dog patrols had to be recruited to protect this perfectly legitimate leisure activity. In my newly formed constituency of Broadland and Fakenham, I visited quite recently the premises of Matt Pope Motorcycles—I was actually there to help with an issue related to flooding—which sells off-road motorcycles. During our conversation, the owner talked about the risk of break-ins, and of theft of off-road motorcycles. In part that is because they are not registered and do not tend to have VIN numbers as other vehicles do, making them much more susceptible to theft, even from very legitimate sellers, such as Matt Pope Motorcycles. There is a significant problem here. I am very sympathetic to any legislation that we can collectively bring forward, or any progress towards legislation, to make it easier to discourage this deeply antisocial behaviour.
When we consider legislation, as we all do in this House, there is a very obvious two-stage test that we should apply. First we should ask: is the problem that we seek to solve due to a lack of powers for the enforcement authorities, or a lack of enforcement of powers by the enforcing bodies? If it is the former and not the latter, we move on to the next test, which is whether the legislation will solve the problem without doing more harm than good. We should apply that two-stage, common-sense test to every piece of legislation.
Let me turn to the first question: is the problem here the lack of powers for the police, or lack of enforcement of existing powers? I found two relevant sections in the Road Traffic Act 1988. The first is section 3, under which it is an offence for a person’s driving, including on motorcycles and quad bikes, to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to other pedestrians and road users. That is very straightforward. Section 34 deals specifically with off-road driving.
As an aside, Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the great pleasures of these Friday sittings is that the research we have to do in order to make speeches gives us quite a lot of insight into legislation. I now know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you do not commit an offence if you drive off the road, but only if you do so within 15 yards of the carriageway and for the purpose of parking. It is also interesting that in 1988, the unit of measurement used in legislation was yards, not metres, yet we decimalised in 1971. That was a slight tangent, but it was something that just sprung to mind.
Turning back to my argument, we have the offences for the police to enforce. We see in section 59(3) of the Police Reform Act 2002 what the police can do once that offence has been committed. Section 59(3)(a) is the power to stop those miscreants, and section 59(3)(b) is the power to seize the vehicles, so the police already have the powers to stop and to seize. Section 59(3)(d) is the power to use reasonable force to do so. Section 59(3)(c) is the power to enter domestic premises to enforce those powers. If we take those in combination, it is pretty clear that this is a problem not of police powers, but of enforcement. The question is therefore whether the Bill would help to increase enforcement. There is a very substantial argument that it would, for the reason the hon. Lady gave, which is that many of us who are exposed to this antisocial behaviour would be willing witnesses to the offence, and could take down a registration number and supply it to the police. It is then an issue of the police acting effectively at beat manager level.
Anne McLaughlin
Some of what the hon. Gentleman is talking about would apply in England and Wales only; that is one point. My feeling is that there are so many instances of this behaviour that the police would be kept incredibly busy. However, an offence of not displaying a registration, or of not registering one of these vehicle, could be preventive, as he says. The police would have to catch someone not displaying a registration plate only once for the vehicle to be taken off them. That would save the police from having to chase people multiple times for using the vehicles in antisocial ways.
Jerome Mayhew
I substantially agree with the hon. Lady. It is worth noting in passing that under the Police Reform Act 2002—I cannot bring the section number to mind—the police are required to give a warning for the first offence. It is only when they are satisfied either that a warning has been given in similar circumstances in the past 12 months, or that a warning has been received and ignored, that they move towards using the powers that I have set out. I agree that a requirement to display registration plates may well act as a disincentive to commission that kind of offence.
That brings us all back to the role of the police and what constitutes effective community policing. Just last week, I spent a morning out on the beat with the police, by car, to look at some of the crime hotspots in Broadland, and I am very pleased to say that there aren’t any. Over the last decade, and particularly during the tenure of the excellent police and crime commissioner Giles Orpen-Smellie, crime has fallen significantly in Broadland. I was looking up the data, and in just the past year, crime overall has fallen by 9.6% in Norfolk, and residential burglary is down by 7.1%, robbery by 9.2%, violence against the person by 12.7%, and stalking and harassment by 27.5%. That just goes to show that an effective police and crime commissioner such as Giles Orpen-Smellie, and a police force that focuses on antisocial behaviour being a gateway crime to other, more serious crime, and that gets involved early on, really does make a difference.
Anne McLaughlin
As I should have said in my speech, I understand that a lot of antisocial behaviour comes from having nothing to look forward to and few job prospects. I will not stand here and say, “This is all your fault.” We must get things right for the—primarily—young people who are involved in such antisocial behaviour. There are loads of examples in my constituency of getting it right, such as St Paul’s Youth Forum, which in 10 years has reduced youth offending from 160 cases to zero cases a year. There are many more examples. We have a responsibility to ensure that young people have fulfilment, excitement and satisfaction in life, so that they do not have to use off-road vehicles to get that excitement and satisfaction.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that further intervention. Of course, the hon. Lady is right that parenting is a difficult task. I speak as the not-particularly-brilliant parent of three children, although they are getting older now, at 20, 18 and 14—I am very pleased that I got that right at the first time of asking. The challenge for every parent, no matter where they live in the country, is not just to engage their children but to teach them how to make their own entertainment.
Guy Opperman
On the points made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), the way ahead is surely the example cited in the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on 24 February by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who set out in very eloquent terms how in North Antrim there was a pilot project for kids who had the problems identified by the hon. Lady and a passion for off-road vehicles —a passion identified by all of us in various different examples. There were locations where those individuals could do that pastime in a safe way, and there was education on appropriate usage. That is surely the way ahead for tackling antisocial behaviour in tricky circumstances.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister is absolutely right, of course. I want to move on, but I will make one other point. Yes, it can be very boring growing up where activities are not laid on, but the vast majority of teenage people do not commit offences. They do not choose to create antisocial behaviour. We can understand why that may happen, but those reasons are not an excuse for that kind of behaviour.
I will draw my remarks to a close. I am very supportive of the Bill. I hear what the Minister says—that perhaps a taskforce is the right way to develop these ideas further, and that the Bill may not be quite in the form that is most appropriate for legislation—but I am very supportive of the views behind it. I will just make a technical point. If the Bill proceeds further, it should be noted that there may be a drafting error in clause 1(3). It refers to section 21A(3)(e) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. I think it may need to refer to section 21A(3)(a), but I could be wrong.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on bringing the Bill forward. I recognise her work on this issue over many years, and the work of our colleague Bob Doris in the Scottish Parliament, who has been mentioned. The reason for that work is the experience of our constituents. I extend my condolences to the family and friends of David Gow, and particularly his brother Allan. Such tragic accidents are the worst manifestation of what can happen, but they are not the only outcome of the improper use of off-road vehicles. There are many near misses or non-fatal but life-changing injuries and accidents. Sometimes those injuries or fatalities involve animals—today’s business began with questions about the treatment and welfare of pets. There is also noise and air pollution. All of us will have heard our constituents’ concerns about those things.
Anne McLaughlin
My hon. Friend reminds me that I have loads of constituents—I do not know how I missed this out—who say they can no longer let their dogs run free off the lead when they are out for a walk because of off-road vehicles. That is outrageous, so I wanted to mention that. People told me that in their dozens.
Patrick Grady
I am sure those constituents would only be letting their dogs off the leash in areas where that is permitted; that is regulated by council byelaws. That issue is also sometimes a source of concern.
There are concerns about the exact use or purpose of the vehicles. Sometimes their use is about joyriding—the thrill of the noise and the speed—but sometimes the vehicles are used for quick getaways from the scenes of perhaps even more serious crimes, or for the transport of illicit substances off-road. Of course, police in on-road vehicles are not able to pursue them. We have heard about that, and many of us will have had personal experience of that. Regrettably, we sometimes see off-road vehicles being used along the canal in Glasgow, to the great concern of many pedestrians and cycle users. The new sculpture, Bella the beithir, the mythical animal that has taken up residence at the Stockingfield bridge, does not want to be disturbed by the noise of off-road vehicles when she is trying to sleep.
My hon. Friend proposes some pretty straightforward and useful reforms that would promote much more responsible use of off-road vehicles, and that would provide the police with additional powers to crack down on irresponsible use. The burden should not be high—she says it will not be high—on people who use such vehicles responsibly and for legitimate purposes. Certainly, they should have nothing to fear from the registration system. As she says, there could be legitimate exemptions from the measures in certain circumstances. As I think the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) said, the Bill would also have a deterrent effect on those, especially younger people, who do not understand the responsibility that comes with owning and operating such a vehicle.
Importantly, the Bill would strengthen the police’s hand considerably. It would make it easier to seize unregistered vehicles on the first offence—a point elaborated on in an exchange of interventions—and easier to track vehicles that were being used improperly. I know from speaking to police in the north of Glasgow that the lack of powers in this area is a source of frustration.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Member is making an impassioned speech, and I put on record my condolences to the Gow family. There are two points to address some of his issues. First, there are thousands of law-abiding users, represented by groups such as the Auto-Cycle Union and the Green Lane Association, who would be keen to have the differentiation between the criminals clearly committing antisocial behaviour and other things, and the thousands upon thousands who are acting normally. The point that I want to take away with the taskforce is that there are already 38,000 of these vehicles up and down the country on the voluntary register. It is not very well known that we have that voluntary register and, with respect, if we could expand it dramatically through coercion, nudging and other methods, that would make a massive difference straightaway.
Patrick Grady
I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement in the debate. It is regrettable that time is so against us. I hope that progress can be made, with these external representative bodies having an opportunity to engage with his taskforce, and that he will engage constructively with colleagues in the devolved institutions. We are coming up against some of the clashes between devolved and reserved responsibilities. The police in Glasgow try to use antisocial behaviour powers and others that they have in legislation governed by Holyrood, but we know that they would prefer to see further progress made down here. In the interests of consensus and trying to make that progress, I will leave it there, in the hope that another couple of Members can make their points.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
May I extend my condolences to the family of David Gow? I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on securing the Bill on an issue of deep concern in Darlington. I prepared a fantastic speech that is so long I will not have time to get through it, but I will try to put some points on the record.
I warmly welcome the engagement that I have had with the Minister on this topic in the past few days. It is so refreshing to have had that engagement and to hear of his willingness to bring forward a taskforce, which might have some pilots across the country. May I suggest two locations for his taskforce to look at? One would be in Glasgow and the second would be in Darlington.
Guy Opperman
It is wonderful to be able to make policy for a Department for which I am not responsible. I am clearly responding for the Department for Transport —a worthy and honourable Department that I am delighted to represent—but so much of this issue is linked to the Home Office. I hope to sit down with the Policing Minister, who runs the ASB work being done presently.
There have been two laudable recommendations for potential pilot projects in Glasgow—I know Robroyston well, having spent some time there on 7 November 2009 for the by-election in which Ruth Davidson featured so honourably—and Darlington. I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend in Darlington—he is just down the road from me—to see some of the problems at first hand and make those recommendations to the Policing Minister.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister, who was the first Minister to come and visit me in Darlington after I was elected. He has made repeated visits in his various roles, and he is always welcome as he treks up past my constituency. I would warmly welcome him meeting Darlington Borough Council’s civic enforcement team as well as the operation endurance team from Darlington, and Durham constabulary. They have been doing amazing work in this area, but it is not enough.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am conscious of the time and I am not sure whether the Minister will have time to wind up the debate, so I will waive my place in the debate and let my hon. Friend finish his speech. Does he agree that it would be great to get the Minister to commit to ensuring that the taskforce he is setting up, which is incredibly welcome, will, on behalf of rural communities such as mine, look at the blight of off-road vehicles on the green lanes that he mentioned? It is a good thing that many byways and bridlepaths have now been protected from off-road vehicles, but there are 7,000 miles of track in the UK—many of them are in Wiltshire—which are devastated by 4x4s, quad bikes and off-road vehicles, which are causing huge damage. Does he agree that it would be good if the taskforce reviewed the legislation so that we can try to get more of those lanes protected?
Peter Gibson
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I represent an entirely urban constituency that faces the blight of this problem. I appreciate and understand that there are significant issues in the countryside from the use of these vehicles. There are also significant issues for our farming and rural constituencies with the theft of these vehicles. There was an intervention earlier about engagement, and I have recently met the National Motorcyclists Council and the Trail Riders Fellowship on this issue, but I put on the record and want to be absolutely clear that off-road bikes are meant to be used in a lawful manner for off-road biking, trail riding and competition. I have no desire to stop those legal and lawful activities.
I have no truck with the lawful use of off-road bikes; my concerns come from seeking to address the concerns of thousands of my residents whose lives are blighted by these vehicles. It is as clear as day to me that registering vehicles will help to end the terrorising of our streets and better enable police forces to tackle the problem of these bikes ripping through their communities.
Just to bring the House up to speed following my Westminster Hall debate on this issue, there was a discussion about whether farming communities would be opposed to registration. Following that debate, I wrote to the NFU. I had included parts of the letter back from the NFU in my speech, but there will not be time to cover it. I will happily furnish the Minister with a copy of that letter.
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend will be conscious that the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which started as a private Member’s Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), addresses a lot of those issues. As someone who represents the second-biggest constituency in England and who has many issues with byways open to all traffic, particularly in Slaley forest, I know that the practical reality is that the rural implications of this Bill are just as significant, albeit different.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It demonstrates where town and country can bring their respective voices to this place to tackle an issue that affects all communities.
Off-road bikes and quad bikes are great pieces of equipment. They are great for going scrambling or getting around rural farmland. Essentially, that is their legal and intended purpose. They were not designed to be used on our streets by people intent on causing terror and fear. They were not designed to be used by criminals wearing balaclavas or masks to evade police detection. They were not designed to create a noise nuisance and safety fear in our community, but in Darlington that is precisely what we see happening. I know from speaking to colleagues across the House that they see it too. These reckless bikers have no care for others, and nor do they seem to care about themselves when they opt not to wear a helmet, but instead a balaclava, for no other reason than to protect their identity. They sail through red lights, ride on pavements and display no lights—it is a miracle that we in Darlington have not seen the tragedy that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East has seen.
I have already paid tribute to the work of Durham constabulary and the Darlington civic enforcement team for their work on Operation Endurance using section 59 orders, but on its own that is not enough, and neither is registration nor tracking the vehicles. We need a co-ordinated approach from multiple Departments across Government to tackle this problem.
I will make one small political point. We have seen a tail-off in 101 calls to Durham police because of the call handling times. Durham constabulary is overseen by a Labour police and crime commissioner, and we have seen poor service and performance from her. That is why I am keen for us to see on 2 May the election of Rob Potts, the Conservative candidate to be Durham’s police and crime commissioner. He has committed to endorsing Operation Endurance and reforming those 101 response times.
It is clear to me that when vehicles are registered, the possibility of people misusing them is less, so I support the Bill. This has been mentioned, but I recently learned of the voluntary scheme in—
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Autism (Early Identification) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.
Higher Education (Student Finance and Skills Shortages) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.
Nuclear Veterans (Compensation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.
Miners’ Strike (Pardons) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.
Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (22 March), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 26 April.
Whistleblowing Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Exemption from Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Covid-19 Vaccine Diagnosis and Treatment Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Caravan Site Licensing (Exemption of Motor Homes) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Barnett Formula (Replacement) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Caravan Sites Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Child Criminal Exploitation Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Veterans (Non-custodial Sentences) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of everyone affected by the infected blood scandal, particularly those who are my constituents in West Lancashire. I pay particular tribute to my constituent Rosemary Kirk, who bravely shared with me her story of how she lost her mother to this scandal, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has fought tirelessly for justice for those infected and affected. I also thank the Terrence Higgins Trust for its work in this area, and for its help and support to me on this issue. Too little movement has been made since we voted on this matter last December.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of West Lancashire,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002953]
Age-disputed Refugee Children
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a privilege to have secured this Adjournment debate on age-disputed refugee children. I should declare at the outset that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees.
I know the Minister will agree that there are few issues more important than the safety of children, but the current system for dealing with age-disputed refugee children is letting many of them down, with their safety and wellbeing put at risk as a result. The Helen Bamber Foundation, the Humans for Rights Network and the Refugee Council have obtained data showing that over an 18-month period between January 2022 and June 2023, more than 1,300 children were wrongly assessed to be adults by the Home Office. Such incorrect assessments are usually the product of a short visual examination made by a border official almost immediately after the children arrive in the UK.
Incorrect assessments result in children being placed in adult accommodation and immigration detention, exposing them to significant safeguarding risks and denying them the support they need to rebuild a life that has already been distorted by trauma and hardship. Of specific concern are the cases of children being sent to Wethersfield or ending up in adult prisons. I will return to that point in greater detail later, but I will first explain why the current process for assessing the age of asylum seekers is problematic. Before I do so, I thank the Refugee Council for the information it has provided to me in advance of this debate. I also sincerely thank Omer, Motawakil and Amanual, three young refugees wrongly assessed as adults, who were kind enough to meet me earlier this afternoon to share their experiences and who are in the Gallery. I respectfully encourage the Minister to reach out to the Refugee Council to see whether it can facilitate a similar meeting for her, as I found my meeting both eye-opening and deeply moving.
Let me turn back to the issue of flawed assessment processes for children seeking asylum. The issue emerges from the fact that many children seeking asylum arrive here without a passport or birth certificate, often because they have never had such documentation or because it was taken from them during their journey to the UK. In other cases, they fled such trauma that they were unable to collect any of their documentation. I understand that if a young person arrives here without ID, it can be difficult to determine their age, and no system for doing so will be perfect, but charities also tell me of children arriving with ID, only to have it immediately set aside at the border.
As I understand it, the current model places the power to change a young asylum seeker’s life in the hands of a border official conducting an age assessment based, according to Home Office guidance, on a person’s “appearance and demeanour”. If said border official believes that the asylum seeker is the age they claim to be—and different border officials’ judgments will be hugely variable—they are placed into the care of the local authority, where further age assessments carried out by qualified social workers can take place if necessary, and where support networks are more readily available. If, however, the border official believes that a person’s appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18, that person will face an age interview at a processing centre in Dover.
It is not just refugee charities that have raised concerns about this process. Even the Home Office’s own guidance makes it clear that physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment of chronological age, and that demeanour can also be notoriously unreliable. What is more, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has described age assessments being undertaken at ports as “perfunctory”.
Beyond the visual assessment, I am aware that many refugees who have been through the process have raised concerns about the interviews that have been undertaken. Their experiences include not being provided with the correct interpreter, being called liars and facing inappropriate comments about their physical appearance. This is unacceptable, and the reason it is so worrying is that the stakes are so high. When children are incorrectly assessed as adults, they are placed into poorly supervised adult accommodation, hotels and detention centres. The safeguarding risks for such children are obvious: some are as young as 14, sharing living accommodation with unrelated adults. Tragically, there have been multiple cases of these children being sexually and physically assaulted. Other children have witnessed suicide or self-harm by the traumatised adults they are living with, who are in need of help themselves.
Even if they avoid that, children in such settings still miss out on access to the pastoral and educational support that they need to rebuild their lives. Many have reported being stuck in their hotel rooms for days on end, with little or no information on how to challenge their age assessment and no certainty about their future. The toll this takes on their mental health and wellbeing is huge. Of the safeguarding referrals made to the Refugee Council relating to potential children staying in adult accommodation, the highest reported risk is suicide. The second highest risk is that the children abscond and we lose all sight of them, not knowing whether they have become homeless, destitute or exploited by someone offering them accommodation elsewhere. This is not alarmist: it is happening.
I am afraid to say that the Government’s recent illegal migration legislation poses further risks—chief among them that children will be inadvertently sent to Rwanda. We know that last year, there were numerous cases of children who had been detained as adults being issued with notices of intent to remove them to Rwanda on flights that ultimately never took off. The Government recently rejected Baroness Lister’s amendment to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which would have ensured that children who had been wrongly assessed as adults by the Home Office would not be removed to Rwanda while that decision was still being challenged. In light of that, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide assurances that appeal rights regarding age assessments will be granted, and I implore her to ensure that people appealing their decision will not be removed until that process has taken place. Those seem like reasonable steps to avoid traumatised children wrongly being sent halfway across the world.
As well as addressing this issue, I am sure that in her response the Minister will want to talk about some of the measures the Government have put in place to improve the age assessment process. I know that these include the recent authorisation of X-rays and MRI scans in what are being called scientific age assessments, and the establishment of a national age assessment board.
Will the Minister address the concerns of the Refugee Council that the national age assessment board will not work with people who have just arrived in the UK, and therefore will not impact initial age decisions? Can the Minister refer to any evidence showing that the use of X-rays or MRIs is more accurate than Merton-compliant age assessments carried out by qualified social workers, which are favoured by charities working in the refugee sector? Will the Minister explain what happens if an asylum seeker refuses an X-ray or MRI scan? There is an important principle that medical consent should not be sought from a person under duress. Given possible issues with the proposals put forward by the Government, will the Minister consider requests from the Refugee Council and others to limit the conduct of age assessments to fully qualified staff with relevant training?
On the safeguarding issues that I mentioned earlier, I hope the Minister will consider ensuring that the Home Office monitors what happens to people claiming to be children whom the Home Office has determined are adults, and establishing proper processes so that the Department can track the outcomes for those who are later found to be children. Even if the Minister chooses not to pursue those suggestions, I hope she will acknowledge that more needs to be done to improve the age assessment process for young asylum seekers.
I will end by reiterating what these children have been through. They have been driven away from their homes and the places they loved by violence and persecution, separated from family and friends, and forced to undertake an often perilous journey to the UK. Those children should not face new risks to their safety when they get here, and they should not be thrown into the terrifying limbo that is the adult asylum detention system. They should be greeted with fairness and decency when they reach these shores. I am sure the Minister would agree that those are fundamentally British values, so I look forward to hearing how the Government will uphold them when reforming age assessment processes for young asylum seekers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for securing this debate and for the sensitive way he presented these issues. Fairness and decency should indeed sit at the heart of our immigration and asylum system, particularly when it involves children. It might be helpful if I set out in general terms the Government’s approach to age assessment. As he observed, the age of a person arriving in the United Kingdom would normally be established from the documents with which they travelled, but many who claim to be children do not have documentary evidence to support their age.
I am sure there is no real point of disagreement between the Government and the Opposition that there are serious safeguarding risks if individuals over the age of 18 are treated as children and placed in settings with children. We all know about the high-profile case in Bournemouth last year of an adult man who was assessed as being 14 years old and in fact was wanted for a double murder in Serbia. We obviously want to avoid situations of that nature, and we are aware of other examples where pupils in schools have raised an alarm about an obviously mature adult who has joined their class purporting to be a child—indeed, in one case someone was reassessed to be 10 years older than their claimed age. That reduces the valuable resource and support that is available to genuine children, and undermines public confidence. Of course the Government have always been clear that there are serious equivalent safeguarding risks if true children are treated as adults.
I must point out that there are incentives for adults to claim to be under 18, as unaccompanied children generally receive a higher level of support than adults in several respects. That includes the accommodation and support they are provided with, the level of care they receive, perhaps including therapeutic care, the procedural and substantive treatment of their immigration claim, the arrangements that are needed to secure their possible removal, and whether or not they can be detained in immigration detention. The legislative reforms that the Government are bringing forward aim to make those assessments more consistent, reliable and robust from the outset.
Section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 makes provision for the scientific method of age assessment. This is a new and vital tool for the assessment of age that the Government need to get right. The full plans for integrating scientific age assessments into the existing process will be set out very shortly.
We accept that there is no single assessment method, scientific or otherwise, that can determine an individual’s age. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s challenge, scientific methods offer the opportunity for significant improvement, which is something we should welcome wherever we sit in respect of this debate. It should also be noted that the UK is one of the few European countries that do not currently employ any scientific methods of age assessment.
The Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2024 came into force in January this year. They specify the use of X-rays and MRIs of certain body areas, including the wrist, to aid age estimation, as proposed in the recommendations of the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee. I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that this is an expert committee, consisting of subject matter experts from a range of disciplines including social work, dentistry and radiology, and established by the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser to provide expert advice on potential scientific methods of assessment, as well as ethics and best practice for their use.
Andrew Western
Can the Minister explain why the committee has encouraged the Government to abandon scientific methods of age assessment?
Laura Farris
Let me gently repeat that we are not going to do that. We are one of the only European countries that do not employ any scientific methods, and we are working towards the implementation of that. I think I gave a fair caveat by accepting that there is no single method that will ever be truly reliable, but a method can be used in conjunction with others. In due course I shall say something about the Merton test, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. In our view, this is not just important but vital progress in the fair and accurate assessment of age, which is relevant to exactly the kinds of protection with which the hon. Gentleman is primarily concerned.
The combination of dental and skeletal images is important, as it increases the accuracy of the approach. The committee advocates a likelihood ratio method which offers a logical and consistent summary of the evidence and permits greater confidence in, particularly, the range of age assessment of whether the claimed age is possible. Given the scientific methods specified in the regulations, when an individual refuses to consent—without reasonable grounds—to the use of those methods, a decision maker must take that refusal as damaging the age-disputed person’s credibility. This is referred to as a “negative inference”. It would not automatically preclude the individual from being considered to be a child; that refusal would be taken into consideration alongside other evidence as part of the Merton-compliant age assessment process. None the less, it will be relevant.
Let me also clarify the current process of initial age investigations. The hon. Gentleman is correct: on the individual’s arrival, the initial assessment is undertaken by an immigration officer. The threshold that must be applied is that immigration officers may treat an individual as an adult only when two members of Home Office staff determine that individual’s physical appearance and demeanour strongly suggest that he or she is significantly over the age of 18. That is a deliberately high threshold. The principle of the benefit of the doubt is key: when there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child pending further observation and consideration by a local authority. That approach was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of BF (Eritrea) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2021.
When doubt remains after the initial age assessment has been undertaken, the local authority will conduct a more in-depth assessment, known as the Merton-compliant age assessment, to which the hon. Gentleman has already referred. Merton assessments are holistic, social worker-led assessments that must adhere to principles that have been set out by the courts in the case of R (on the application of B) v. London Borough of Merton—a well-established public law case—as well as in subsequent case law. We know, however, that these tests are not sufficiently precise. They depend entirely on oral questions being put to the individual. In order to strengthen them, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 allows local authorities to refer age assessments to designated officials of the Home Office who form the national age assessment board. The board, which was launched in March 2023, currently consists of 42 expert social workers, and aims to increase capacity and expertise in the system until we have scientific methods working alongside it. As well as conducting assessments for local authorities, the board supports them with training and best-practice advice.
Lastly, through the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Government have taken steps to ensure that the process is as robust as possible. Section 58 of the Act introduces a regulation-making power that would allow the Secretary of State to set out the effect of a decision by an individual not to consent to the use of a specified scientific method for age assessment. Those regulations could, in the future, specify that a person who refuses to consent without reasonable grounds is to be treated as though the decision maker had decided that they were over the age of 18. That power will not be used unless—and until—the Home Secretary determines that the science and analysis is sufficiently accurate to support providing for an automatic assumption of adulthood. Under section 57 of the 2023 Act, judicial reviews will not suspend removal, to avoid lengthy age disputes delaying or preventing removal of those who have been assessed to be adults.
In closing, once again I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate, raising what is indeed a sensitive issue, where accuracy really does matter. Whatever the dispute, I think that we agree on that point. Age assessment is critical not only to the integrity of our system, but, of course, to the protection of genuine children. We understand that it is crucial that these assessments are robust, consistent and well-evidenced to ensure that genuine children are not incorrectly treated as adults, and that adults are disincentivised from knowingly misrepresenting themselves as children.
Andrew Western
The Minister is being incredibly generous in giving way again. To further the attempts at accuracy, may I press her on the point I made about further monitoring of those whose claim of being a child is rejected at the border? At the moment, we have no data showing how many of those decisions are overturned later, other than that pulled together by the charities I referred to earlier, who found that there were 1,300 between January 2022 and June 2023, and I understand that there have been some 600 since then. It would be incredibly helpful if the Government were to start tracking and monitoring that information. It would improve their own data and, I think, take us some way towards having greater certainty that they are on top of this issue.
Laura Farris
If the hon. Gentleman would be willing to write to the immigration Minister—I have tried to think about which of the two it would apply to, but I will get my office to clarify that—I will, of course, relay what has happened in this debate and ask them to reply specifically with reference to the numbers and mis-categorisations that the Refugee Council has drawn to his attention in that period. This is an important issue, and, as I have set out, one that the Government approach with the seriousness—and I hope the sensitivity—that this House would expect.
Question put and agreed to.
Road safety at the junction of B671 from Elton village onto the A605
Blackpool's Waterloo Road and Bond Street region
Pensioners’ Personal Tax Allowance
Written Statements
State of the Estate: 2022-23
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I have today laid before Parliament, pursuant to section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the “State of the Estate in 2022-23”. This report describes the progress made on improving the efficiency and sustainability of the central Government estate and, where relevant, records the progress that Government have made since the previous year. The report is published on an annual basis, and this year highlights the following progress.
Government reduced their overall greenhouse gas emissions by 39%, compared to the 2017-18 baseline, with reductions in energy consumption saving the Government an estimated £163 million compared to the 2017-18 baseline.
Government as a whole reduced total waste by 16% from the 2017-18 baseline, exceeding the 15% target. In total, 5% of Departmental waste was sent to landfill, which therefore met the target of 5% maximum.
The Government Property Agency Government hubs have continued to grow in number during 2022-23, with the opening of Peterborough, Quay House, which brings together departments into this shared location, making more efficient use of space. Sixteen hubs are now in operation, with a combined floorspace of about 330,000 square metres, located in all four nations of the United Kingdom, providing a network of shared modern workspaces for the UK civil service.
Through the places for growth commitment, by March 2023, 12,075 roles had been relocated outside of London (this increased to 18,283 by 31 December 2023). This exceeds the programme’s interim 2025 milestone set out in the levelling-up White Paper of relocating 15,000 roles by 2025.
We are also seeing significant savings being achieved, demonstrating our commitment to running the UK estate in as efficient a manner as possible. We have disposed of no-longer-needed properties worth more than £1 billion, returning that money to the taxpayer to be reinvested.
Across Government and the wider public sector, services are delivering real improvements through more imaginative and integrated estate design, and through encouraging co-location and more efficient use of space. By 2030, Government property will have significantly contributed to economic growth, and supported improving the quality of public services, while at the same time helping to transform places and communities.
[HCWS419]
Administrative Earnings Threshold
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
Further to written ministerial statement HCWS405, tabled on 15 April 2024, I can confirm we intend to lay the Universal Credit (Administrative Earnings Threshold) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 later today.
This will raise the administrative earnings threshold level, delivering on a commitment made in the spring Budget last year, to £892 per calendar month for individual customers and £1,437 per calendar month for couples in Great Britain. The new threshold levels would be equivalent to an individual working 18 hours per week at the national living wage or couples working a total of 29 hours per week at the national living wage. This change will mean that the threshold will have doubled since September 2022, when it was first increased from the equivalent of nine hours for a single person.
Combined with previous increases, this means 400,000 more customers will have more intensive support from our work coaches to help them to progress in work and move off welfare. This is why the Government have today laid regulations to amend Regulation 99(6) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 to raise the administrative earnings threshold level to £892 for individual claimants and £1,437 for couples in Great Britain, from 13 May 2024.
This is all part of our welfare reforms to make work pay and is backed up by our £2.5 billion back to work plan, which will help a million people find, stay and succeed in employment.
[HCWS418]
Work and Health Update
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Together with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), later today we will publish a Command Paper launching the fit note reform call for evidence.
Good work is good for health. We know that work positively impacts people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing, and through our ambitious employment package, announced at the spring Budget in 2023, and our back to work plan, we are supporting people in their journey back to work by addressing their needs and empowering them to fulfil their potential.
However, there are currently 2.8 million people of working age who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness. We know that 10 million “not fit for work” fit notes are issued every year. This represents a missed opportunity to help people get the appropriate support they may need to remain in work. We should reform the fit note process so that it starts with an objective assessment of what someone can do with the right support, rather than what they cannot. A new fit note process will ensure people get the right help for their needs, reducing pressure on GPs and helping to free up thousands of GP appointments.
At autumn statement 2023, the Chancellor announced £24 million to begin designing and implementing fit note trailblazers in a number of integrated care systems in England. These trailblazers will test how to give people receiving a fit note for a prolonged period of time the support they need to stay in or get back to work. These trailblazers will build on the WorkWell service pilots providing integrated health and work support locally.
The call for evidence published today will gather evidence to assess the impact of the current fit note process in supporting work and health conversations. It asks stakeholders how they would like to see the fit note process change to better support people to start, stay and succeed in work.
While fit note policy and regulations apply to Great Britain, fit notes are delivered within health systems, which are devolved. Collaboration is key to achieving our ambitions, and we are committed to working with stakeholders across the United Kingdom as we progress fit note reform ahead of a formal consultation later this year. The call for evidence therefore seeks a broad range of views and ideas from those with lived experiences, healthcare professionals and employers.
This is an important part of our next generation of welfare reforms and the Government’s ambition to improve health outcomes, and help people get access to the support they need to return to, remain and thrive in work.
[HCWS417]
Impact of Environmental Regulations on Development (Built Environment Committee Report)
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee The impact of environmental regulations on development (2nd Report, Session 2022-23, HL Paper 254).
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I begin by offering a few words of thanks to the committee and its current and former members. I am delighted to see so many of them here today contributing to the debate. I also thank the clerk of the committee, Kate Wallis, the researchers, Anna Gillingham and latterly Andrea Ninomiya, our administrator Hadia Garwell and, in particular, our specialist adviser Kelvin MacDonald both for his academic insights and his experience as a planner and former planning inspector. I will also take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Banner on what I am sure will be a very welcome maiden speech that will follow shortly in the course of the debate.
The time available for this debate is cruelly short, given the significance of the topic, so I have broken my thoughts down into three broad areas. The first is the general problem, the second is to illustrate it with some particular problems and the final point, if I get to it in time, is to ask whether there needs to be a problem at all, because perhaps there does not.
The general problem is that the Government have ambitions for building a certain number of houses—there are well-publicised housing targets—and to leave the environment in a better state than previous generations had it. The starting evidence for the committee is that neither ambition is likely to be met. In fact, we found very few people who thought the Government would hit their housing targets, and we heard authoritatively from various senior figures at some government agencies that they will not meet their environmental targets either. Even worse than not meeting them is the fact that they appear to be operating in antagonism with each other, so that, rather than cross-departmental working to achieve both, we appear to have two sets of targets working against each other the whole time.
In that context, it is worth saying that the environmental targets tend on the whole to win. Part of the reason for that is the legal background to the environmental targets, which is European Union law that we have inherited, particularly the habitats regulations. They are fundamentally coercive. They require things to happen or prohibit things from happening. On the other hand, housing is driven fundamentally by the Town and Country Planning Act regime, which is essentially a permissive regime—having planning permission does not oblige you to build anything—and is of course based on domestic law. There is no European Union background to it in particular. As a result, we have constant, unnecessary battles going on that arise in part from conflicting legal systems.
Of the particular problems that the report addresses, the most prominent and the one most deserving of time is summarised in the expression “nutrient neutrality”. This dates back to a judgment of the European Court of Justice delivered in 2018, I believe. It related to Dutch farmers. The Netherlands is very intensely farmed. For a small country, it produces an awful lot of food and a lot of pollution from that runs off into rivers. Various parties went to the European Court of Justice and said that this must stop. The European Court of Justice agreed and the Dutch Government completely kiboshed themselves by putting in place a draconian plan for buying up farms and closing them down, which has resulted in a sort of revolution in domestic Dutch politics.
That is not the key matter of interest to us. The key matter of interest is that Natural England, an unaccountable agency that exists under statute in the UK, decided that that judgment applied to England as well—we are speaking predominantly of England in this debate, incidentally, as noble Lords will be aware. It was backed up in this, I understand—although, of course, I have not seen it—by legal advice from Defra. As a result, it started to issue advice in relation to applications for residential planning permission which effectively banned them because they would add pollutants to nearby watercourses without any mitigation.
It is not possible for Natural England to actually ban or nullify a planning permission. It does so by way of advice. None the less, it is very potent advice because, first, local planning authorities live in constant terror of having judicial review proceedings brought against them and, secondly, it must be said that many local authorities are delighted to be told that they cannot build anything in their area, which is a further problem we have with our housing market.
In fact, of course, we all know that the pollution in our watercourses comes predominantly from sewage overspills and agricultural practices. These agricultural practices are licensed by the Environment Agency, another player in this complex ecology of quangos running round causing confusion in every direction. Natural England has no purchase on that, but it does have purchase on applications for planning permission—so the whole burden is being put on the housing market when in fact it belongs elsewhere. As a result, 14% of England’s land area is now effectively under a ban for residential development at a time when we need more housing.
Biodiversity net gain offers a contrasting story. What was notable about nutrient neutrality was that it arrived out of the blue, as court judgments tend to do, so those in the development world had no chance to repair or plan for it. In the case of biodiversity net gain, there was discussion and consultation, and the larger housebuilders have incorporated it effectively into what they are doing; but the smaller housebuilders, for whom the committee has great concern, have not managed to do that.
I remind noble Lords that, 20 years ago, 40% of homes were delivered by small and medium-sized housebuilders. That is now down to 10%. We have moved towards a highly oligopolistic market for the provision of homes and we have driven the small builders out, mainly through the costs of planning permission and regulation of this character. If you are building a small site, as smaller builders tend to do, incorporating biodiversity net gain is extremely difficult.
The larger housebuilders often get permission to deliver it off-site, and here we come to another conflict with government policy, because they do that by buying up agricultural land and turning it fallow, yet Defra tells us that it has an objective that we must continue to produce food for this country. At the moment, we produce 60% of our own food. The Defra target is that that figure should not fall, yet it is encouraging people to buy up agricultural land and turn it into a nature reserves, or whatever.
Finally on biodiversity net gain, there are perverse outcomes in relation to derelict sites. Everyone agrees that building on a brownfield site is better than building on a greenfield site. Yet a brownfield site, if left derelict, becomes biodiverse quite quickly. The weeds come, the birds, the bees and the rodents arrive, and so on. So, if you are going to take a brownfield site that has been left derelict for some time and build on it, the first thing you do is contribute negative biodiversity net gain, as you will flatten it and destroy all of that. What you have to supply to make up the difference and the additional 10% starts from a lower base and is a bigger challenge. We are perversely encouraging greenfield site development when we say we want to encourage development of brownfield sites.
Finally under particular problems, I come to the question of what is referred to as “water neutrality”. This is a slightly misleading expression as it suggests some parallel with nutrient neutrality. It is almost better described as “water sufficiency”. We do not have enough water for many of the developments. It was announced in the Sunday Times while we were doing our report that the Secretary of State had said there were going to be 250,000 homes built in Cambridge. It was pointed out that a planning application for 5,000 homes in Cambridge was being held up because the Environment Agency claimed there was insufficient water to supply them.
Happily, when we quizzed the Housing Minister on this, she was able to assure us that the Secretary of State had said no such thing and it had appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times entirely as a matter of speculation. So it was a great consolation to us to know that that article had no basis in the thinking of the Secretary of State, given that there is no water to service these 250,000 houses. But it does raise the question: why have we not built any reservoirs for 40 years, or whatever it is, that might help and contribute to our housing target?
I will be very brief now. Is there a problem? I think there is a problem at the moment. Does there need to be a problem? Of course not. We are a reasonably well-off country. A reasonably well-off country can both build houses and improve the environment. It should not be that difficult. There should not be a conflict. But it requires a vision and a plan—and, in the case of pollution in rivers, a plan that will take at least 30 or 40 years to deliver. It requires buy-in to that plan; it requires leadership and selling that vision, and then delivery with cross-party support.
I think that can be done. The current way is to go around insisting that you are entitled to have what you want now. Well, nobody is going to get what they want now. The only answer will be a long-term plan. Somebody has to take the lead. I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench to do that as she steps forward and explains how the Government are going to resolve these problems for future generations. Sadly, it is unlikely that she is going to resolve them for this generation. If we can cast light on that and point at a path, we can feel that we have done something very valuable.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the chairman of the committee, of which I was a member for the full length of this inquiry. I echo his thanks to the clerk and the specialist adviser.
As the noble Lord has outlined, we had an enormous task in looking at all the things that had gone wrong or could have gone wrong over 10 or more years of this Government, and what could be done about it. We heard some amazing pieces of evidence that, frankly, conflicted with each other. I was surprised when we ended up interviewing two Ministers, one from the environment department and the other from the planning and levelling up department, sitting next to each other, and I was tempted to ask them, “Do you ever talk to each other?” That is a critical matter in all the issues that the noble Lord has outlined and many more that I will try to cover, but it did not appear that they had. They had different objectives.
The noble Lord has mentioned the housing targets but the Government are probably 20% to 25% light on those targets for this year. Who are they blaming? There are lots of people to blame but not much action.
We had a very detailed response from the Government on our report, and I will highlight one or two aspects of it. Before that, though, maybe it is worth illustrating the problems. I live in Cornwall, as noble Lords may know, and a couple of weeks ago we had an interesting debate in the media on solar panels because some people on the council do not like solar panels on agricultural land because they restrict food production. However, then you start thinking about it: you need agricultural land for food production; you need solar panels for energy to keep your house or flat warm and lit; and we do not like windmills in many parts of the country because we like the nice view of scrub-land or whatever because it is environmentally perfect land to look at as we drive through Cornwall. There is a conflict between all those, and each one has its own recommendations and legislation but there is no solution.
The best example is the latest plan—which I hope has been cancelled now—from South West Water, because there is a water shortage in Cornwall. Some of us might doubt that after last winter, but that is what they say. It had a plan to carry water in seagoing tankers from the port of Fowey in south Wales, discharge it into a tank and pump it up-river in the new pipe to some kind of reservoir further up the hill. Importing water from Wales to Cornwall does not seem to be the most useful means of using our resources. The company now intends to have solar panels instead, which do not take fresh water but take a great deal of electricity. Again, do we need solar panels in the south-west of England, especially after this last winter?
In addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has mentioned, something else that came to mind in the course of our inquiry, which goes back a long time, was the lack of planners. Local authorities do not have enough planning officers, and that is causing delays to planning applications. The Government are blaming that on the local authorities, but most of us would say that planners do not grow on trees—you have to train them and so on—and the local authority has to have money to pay for them. A big issue that we are facing at the moment is the lack of finance for local authorities, and that is just one example.
There is a surprising lack of off-site prefabricated construction, which I think is a really good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned that the large builders have a high proportion of orders now, but we also interviewed a lot of people who said it is very difficult doing it off-site because people do not like them.
I recommend that noble Lords read the response from the Government to our report, because it shows a complete lack of joined-up government. Although it could go better, and the Minister has said it will, a great deal of work needs to be done.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this report today. I was a member of the Built Environment Committee for a short period. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his chairmanship, and I thank the other members of the committee.
This inquiry is important and timely. As the introduction of the report says:
“At the heart of this inquiry is the interaction between two government policies: a drive for development—particularly of housing—and … a commitment to protect habitats … Both policies should be achievable in a mutually reinforcing way. In practice, our inquiry has found that this has been hampered … by lack of co-ordination in policy-making and haphazard and unbalanced implementation”.
Today I shall speak primarily to the environmental side of this debate. The Government have strong environmental ambitions, such as being the first Government ever to leave nature in a better position than they found it, and in some areas progress has been achieved. I thank the Government for halving our CO2 emissions, which are now at their lowest level since 1837, but there is much to do and very little time to do it in.
As the tasks ahead have become more challenging, the political will appears to be declining. We have already seen the Government rowing back from several key environmental commitments or delaying them. Ambition is great, but it means nothing without a relentless drive to implement and clear and consistent policy-making. The transition to net zero by 2050 is challenging. It impacts all sections of society, and it will be a key part of government policy going forward. The transition must be a just one.
While there are strong ambitions, the Government are largely off-track to meet many of their environmental commitments. The Office for Environmental Protection’s annual report says the Government are meeting only four of their 40 key targets. To paraphrase that report, the Government remain largely off-track; many policies are at the early stages or are long-awaited; government plans must stack up; and the Government must set out transparently how they will change the nation’s trajectory in good time. The Government are also failing to meet their housebuilding targets. While they remain committed to building 1 million homes over this Parliament, they are not on target to meet that.
In my humble opinion, the general government response to the inquiry to date has been poor. The Government have not adequately engaged with or addressed many of the key areas, while in others they have provided the stock answer of blaming nutrient neutrality for the problems. The report went out of its way to search for potential solutions and point out clearly where the systems and processes in place were not working. Ideas put forward included giving housebuilding a statutory footing.
Underlying the key report is a continued trend of poorly thought-out processes, a lack of coherent policies, a lack of support for developers and a hodge-podge of systems and processes that work for no one. We have planning authorities that lack funding, a lack of planners and general systemic problems across many sectors that are inhibiting the need and the demand for housing.
When we need policy implementation across all areas of government to be a co-ordinated dance, we have something that in reality is much more akin to Laurel and Hardy than to Torvill and Dean. The idea that we can have either new housing or nutrient neutrality but not both is a false dichotomy; to accept that would be to reward past failure and to agree to continue to fail in future as well. We can and must have both, and the Government need to work to achieve that at speed and at scale. The idea that environmental targets are somehow of secondary importance is alarming. Environmental commitments must not be a convenient scapegoat for inaction, a lack of coherent policy or an inability to meet the Government’s own obligations.
We are one of the most nature-deprived countries in the world, while England has the lowest numbers of houses available in the developed world and the highest rate of inadequate housing in Europe. The Government must act at scale and at speed to change that.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I was honoured to serve on the Built Environment Committee for this inquiry, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I congratulate him on a brilliant opening speech. I also pay tribute to our brilliant clerk, Kate Wallis, and her team, and to Kelvin MacDonald, our special adviser. My remarks in this debate will concentrate specifically on the impact of environmental regulations on the provision of new homes, with a particular emphasis on requirements for water and nutrient neutrality.
Environmental regulation is of course essential, but a heavy-handed imposition of rigid edicts can have devastating consequences. Most prominently, the water and nutrient neutrality requirements have led to a ban on new homebuilding in many areas at just the time when we most need a significant increase in housing production. When environmental regulation trumps the planning system, even contradicting the content of local plans, the consequences can be felt by innocent parties, not least by those who need a home: young households desperate to leave the parental home, older people needing to right-size, and all the rest. The committee argued that government should have as powerful an obligation to achieve its target of extra housing—the national figure of 300,000 homes a year is a reasonable immediate ambition—as it has to protect the natural environment.
Reconciliation between the parallel systems of environmental permits and planning consents is not impossible. Biodiversity net gain—BNG—is being introduced after proper consultation with the relevant parties, with a transition period for implementation and with government support for mitigation measures. BNG rules may need modifications, some of which are in the pipeline, but should lead to a 10% gain in biodiversity for every development, so new housebuilding can actually achieve more biodiversity.
In contrast, the water and nutrient neutrality decision came as a bolt from the blue. It stopped housing development in many areas, even though this adds only a tiny fraction to the pollution going into our rivers. It failed to address the vastly more significant pollution from intensive farming practices and, as we all know, so much of the underlying reason for river pollution lies in the failure of the ineffectually regulated water companies to fulfil their obligations and invest in water treatment.
Moreover, the SME housebuilders, and we need more, not fewer, of these, are taking the biggest hit. They are often ill-equipped to deal with the plethora of planning and permit requirements. Unlike the major housebuilders, they cannot afford specialist consultants to assist in completing all the necessary—and sometimes quite unnecessary— assessments and form-filling. They cannot switch production to a different area because they operate only locally.
What our Select Committee’s report advocates is a balanced approach which considers the underlying causes of environmental problems and seeks to address these fairly, openly and consistently. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Defra, with its agencies, must act jointly and not in opposition. Perhaps the forthcoming national land use framework will help bring things together. At the local level, local planning authorities must have the central role, despite cuts in planning department budgets. Increased planning fees coupled with more efficient models, as in Warwickshire, for sharing expertise and the necessity of having up-to-date local plans can all help. But responsibility comes back to central government and its agencies to engage with all the relevant stakeholders, to provide clear guidance, to introduce new measures only with proper transition periods and to ensure mitigation schemes are in place so that, at the end of the day, environmental improvements work hand in hand with securing much-needed new homebuilding.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, with whom I usually agree, but on this occasion I am afraid that I will come to a point of disagreement. Yes, of course people need homes but they also need healthy homes, which requires those homes to be in a healthy environment. The level of pollution in our rivers means that that is just not available at the moment; you cannot have a healthy home without a healthy environment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his committee for this excellent report. I also thank him for this introduction to this crucial debate. I stress that what is clear from the whole report is that this is a failure over decades. I often hold the Government responsible for many things that they have done in the last 14 years; I do in this area as well, but the current mess we are in is not just this Government’s fault.
We are, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, one of the most nature-depleted corners of this planet. We also have an enormous housing crisis, with both a lack of housing and its incredible cost. The Green Party says that we need the right homes in the right place at the right price. The part of that most relevant to this report is the right place, which means essentially a healthy place. To get to all those requirements, we need a total turnaround in policy.
I learned about extraordinarily bad planning in Australia, where there is no green belt. I grew up in Sydney, a city that just sprawls and sprawls, destroying everything in its path, so I really want to stress the value of the green belt. It is there to protect land but also to keep urban centres compact, close to public transport and shops, et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the potential biodiversity value of brownfield sites and we really have to take account of that. Those who are inventing a new term of “grey belt” might want to reflect on some of those issues.
I also want to refer to biodiversity offsetting, which I have debated with many other Ministers, so I will not go in depth on it now. But with the local elections approaching, I have been travelling around the country a lot by train recently. Looking out the window at new estates, with biodiversity net gains often being off-site, we are all too often looking at biological deserts—homes set on tiny pocket-handkerchief lawns, while for street after street there is not a tree or even a shrub to be seen. Increasingly, we know that that has massive negative impacts on human health.
For the next part, I should probably declare my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association to pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the resources available to local councils. I have to note the Government’s response to paragraph 59 of the committee’s report:
“A well-resourced local planning authority is crucial to the delivery of all planning functions”.
I can hear the hollow laughs in councils up and down the land at this moment. We know that local authorities have been starved of resources and of the power to make decisions.
I note also that paragraph 120 of the committee’s report states:
“Public bodies are facing challenges recruiting and retaining ecological expertise. It is necessary to bring expertise into the system through recruitment or training”.
Unfortunately, the Government’s response to that paragraph says absolutely nothing about education or training, yet there is an issue with green skills. When I talk to local councillors—noble Lords might be interested to know that 10% of councils in England have Greens as part of their administrations—they basically say that ecologists are like hens’ teeth. It is not that they are not trying to recruit them. These ecologists do not exist, and those green skills do not suddenly pop up out of nowhere. People need to be trained; I do not know whether the Minister is able to comment on that, but it would be very useful.
Finally, I have to come back to the Office for Environmental Protection’s report in January. I am sure that many noble Lords will say, and have already said, that we need housing, but we need a healthy environment for our people to live in. The Office for Environmental Protection said that the Government are well off track to meet their long-term water targets, that there are issues of water scarcity—to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said—and that there is not sustainable resource use. None of this is working and the answer is not just build, build, build; it is to build the right house in the right place at the right price. I look forward to the noble Lord’s maiden speech.
Lord Banner (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am humbled to speak for the first time in the House today. I thank all the wonderful staff and noble friends who have, in time-honoured fashion, facilitated the process of settling me in. I want to mention in particular the doorkeepers for all the assistance they have given me so far, as well as my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar for supporting me at my introduction.
This is not my first job in this House. In 2005, before embarking on private practice at the Bar, I spent 12 months here seconded as a judicial assistant to the Law Lords, as they then were, before the creation of the UK Supreme Court. I had the immense privilege of working for Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Both remained close friends and mentors of mine until their passing—in the case of Lord Brown, only last year. I am sure this House misses them greatly, as do I. An independent and respected judiciary, applying the rule of law, is fundamental to the operation of our democracy. That is the lesson I took from my first stint in this building, and one which I shall apply in my second.
Like my noble friend Lord Moylan, whose Motion this debate concerns, I am a Brummie, who ended up in west London. I grew up near Barnt Green, a charming village on the outskirts of Birmingham, where my mother still lives. I am proud to have Barnt Green as the territorial designation on my Letters Patent, although I must confess it was not a difficult choice between that and the other nearby village, Lickey End.
There is one other introductory matter that it would be remiss of me not to mention, and that is Ukraine. I am lucky enough to have a Ukrainian wife, Tetyana, who is here today and to whom I owe so much, and we are the proud parents of our two British-Ukrainian children. Our close family and friends include Ukrainian women and children, who are routinely bombarded in their homes and in their daily lives, and heroes risking their lives to defend their country. To them and all Ukrainians, I say this: I hope with all my heart that the UK, Europe and the United States will continue to support you tooth and nail against Russia’s repugnant war of aggression. Slava Ukraini.
I now turn to the subject matter of today’s debate. I have had some difficult briefs in my time at the Bar, but few have been as challenging as maintaining the convention that maiden speeches must be uncontroversial while also offering a meaningful contribution to a debate about the impact of environmental regulations on development.
I start with the easy bit: declaring an interest. As a King’s Counsel specialising in planning and environmental law, it will not surprise your Lordships to hear that I have acted and continue to act for many clients in relation to the impact of environmental regulations on development, including in relation to nutrient neutrality, which will be the focus of my observations today.
Most of those clients are developers and land promoters who have felt that the current level of environmental regulation of development is disproportionate and ineffective. That is not, however, my only perspective. Until last month, I was for six years a board member, and latterly interim chair, of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, or JNCC, the UK-wide statutory nature conservation advisory body. Although work on nutrient neutrality is currently led by the statutory nature conservation bodies of the four component countries of the UK rather than by JNCC at a UK-wide level, my engagement in that role with Natural England’s leadership and that of the other statutory conservation bodies has helped me see things from their standpoints too.
It is with that rounded perspective that I seek to cut the Gordian knot of meaningfully contributing to a controversial subject in a speech that cannot itself be controversial. I propose to highlight five areas of apparent common ground which, if considered carefully by all stakeholders, might help provide some focus on how to solve the current stalemate.
First, everyone seems to agree that the status quo in relation to nutrient neutrality cannot continue. In the middle of a housing crisis, the building of new homes is subject to an effective moratorium in many parts of the country because of currently unachievable requirements for them to be nutrient neutral. In the middle of a nature crisis, the main causes of the nutrient pollution of river habitats—farming practices and water companies’ underinvestment in their infrastructure—continue to damage the environment.
Secondly, requiring developers to pay farmers to take land out of beneficial agricultural production, thus offsetting the nutrient generation of new development, is not the solution. It is unsustainable in every sense of the word to take productive agricultural land out of use. Moreover, a fundamental tenet of environmental law is “the polluter pays”, yet in this situation the polluter gets paid.
Thirdly, the long-term solutions plainly lie in improving agricultural practices and upgrading water infrastructure, but that will take time. The key question then is what can be done in the meantime to allow the much-needed housing to go ahead before the farming and water industries get their acts together. What quick wins can be achieved in the meantime to reduce phosphate levels in rivers and provide headroom for new development? An answer to this question must urgently be found.
Fourthly, as the committee’s excellent report makes clear, a joined-up approach across government is essential in finding a way to reconcile these considerations, which straddle the departmental responsibilities of DLUHC and Defra, as well as others. I suggest that there may be lessons that can be learned from previous Governments in which responsibility for both planning and environmental matters fell under the same departmental roof.
Finally, one of the most important things for the development industry is predictability. Land use regulation is called “planning” for a reason—the clue is in the name. Unplanned and sudden changes to rules and requirements undermine market and investor confidence. There appears to be broad consensus that the impact of nutrient neutrality requirements on the development sector has been significantly exacerbated by the lack of advance warning or consultation. Lessons can surely be learned about the need for fair notice of future environmental regulation of development.
There is not much more I can say within the limitations of this maiden speech, but I hope to make further contributions to the House’s consideration of these important issues in future.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moylan and his committee on this excellent report. I also, of course, congratulate my noble friend Lord Banner, of Barnt Green, on his superb speech. He brings deep knowledge and expertise on this subject. For a lawyer, paid by the word, his brevity was both welcome and unexpected. I feel sure that his professional background, experience, intellect and eloquence will be a much valued addition to your Lordships’ House. I look forward to what I hope will be many contributions from him over the next few years, not least on a subject dear to his heart, that of Ukraine.
I wish to make a number of general observations, because this report is too long and too complex to do justice to in five minutes. It highlights a failure: a policy, regulatory, legislative and judicial quagmire which I think any Government would have struggled with.
There are some fundamentals that we need to concede, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. We have a housing crisis; we have an issue of intergenerational fairness; we have increasing housing costs. We have to look at a proper strategy for dealing with that. We have also lost our way on proper strategy and planning for infrastructure. My part of the world is leading the way. In the east, Anglian Water is developing two new reservoirs, one near Grantham and one in the Fens, near Chatteris, but these things take sometimes 20 or 30 years to come to fruition. We do not appear to have coherence on that issue.
The decision last September to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to make the perfect the enemy of the good, by rejecting the Government’s very credible proposals to ameliorate the impact of nutrient neutrality in sensitive river catchments was a big mistake and an avoidable error, not least because the nutrient mitigation scheme, worth £280 million, was sorely needed.
We have also seen over a number of years regulatory and quango overreach, judicial activism and policy capture, which is a very regrettable situation. The proposal in 2023 to roll out a national credit-based scheme to address the imperative for nutrient neutrality would have entailed more than 30,000 acres of productive agricultural land being taken out of use for that purpose. I was interested to see that that is 61,000 tonnes of wheat, which is 35 million boxes of Weetabix.
It also has not produced, as at 2023, 142,000 homes which could have been built across 70 discrete local planning authorities. As other noble Lords have made clear, that has had a particular impact on small and medium-sized enterprise builders, who have suffered significantly since the downturn over 15 years ago. In fact, the Government’s own research shows that agricultural runoff and inaction by the privatised water companies in maintaining water infrastructure are the main reasons for the discharging of raw sewage into rivers and issues around nutrient neutrality. Indeed, new development accounts for less than 5% of phosphate and nitrate loads in our rivers. Of course, we also have the rather pernicious decision of the European Court of Justice in the so-called Dutch nitrogen case in 2018, which has resulted in what I would call the judicial activism in respect of the habitats regulations.
We are left with just one weapon in the armoury. That intervention is the sledgehammer used by Natural England to block much-needed new residential development. So, to quote Lenin, I ask the question: “What is to be done?” We need new primary legislation. We absolutely must have new watertight legislation and, I am sorry, but I believe that we must scrap the existing nutrient neutrality rules—needs must.
I cannot analyse all the recommendations in the report and the Government’s comprehensive reply, but there are a few things that I think are important. Ministers need to be able to exercise powers to grant planning permission and bypass local planning authorities that wilfully refuse to prepare timely and comprehensive plans. We need to refocus on the funding, capacity and expertise of local planning authorities. As an imperative, we obviously must have a review by the Environment Agency of environmental permits and plots that discharge effluent into rivers and areas impacted by nutrient pollution, especially agricultural activity. We also need a long-term look at historic housing stock and existing agricultural practices, as outlined in paragraph 89 of the report. We of course also have to look again at a greater emphasis at development on brownfield sites and remediation of brownfield land.
In conclusion, I commend this report. It is detailed and comprehensive and, more importantly, as my noble friend rightly said, it has signposted this and future Governments to find a way to reconcile two extremely important objectives: protecting biodiversity, species and quality of life; and building homes for people who desperately need them.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I will not rehearse in this speech the points made in the committee’s report. They are now in the public domain and are clear and have been set out in this debate. I would, however, like to share a few reflections on the process that we have been through and the lessons learned. I thank the committee clerks and Kelvin, our special adviser, for the support they gave us and the production of what I thought was an excellent and timely report. I also thank the chairman of the committee for setting out the issues so clearly in the press briefing and media interviews that he took part in.
I begin by sharing my disappointment at the way the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Intergovernmental Relations, Michael Gove, dealt with the challenging questions that we sent him. They were set out clearly in writing by the clerks when we met with him on 6 February. They were questions that our committee had researched in detail. We are living at a time when there is decreased trust in politicians of all parties and in the machinery of the state and its ability to deliver anything effectively. Members of the public, let alone Peers of the Realm, are sceptical and deserve a grown-up conversation with our politicians on challenging issues and the functions of the state. We all know, and have experienced at first hand, that this machinery is not working for us in so many ways. There is a desperate need for a frank and honest conversation, in which we grapple together with the issues, admit failings and challenges and attempt together to find ways forward.
The Secretary of State arrived at our meeting with 13 civil servants in train, at great cost to the public purse—only two of whom spoke briefly. The two-hour session, I am afraid, was a great example of a clever politician who has been meddling in the systems of state for some time now but who actually told us very little. This was a real opportunity missed, and an example of what is happening on all sides of the political spectrum in our public discourse about serious issues such as the ones we are discussing today. It is a discourse that sheds very little light and, more importantly, produces very little learning.
I raised with the Secretary of State the impression that we had clearly been given in our evidence sessions of the lack of joined-up working in the siloed systems of the state for which his department was responsible. We were told time and again about the fragmentation in many of the processes of those bodies that his department was responsible for, about people not communicating effectively with each other and about the machinery’s lack of fitness for purpose, with questions over whether any real learning was going on between these various bodies dealing with these important issues.
Instead of serious engagement and grown-up discussion about the challenges—which certainly predate Michael Gove—in the systems and processes that sit below him, we were told that all was fine and dandy in the kingdom. I do not believe it for a minute, and our evidence clearly suggests otherwise. If everything is fine with the machinery below the Secretary of State’s office, why were we told, in the recent Public Accounts Committee report on levelling up, that only just over 10% of the promised funds had actually been spent and were making a difference on the ground? That report asks why the Government are unable to provide any compelling examples of what levelling-up funding has delivered so far in one of the Government’s flagship policies.
As a person with direct experience of these issues on the ground, I declare my interest. This all speaks volumes as to the challenges of this department’s machinery—top, middle and on the front line—and accords with the evidence that we heard. Our encounter with the Secretary of State was disappointing, and an opportunity for real, informed dialogue and learning was missed. These machinery issues are not a party-political matter, of course. They will equally apply to, and have to be faced by, any new and incoming Government—they are not going away any time soon.
To move on, I agree with the conclusions of our report and think that their implications are very serious. All parties are promising to solve the housing crisis, but I am afraid that this will not be possible until we are all willing to have hard, honest and grown-up conversations about the challenges that we all face with the top, middle and front line of the machinery of the state, its fitness for purpose and its ability to deliver. Trust in our democracy depends on it. There is a desperate need for innovation, new ways of working and what I call a learning-by-doing culture at all levels of the state apparatus. But what does this look like in practice?
One very interesting piece of innovation that we heard about during our evidence sessions was from the Honourable Justice Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Having done several speaking tours in Australia, I know that Australians can sometimes—given our shared history—unfairly feel a little dependent on the UK and often want to learn about our latest thinking and practice on this small island. In this case, I suspect we may have important lessons to learn from them, and rightly so. Justice Brian told us about the Land and Environment Court in New South Wales, of which he was the Chief Judge. It was established in 1979 by legislation. At that time, we were told that planning and environmental law was quite primitive and even incoherent—sound familiar? The resolution of planning and environmental disputes was dispersed between multiple institutions, not only courts and tribunals but boards and government bodies. If you had one dispute, you could go to six different courts, tribunals or boards. This led to delay, transaction costs, inconsistent decision-making and incoherence in the administration of the legislation. In New South Wales, there was a desire to rationalise this fragmentation process and bring everything into one place to create, in effect, a one-stop shop. The consequence, we were told, has been the much speedier resolution of conflicts.
There is so much more to say about the lessons that we can learn from the Australian approach but, frustratingly, we have not been given the time to have a proper discussion about it. The Secretary of State could learn a lot. This learning-by-doing environment—the 360-degree approach—may not be perfect but I suspect that it has much to teach us all. My question to the Minister is: what are we actually learning about how to resolve the tensions between environmental issues and housing, and how are we applying these lessons to practice?
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and thank him very much for his contribution. I know that we all look forward to hearing much more from him. I also thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for the clarity of his introduction to this debate, and the team of experts and staff who helped us create the report that we are looking at today.
The title of the report, The Impact of Environmental Regulations on Development, seems straightforward enough. However, the more evidence the committee received, the more it heard of the disconnection between government departments, organisations, local planning authorities and developers—all of which play a major part in implementing government policy. The delivery of 1 million homes over this Parliament and 300,000 a year by the mid-2020s was a key government manifesto pledge. As we have heard, the Government also promised to become
“the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it found it”.
The commitment to the housing numbers and the environment is to be commended. No Government would make such statements without the intention to deliver them. However, the work of the Built Environment Committee, in interrogating this intention, has found that the desire is far greater than the outcome.
One of the most obvious requirements for having a full understanding of the reasons for problems in enabling increased housing numbers is to have a clear understanding of the costs of delivering a full range of environmental regulations for housing or infrastructure delivery. The committee was unable to obtain such information. It suggested that the Government should have a review of costs so that their policies better balanced development and environmental objectives. Is this work under way?
As we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the Office for Environmental Protection’s January 2024 report on progress on the Government’s targets, including those in the Environment Act 2021, indicated that, of the 40 targets, the Government are on track to achieve just four. Due to a lack of information, 15 of the targets cannot be assessed. Nitrogen pollution contributes to limiting housing delivery in large areas where there continue to be damaging levels of nitrogen.
A problem for local authorities is how to balance the delivery of more housing against environmental ambitions when the two areas do not have equal statutory weight. Other areas of conflict can be the steps taken to off-set nutrient pollution or to deliver biodiversity net gain. One result of this is that active farmland is being taken out of production, including through Natural England’s own mitigation schemes. It is important that the Government recognise the critical importance of domestic food production and the role it plays in food security. In the 2022 National Food Strategy, the Government committed to publishing a land use framework in 2023 to manage the increasing demands on the UK’s land for food production, nature recovery and renewable energy. This land use framework is still eagerly awaited.
It is alarming to read advertisements such as the one I saw recently for 20 hectares of arable land and pasture near Darlington, where the site is being transformed into an
“expanse of wildflower grassland with a network of natural ponds”.
However attractive sites such as this might become, they do not produce food. What assessment has been made of the loss of arable land for mitigation schemes and its impact on food security? Could progress be made in cross-departmental working and, when policies are being created, could cross-organisation working be prioritised? Where there is existing expertise in organisations such as Homes England and the Planning Inspectorate, it certainly should be used.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this hugely important subject. I declare an interest as a resident in the part of Sussex affected by water neutrality. I am also a supporter of the local group Save Rural Southwater—SRS—which focuses on excessive residential development in contravention of a made neighbourhood plan. Noble Lords will know that I am a chartered surveyor by profession and a former member of the Built Environment Committee. I pay tribute to its work in this area, in which I was not involved. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, on a most thought-provoking speech. He is no stranger to my profession or the hallowed portals of 12 Great George Street.
My first wider point is to reinforce the report’s implicit query as to how it has come about that damage to ecology, derived in my area from excessive water abstraction by a privatised utility under the noses of the Government’s Environment Agency and nature conservation adviser, has somehow alighted on the development control system rather than dealing with the supply-side mechanics and consumer demand management. That seems quite extraordinary. The report refers to a siloed approach, but it is more serious than that: it is bad public administrative architecture and a basic failure to co-ordinate environmental, economic and social factors.
I will start with a bit of data. A comment has just been made about housing. The report rightly describes the number of out-of-date local plans, but it does not query, at least in that context, the Government’s own data for household formation and thus housing need, which dates from 2013. My case rests on that point, but I question what we are doing about the inventory versus the flows in what we might call the creation of wealth.
In focusing on water neutrality, I acknowledge that this is not the only area of critical provision at issue. Communications, energy supply and distribution, waste and critical social infrastructure sit alongside air, water, light and sound pollution, many of which are difficult to price, but almost none is being planned for on a predictable basis or even consistently and objectively measured, let alone managed effectively. I am all for saving water. We are profligate in our use of it, which must be dealt with, but it is a wider societal issue.
The exemplar used in the report, which is the water off-setting scheme of Crawley Borough Council—14 miles from where I live—is apparently now being accepted by neighbouring local authorities as the model for dealing with this. However, it is a classic example of greenwash and is not fit for purpose. It devises an off-setting arrangement based on an aspirational water consumption metric of 85 litres per person per day. That is slightly more than is allowed in the desert Kingdom of Jordan. Although theoretically achievable, it is ludicrous in terms of current domestic practice. Data from Southern Water, our local utility, shows an average domestic daily per capita consumption of 136 litres per person per day, and the long-term objective of Part C of the building regulations is 110 litres. To see how absurd this is, I recommend that noble Lords visit the SRS website. Crawley’s own pilot scheme showed a consumption of 166 litres per person per day. You could scarcely make this up.
If this is to be the general way in which environmental regulation is to be circumvented or worked around, I am extremely fearful for where we may end up, with no objective metric for evaluating offset equivalence. In the limited circumstances of Crawley borough’s social housing, verifying ongoing compliance is absent, with no enforcement provision, no sanction for failure to perform and no authority possessing the intrusive powers necessary to achieve these. This is a recipe for profligate overconsumption, which will end up in tears.
This is an irresponsible approach and a dereliction of public duty. It will result in critical attrition of essential resources: not only water but nature and other things that are of extraordinary value to us. A holistic process is needed. When the report suggests shifting the balance between ecology and development, I reject that on the basis of the current situation, because it needs to look at the problem in a different way. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to balance and engagement. He is absolutely right, although I take that point from a different standpoint from his.
Ultimately, this is an issue for central government, utility companies and their regulators, for pricing into consumption the true costs of environmental compliance. We need a demand-side approach and the sort of thing that has encouraged consumers to save electricity and gas, recycle waste and gain a better understanding of the role that we all have to play as citizens.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to our Chamber; I appreciated his extremely pertinent contribution. Likewise, I echo my thanks to my committee members and to Kate and Kelvin, who kept the herd of cats focused. I am no longer a member of the committee, but I really enjoyed my time with them.
This has been a stimulating debate with some excellent contributions, kicked off most incisively by our indomitable and knowledgeable chair, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. What is clear from the contributions of all noble Lords is that this report has laid bare the failure of government to meet either its environmental objectives or its housing targets.
As has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the Office for Environmental Protection—whose representatives were of excellent calibre—gave evidence in the annual report saying that the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental ambitions, including those set out in the 2021 Act. Sadly, we were not surprised by the Secretary of State’s admission to the committee that the 300,000 housing target will not be met in this Parliament. This is a failure on both objectives.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, strongly stated, we found the Government’s response disappointing, to put it mildly. In fact, I go so far as to say that it felt like there was a collective giving up on trying to engage with the issues, and many answers were just assertions that they rejected the committee’s findings. Despite very strong evidence that both sets of targets would not be met, they did not engage with the evidence that we put forward.
It was a challenging inquiry in different ways, but it was soon established that this was a battleground, and entrenched positions were taken up. Regrettably, because their respective roles are so important, Natural England versus Defra and the Environment Agency and/or the greedy developers featured as the villains of the piece, depending on which side of the battle you were on, with poor council officers stuck in the middle of the fray trying to referee.
Some of our witnesses were clear that with the right policy levers and leadership from government, the objectives were not mutually incompatible. But lack of policy co-ordination and implementation were exacerbating the problem and hampering delivery, as several noble Lords have mentioned.
As we have heard today, the report identified very clear policy conflicts between the Government’s food security ambitions, in particular, and steps to offset nutrient pollution or to deliver biodiversity net gain. Both are resulting in active farmland being taken out of use, including through Natural England’s own mitigation schemes.
There is no doubt that the impact of water pollution measures and nutrient neutrality rules has resulted in fewer homes being built. The former has been the reason for some councils in effect calling a moratorium on housebuilding in their area. This has been to great fanfare and whoops of delight from nimby residents and their councillors in some areas.
A quick study of the councils is revealing. I am not aware of any parties’ political leaflets going out saying, “Boo, hiss, the nasty Government are stopping us building lots of much-needed new homes—shame on them”, but rather the opposite. I would be grateful for the Minister’s update on the Government’s position with those councils. Is there actively any engagement with councillors who sit on the planning committees that make the decisions?
It was clear to us that finding solutions to allow housing to go ahead is technically challenging. For example, I learned about the science of working out how many nutrients can be offset by creating a wetland. There is undoubtedly a shortage of people in individual councils with the right skills and knowledge, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. For councils it has been a steep learning curve, as it has for the private sector and public bodies.
Developers looking for a way to meet their obligations find a complex, complicated and inconsistent system. This particularly impacts on SME builders, as has also been said. The market in schemes providing mitigation and selling credits to housebuilders has not materialised or grown quickly enough to meet demand. Some of the designated catchments are still without schemes, such as the River Eden and Bassenthwaite catchments in the north-west. Even in areas with relatively mature credit markets, availability is not always good.
Part of the problem is the lack of central standards and accreditation. It seems that it is up to each individual local Natural England team as to whether the proposed solution is acceptable. Will the Government consider an independent set of standards and accreditation to circumvent the need for Natural England to have to approve every single solution, which inevitably leads to delays and inconsistency?
As ever, funding is clearly an issue. The Government have set aside a £110 million nutrient mitigation fund, but as always it is a competitive bidding process, which those of us in local government know is a barrier and does not always result in those with the greatest need getting the appropriate amount of money to make a difference. As yet, there is no timetable for when these local authority schemes will be operational.
Do the Government have an assessment of the availability of both local authority and commercial credit schemes in each of the nutrient-sensitive areas, including when they expect the local authority-funded schemes to become operational and how many homes are expected to be supported? Unfortunately, there is real uncertainty and inconsistency with local authority schemes, not least regarding the cost of credits, which I was surprised to find varies considerably. This is exacerbated by the paucity of credits and the lack of competition in this area.
It came over strongly in the report that collaborative working was the key to success—there is no surprise there. Councils need clarity over the roles of the regulators, as this is critical to stopping nutrients entering the water systems in the first place, coming mainly from agriculture and water treatment. To make this effective, there have to be more formal data-sharing agreements between councils and water companies, as the lack thereof is hampering progress.
Are the Government acting now on changing agricultural practices that would help in the short term? Perhaps the Minister can update us. It must be said that housebuilding contributes a very small amount to nutrient emission. The biggest source of pollution is farming at 70%, as we know, with 30% coming from the activities of the rest of the built environment, including existing residents.
This is a significant and bold report. Much more could be said, and I have just scrapped a couple of paragraphs. In truth, noble Lords have given it a good critique today. It seems we agree that the two objectives are currently incompatible, and it will probably take another Government—and perhaps a few decades—to pull everything together, to get a grip and to reconcile the very valid goals of reducing pollution and building more homes. If we do not, we face the lose-lose situation of pollution continuing to accumulate unchecked, with our rivers facing total ecological collapse while our housing crisis gets worse.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banner, on his excellent maiden speech. I was very interested to hear his comments on Ukraine; from our side of the House, I reassure him again of our support for government actions on Ukraine to support the brave heroes there. I was delighted to hear that he is an active supporter of Brian May’s animal welfare campaign. We look forward to hearing more in the House about his expertise.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and all members of the Built Environment Committee for the extremely thorough and balanced way in which they have approached what I consider to be one of the most important issues facing our country. We know that we need to balance the development that we urgently need and the environmental protections that we would all want to see. For the future of our country, we must ensure that the developments and communities that are formed do no detriment to our rich biodiversity and, at best, will contribute significantly to its protection and enhancement.
It was a pleasure to listen to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and I hope that the Government will work with all the public bodies involved to use this report as a catalyst for genuine and long-term change to the planning system and to the delivery mechanisms for housing, economic growth and regeneration. It is impossible to do justice to the 74 recommendations in the report in the time constraints of the debate, but so many of them are welcome, thoughtful and so important that I hope they can be implemented with as little delay as possible.
I will restrict my comments to some of the key areas that have emerged during the debate: co-ordination in government, the planning process, some brief comments on nutrient neutrality, the availability of good environmental data and mapping, and the use of brownfield land.
First, I will comment on one of the report’s key findings: the lack of co-ordination between government departments and the public bodies associated with them. That issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. If we are to plan and deliver a better future for the country, we simply cannot carry on with the current silo thinking in government departments. As the report rightly puts it:
“We see no path to delivering the Government’s ambitions by the intended deadlines unless there is a strong display of political leadership to deliver and implement a comprehensive strategy for both development and the environment”.
What work is currently going on to ensure that we have a long-term housing plan, a comprehensive and long-awaited land use strategy, and a plan that will ensure future food security? These strands clearly need drawing together, so can the Minister indicate how the Government intend to respond to the need to ensure better cross-departmental working?
At local level, it is vital that local authorities can respond to the dual challenge of delivering housing and protecting the environment—an issue raised very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Best—and that their local plans are effective in helping them to do so. The Government’s decision to remove the need for local housing targets last year made this worse, not better, and has further delayed the production of local plans. As we have heard, a quarter of local planning authorities do not have an adopted local plan, and almost 30% of those with an adopted local plan have one that is more than five years old. There is an urgent need to ensure that local authorities, as well as the statutory bodies that need to contribute to local plans, are properly resourced to do that—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton.
While the limited increase in planning fees is welcome, it is a matter of regret that the opportunity to introduce full-cost recovery for major planning applications was not taken in the passage of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The recommendation in the report—that for any new regulations or requirements on the planning system or on development there should be a mandatory consultation with Homes England and the Planning Inspectorate—is welcome, but I suggest that, as local government is responsible for the delivery of planning, the LGA be added to that list. This too would prevent the issue flagged in the report: that the introduction of regulations without detail and practical solutions would inhibit or delay development.
There is a need to urgently consider the issue of nutrient neutrality, to ensure that the development of much-needed housing is not impeded, but that, at the same time, it is not adding to the enormous and toxic pressures on our natural water resources, which have, sadly, become all too familiar to us in recent years—what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, described as a false dichotomy. There has been significant success in the mitigation networks undertaken by Natural England, such as those in the Solent. Urgent consideration of how they can be built on is needed, including lessons learned and any necessary adaptations for wider rollout to be undertaken. We understand the recommendation that this should initially be publicly funded, but there must be urgent work with the private sector to ensure that a long-term funding approach is developed.
As a council leader who has faced many planning challenges over the years, I was delighted to see the great crested newt get a special mention in the report. However, if we are to deliver the significant goal of biodiversity net gain, we will need to have much better environmental data and mapping, with a proper, data-driven land use strategy at the top of the pyramid. Access to local, environmental, species and natural resource data is vital to ensure that planning departments and developers can take relevant data into account. New technologies, particularly satellite mapping, can and should be employed to facilitate this process and to ensure that it is comprehensive.
In addition to all those significant challenges is the overriding need to find more suitable land for housing without impinging on the truly precious green spaces that are our natural heritage. Unfortunately, the government approach to date means that nobody is winning. The housing crisis is
“engulfing a generation of hard-working aspirational people”,
while the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. New analysis from the Labour Party today reveals the scale of this housing failure, with planning applications received and granted dropping to the lowest level on record. Applications made and granted have dropped by a fifth. What we have seen is an inconsistent and haphazard approach, leading to significant amounts of speculative development, including on high-quality, nature-rich, green-belt land, often via an appeal over the heads of councils and out of the reach of local people.
A Labour Government would take a brownfield-first approach to development across England, stressing that areas with enough brownfield land should not release green-belt land. However, we will release some land currently classed as green belt to build the homes that Britain needs. We intend to create a new class of grey-belt land to prioritise ugly, disused grey-belt land, and set tough new conditions for releasing that land. We will ensure that any development benefits local communities. This follows cases such as affordable homes in Tottenham being blocked because a disused petrol station had been designated as green-belt land.
We are setting out today five golden rules for grey-belt housebuilding, to deliver affordable homes, to boost infrastructure and public services such as schools and GPs, and to improve genuine green spaces. We will also look to ensure high environmental standards that go above the legal minimum on biodiversity net gain. The chair of Natural England has rightly said that new housing and better protection for green spaces, wildlife and nature should not be opposites, and that a new approach to the green belt should be part of the answer to the UK’s housing crisis.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the Government’s response to the challenges set by this extremely welcome report. I again thank all noble Lords who worked on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
As ever, I am grateful to noble Lords for their considered views on this important topic. Given the number of recommendations in the report and the number of topics raised today, I will try to do justice in responding to them.
I begin by reiterating this Government’s commitment to delivering the homes that we need, while ensuring that we continue to protect and enhance the environment. Through the Environment Act 2021 and the environmental improvement plan, the Government have been clear in their ambition to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. This ambition has been carried through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and our recent updates to the National Planning Policy Framework, to ensure that development continues to support environmental recovery. However, like the committee, the Government recognise the need to ensure that environmental regulation is proportionate and effective in supporting the delivery of much-needed developments.
As noble Lords said—particularly my noble friend Lord Moylan in his opening remarks—a key focus for the Government is to increase housing supply. I reassure my noble friend, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that we are on target to meet our manifesto commitment to deliver 1 million homes in this Parliament. Indeed, since 2010, we have delivered 2.5 million additional homes—but we can and must do more, and in a balanced way.
To maintain this balanced approach to increasing housing supply, and to drive growth and development, national planning policy needs to create certainty, as numerous noble Lords said. That is why we used the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to introduce powers for national development management policies to be produced. These policies will have statutory force and will guide decision-making on planning applications across England, helping local authorities produce swifter, slimmer and more locally relevant plans, and ensuring that important protections have the recognition that they deserve. We are working to prepare these policies now and will consult on them in due course.
The Government echo the sentiments of the committee: local planning authorities need up-to-date local plans, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, stated. That is why in December we reaffirmed our commitment to a plan-led system, creating strong incentives for local authorities to get their local plans in place, and encouraging authorities to make balanced decisions that support their diverse communities.
For local authorities to be able to have a plan in place, deliver it and do this efficiently, they will need our continued support. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Thornhill, that we will continue to provide additional financial support. This includes the planning skills delivery fund, which has been boosted to £29 million, allowing the planning application fees to be increased, and indeed a further £13.5 million to support a new “planning super-squad”. This will be made up of leading planners and specialists, who will be deployed across local planning authorities to accelerate the delivery of homes and development and to support those local planners.
As highlighted by the committee and reiterated here today by numerous if not all noble Lords, nutrient neutrality and its interaction with the habitats regulations has created a situation where some local authorities are not able to approve development. To remedy this, we continue to provide funding for local authorities to support strategic management and mitigation plans in their areas. In December 2023, we confirmed the first tranche of the local nutrient migration fund, which totals some £110 million, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. It aims to promote innovative approaches to delivering mitigation and to enable more effective mitigation solutions, with a second round of nutrient support funding to lead authorities in substantive catchments.
Indeed, the funding is already delivering an impact, enabling sustainable development in affected catchments. As many noble Lords will know, Natural England’s scheme is providing credits for some 4,500 homes in the Tees catchment so far, and through the local nutrient migration fund the Government have awarded £57 million to eight local authorities in December. That included funds of some £10 million to Wiltshire Council, which has enabled the construction of integrated wetlands, a nature-based solution to reduce nutrient pollution. A further £9.6 million to Somerset Council supports an innovative reverse-osmosis technology building on research from the University of Birmingham. This is rapidly boosting the supply of nutrient mitigation in these areas, which translates directly into more housing.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banner, on his excellent maiden speech and take this opportunity to welcome him to the House. I think we can all look forward to his further contributions in this Chamber, drawing on his wealth of experience in planning and environmental law.
Although the Government recognise the serious issues that noble Lords have described with regard to nutrient neutrality, I believe it is attainable. There is a lot that we can do and are doing to allow housing delivery to progress, even in areas affected by nutrient neutrality. Where there is a sufficient supply of mitigation, housing delivery is unlocked. I agree with noble Lords that assuring the delivery of long-term, major water supply infrastructure is an important element of this joined-up strategy, and we are seeing examples in Cambridge and elsewhere. We are working on addressing the water scarcity issues, as proposed by various schemes.
I am cutting out an awful lot of my paragraphs to make sure that I do not overrun while trying to answer your Lordships’ questions and understand my own scribbled handwriting, so I apologise if this does not sound as eloquent as it might have done when it was originally drafted.
We will of course continue to support local authorities, having opened a second expression of interest process, open to all nutrient-neutrality catchments. We are continually looking at ways to work more strategically on the delivery of mitigation on top of our close partnership with Natural England, which manages the £30 million nutrient mitigation scheme.
In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, one of the clearest examples of the Government’s commitment to ensuring a proportionate approach to environmental regulation is the new system of environmental outcomes reports that will be brought forward using the powers secured through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Processes for environmental assessment have matured since they were first introduced, yet, despite lengthy assessment reports, they often prove ineffective at securing better environmental outcomes or encouraging development to support the country’s most important environmental priorities. A tailored approach to assessment that properly reflects the nation’s environmental priorities via environmental outcomes reports will ensure that assessment moves away from being a costly, passive process to one which focuses on supporting the delivery of the environmental outcomes we all desire. The Government will shortly publish their response to our initial consultation and will be working at pace with the sector on the detailed design of this important new system.
We agree with numerous noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Banner, Lord Berkeley and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, that taking agricultural land out of production is not the optimal way of addressing nutrient pollution. However, food security and housing delivery can be seen as compatible rather than as conflicting aims. More efficient nutrient management is a win-win, and while improving agricultural practices is a long-term solution, we are taking many of those actions now. Our nutrient reduction plan includes funding for agriculture, encouraging further nutrient management actions for farmers, and includes plans to modernise fertiliser standards, developing innovative solutions locally, as we are seeing with the River Wye.
We are also seeing immediate benefits through action we have taken to improve water infrastructure; the duty to upgrade wastewater treatment in affected catchments by 2030 is an important additional step in unblocking housing delivery. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that joined-up working to address this important issue is crucial, and officials from across Defra, DLUHC, Natural England and the Environment Agency are working closely on a daily basis on trying to deliver these competing targets.
The Government recognise just how important it is for these public bodies to be appropriately resourced, just as it is for local planning authorities. That is why, over the 2023-24 financial year, the Government have provided an additional £5.6 million to increase the number of staff at Defra’s arms-length bodies.
Biodiversity net gain became mandatory on 12 February for new major developments and on 2 April for non-major development except where exemptions apply. We have been assisting local authorities with its implementation, providing funding which they can use to recruit ecologists or additional planners, as well as training through the Planning Advisory Service. Also available is a package of guidance designed to help with the implementation of biodiversity net gain, showing authorities how they can monitor and enforce it, as well as how the 10% net gain should be applied. Smaller developers need support, so we have provided a simplified small-sites metric to streamline the process for calculating net gains for small sites where there is no priority habitat present.
As many noble Lords mentioned, we are prioritising brownfield development. It is key to delivering the homes our communities need, but it also provides important opportunities to improve our environment and regenerate places, hence our strong encouragement of the reuse of suitable brownfield land in policy. We have consulted on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework that would place an even stronger emphasis on the value of using suitable brownfield land for homes, and we have also introduced funding incentives to support brownfield development. This includes £5.1 billion that is making its way to the existing brownfield housing fund to unlock and prepare more sites for brownfield development.
With regard to solar, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, the Prime Minister said earlier this week that we want to see more solar but on brownfield sites, on rooftops and away from our best agricultural land if at all possible. National planning policy is clear: where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality.
I note what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said about water neutrality and water efficiency, and that is why the Government have committed to reviewing the building regulations in order to introduce tighter water efficiency standards in new homes. In the meantime, in areas of serious water stress where water scarcity is inhibiting the adoption of local plans or the granting of planning permission for homes—including north Sussex—we will find ways and solutions to unlock what we need to unlock.
I close by thanking noble Lords for their work on this report and on this committee more widely. I am confident that, through our work to improve national planning policy and procedures, we will continue to achieve a balance between protecting our environmental assets and making sure that the right homes and infrastructure are in the right places in support of our communities.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I add my particular congratulations and thanks to my noble friend Lord Banner on his maiden speech. Given the time constraints, I hope that the noble Lords who spoke will forgive me if I do not respond individually to each of them but instead confine myself to making a few remarks in response to the comments from my noble friend the Minister.
All of us in this Chamber are agreed, I think, that the objectives of building housing and of improving the environment are desirable and, if properly planned, attainable. That is also true of my noble friend the Minister; we are all as one on this. I was pleased to hear from my noble friend that the Government are doing various things they can boast of, but what I did not hear was an acknowledgement, as was well identified in this report, that the system we are operating with is broken—not necessarily fundamentally broken, but there are systemic problems—nor that the Government are going to grasp the problem. What I heard was that the Government are spending money, perhaps for the highly desirable objective of trying to work around the nutrient neutrality bans on housing, but not what they are doing to address the overwhelmingly predominant cause of the pollution in our rivers: farming practices and the discharge of sewage and other pollutants. It seems to me that the Government have not quite grasped the seriousness and systemic nature of the problems that the report identified.
I am gratified on behalf of the committee that the report itself attracted so many compliments from noble Lords who spoke. If I may say so, I am very proud of it. I am pleased that I can say I have been associated with it. It has lessons that any Government should seriously learn; that is true of not only current Ministers but Ministers who will hold office after the general election that we must expect this year. These problems are not going away; they require a long-term, well-thought-out solution. Whoever’s laps these problems land in, I hope they will find this report a useful guide to what they should do.
English Horticultural Sector (Horticultural Sector Committee Report)
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Redesdale
That this House takes note of the Report from the Horticultural Sector Committee Sowing the seeds: A blooming English horticultural sector (Session 2022–23, HL Paper 268).
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I start my speech introducing Sowing the Seeds: A Blooming English Horticultural Sector by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, because, without her persistence in lobbying for a horticultural committee, it would never have been formed in the first place. Although by rights she should have gone on to chair the committee, I am grateful that she graciously allowed me to assume the role.
The report covers myriad issues. Although there are 93 recommendations and the report is 180 pages long, its length and number of recommendations correspond to the breadth of the sector and the complicated landscape of interconnected issues. The overarching conclusion of the report is that horticulture is a successful sector that is vital to the British economy, providing food security and environmental benefits, and is integral to the way in which we interact with green spaces and the landscape in the UK.
The report engendered an enormous amount of work. I thank our clerk, Dr Jillian Luke; Francesca Crossley, our policy analyst; and Abdullah Ahmad, the committee’s operations officer. Unusually, I would also like to pay special tribute to Dervish Mertcan from the House of Lords Press Office. The committee got a great deal of press coverage, which is not unusual for a House of Lords Select Committee, but I would argue that it shone above all others in achieving a rare accolade: being able to host “Gardeners’ Question Time” in the Robing Room.
The horticulture sector is worth more than £5 billion a year and employs more than 50,000 people, although different measures put the value far higher. However, its importance as part of the economy has had little recognition by the wider public; it also seems to be politically undervalued. That is not the case in other countries. The committee’s trip to the Netherlands showed how the Dutch place far more importance on this sector—a position that we believe should be mirrored in the UK. The horticultural sector is vital in helping the country meet its food requirements with high-quality, low-cost produce and with world-leading innovation in areas such as the development of the vertical farming sector. However, there are real challenges, not least of which is that profit margins are low and risk factors such as energy prices and climate change threaten the viability of producers.
The perception that the sector is undervalued was expressed by many in our evidence sessions. If we are to secure food security and environmental goals, horticulture should have more proactive support from the Government. Therefore, the Government’s response to the report was profoundly disappointing. Although the response showed in general an agreement with much of the sentiment of the report, there was little commitment to policy change. The Government highlighted future publications and consultations that will report at some point in the future, but there seemed to be little appetite for urgent action.
The written and oral evidence to the committee painted a picture of a sector that is struggling to meet its full potential. The sector faces multiple challenges, including post-Brexit trade problems. In the supply chain, the rising cost of labour, linked to shortages, and energy price rises have led to an increase in the cost of fertiliser. There are also water supply concerns and certainty that water shortages will increase in future as a result of climate change—as will flooding, as shown last winter. While, on the demand side, low margins are linked to extreme price competition among the supermarkets, all these issues will need to be addressed if farms are to remain competitive and viable.
The most obvious recommendation of the committee, in order to bring direct oversight of the sector, was the creation of a dedicated Horticultural Minister. The proposal did not suggest that Defra Ministers are failing, but a Horticultural Minister could focus more clearly on the many issues highlighted by the report’s recommendations. As a recommendation, it was always going to be a long shot—I am sure that the Minister will argue that the sector is covered adequately by Defra; obviously, that is not a personal jibe at the Minister—but submissions from the industry showed a belief that the fragmented nature of responsibilities between different departments is a real impediment to the sector’s ability to operate and grow.
The one consistent ask by those giving evidence at almost all the sessions was for a comprehensive horticultural strategy. The Government’s response confirmed that despite past assurances that a strategy would be produced, they will not now be publishing a horticultural strategy for England. This has caused a great deal of frustration and the belief among many in the industry that this shows a lack of commitment from the Government. One bright spot is that the committee’s report clearly highlights what should be addressed in any future strategy. I am sure there will be much lobbying of the next Government, whoever they might be—almost certainly Liberal Democrat—to make the formulation of a horticultural strategy a priority after the next election, whenever that may be.
Horticulture in the UK is a very broad topic for a report. At the first meeting of the committee, when the parameters of the report were discussed, it was agreed, after a firm intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that a central component of the report should be the ornamental sector. The size of that sector would surprise many people. The Horticultural Trades Association stated that:
“The UK ornamental plant and tree production sector directly contributed £880 million to the UK economy in 2019, employing around 17,800 people. By 2030 … this could grow to £1.3 billion in direct GDP contributions with the direct employment of almost 21,000”.
However, as the report points out, there are serious constraints on growth in the sector due to a lack of confidence in the procurement processes that has acted as a disincentive to investment, which has hindered growth.
The sector is not just about the sale of plants but has a role in protecting the environment. Climate change will all but banish the English country garden in the coming decades in the south of England, so the ornamental sector has a role in helping gardeners move to more resilient and less thirsty plants for gardens, at the same time making sure that the plants grown foster biodiversity. The committee was keen to look at green spaces, and it is impossible not to see how arboriculture—the propagation of trees—and tree nurseries are essential for the country’s parks and public spaces. I hope the Minister can say whether Defra is looking at funding commitments for tree nurseries beyond the grants made available by the Nature for Climate Fund, because the fund finishes in 2025 and at present there seems to be no replacement.
One of the most pressing issues faced by the ornamental and tree sector is the new border control systems necessitated by the hard Brexit that the Government adopted. At the time of the publication of the report, there had been a delay in the implementation of the new border controls through to April this year. They come into effect a week on Tuesday, when the current “place of destination” system of plant health import inspections will end. From then, checks will take place at border control posts. Using BCPs to conduct import checks on plants imported in volume from the EU is a unique and untested system. There has been a distinct lack of detail about how they will operate when handling plants and how much they will increase costs and delays for businesses forced to use them.
A few weeks ago, the Government finally announced the awaited common user charge for goods entering via the short straits, but charges do not apply to commercially run BCPs such as those at Harwich or Immingham, which will apply a different set of methods for charging when it comes to handling plants being presented to the Animal and Plant Health Agency for inspection.
A major concern is that businesses cannot forecast their costs because it is a lottery as to who gets charged and how much, and it is difficult to compare costs for using different ports of entry into Great Britain. The Horticultural Trades Association has expressed a concern that there is a lack of experience or training in handling precious plants and trees, and the way that border control posts are designed is not conducive to treating sensitive and perishable plants in the best way possible. This will almost certainly lead to losses and costs to businesses.
The current processes and plans have been developed in a vacuum of reliable and robust data. Systems have not been capturing the information needed to develop appropriate processes and infrastructure to cope. After 30 April, importers will be operating in a period known as the “pragmatic approach”, which means that if it does not work, solutions will have to be developed on the hoof, potentially harming the businesses involved and possibly costing much more, with the risk of compromising biosecurity. Checks are currently being conducted at nurseries, with plants unloaded only once by the experts and checked by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Businesses will now lose control of their supply chain’s integrity and are anxious about accidental damages, destruction of healthy stock, delays of perishable plants and cross-contamination at border control points. There has been a call for the point-of-delivery system to continue in a dual system, with border control points operating as well as PODs so that learnings and improvements are made.
Considering the delays and concerns from industry about the lack of clarity of the system, is the Minister now confident that the scheme will run smoothly? Which Minister will be responsible for the implementation of a pragmatic approach if the system crashes? Can the Minister confirm that the Minister responsible will be from Defra, not another department? The Horticultural Trades Association has said that more than 90% of its tree and plant-growing members in the UK, the vast majority of which are SMEs, import plant products. There is a real risk to the viability of many companies if the new system fails. One element that is coming into play with the import of plant material and being exacerbated by climate change is the spread of disease and viruses. Biosecurity is essential, but funding by government for the research base was a real concern for the committee. We hope that the Government will review grant funding to put the research community on a more secure financial footing.
I would like to list all the areas covered by the report but that would take considerably more time than the 12 minutes I have been allocated, so I will leave them to other speakers. I am tempted to stop at this point, but I have a couple of points to raise. The first is water. There is little understanding of just how much climate change will affect the water supply in the UK. It has been predicted that we might have a 75% reduction in water supply by 2050. It is quite likely that demand will exceed supply in many areas in the next 10 years. Abstraction is a short-term answer that the Government are looking at, but do they believe that the £20 million set aside for water catchment at farm levels will be enough? This area will need to be funded at a far greater level if we are to carry on with water security.
Peat was a major concern for the sector. The Government’s report emphasised how healthy peat should be left in the ground. Nobody can argue with that, and the industry is on course to almost eliminate commercially available peat. However, there are still major issues for the professional sector in its use of peat for propagation. Defra has moved the timescale for removing peat from 2030 to 2026. While 2030 was always going to be difficult, 2026 will be impossible for some. What resources will the Government provide to cover this?
I must cut short at this point, leaving out issues such as the national curriculum, but I know that members of the committee will cover those areas. My final point, which I could not get away without raising, is allotments. My wife is a zealous user of allotments, which are incredibly important to the countryside. Their health benefits cannot be overestimated, and mental health is a real issue that came out of the report, although I got a double hernia from digging potatoes on my wife’s allotment so I am not absolutely convinced of this. One of the things that I hope the Government take from the report is that there should be increased protection for green spaces. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his admirable chairmanship of the committee. We were able to make far-ranging inquiries followed by some very good practical recommendations. The attitude of the Government to all these recommendations was variable; the main point is that we had a lot of Civil Service language full of good intentions and not enough action.
I turn now to that failure of action, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has also referred—the absence of a national horticulture strategy for England. I stress this point about making long-term plans and putting their money where their mouth is, because people involved in horticulture need to know and have some degree of certainty about what the Government’s attitude will be.
I was particularly unimpressed by the reference in the government reply to this being but a snapshot in time. The inference is that everything will change and, therefore, a strategy is of very little purpose. I do not buy that, because it is perfectly possible to revise it at intervals. If that is the Government’s philosophy, I ask my noble friend the Minister if they are about to jettison the grand 25-year environment plan, which could be subject to precisely the same fault.
I turn now to another topic—two, if I can squeeze them in—that relates to research. Unfortunately, since 2003, there has been a notable decrease in the amount of research funding. At one time, Britain was noted as a world leader in ground-breaking research. Frankly, as we have been told by experts, who should know, we are in grave danger of losing this. A lot of the trouble stems from the absence of long-term funding, which again harks back to the horticultural strategy. That has been lost. There is what I call an obsessive reliance on short-term, competitive projects. This does not lend itself to the short term because everything to do with horticulture, whether edible or ornamental—I stress “ornamental”—needs long-term funding. I do not understand why we have this reliance on short-term funding. It is quite clear that it is having an impact on research institutes, some of which have disappeared altogether. The one at East Malling now has between a third and a half fewer staff than it used to, which bodes ill for what we are trying to do.
I urge the Government to think again about this research funding. It also has an impact on the chances of future generations enjoying high-level careers. For example, I believe Reading is now the only university that offers graduate and postgraduate horticulture courses of world renown. The RHS and Kew Gardens offer specialist ones of their own but, frankly, that is not enough if we want to encourage and give an opportunity to younger people to go in at a high level.
I turn now to the slightly lower level, which makes me get hot under the collar. It is quite clear that very little is done in schools to encourage knowledge of horticulture. There is certainly no encouragement whatever for young people to take it up as a career, at whatever level is suitable to them. The whole point about horticulture is that it can offer jobs from a fairly low level, although all of them need some special talent, right up to the postgraduate level.
We have the new T-levels, which are supposed to give a qualification at the end of two years equivalent to A-levels, but they are not widely known about. I am not at all sure that they have been set out in the most useful form. I hope that the Government, or whoever will be responsible for this, will look at the early stages of the various T-level qualifications clearly to make sure that they meet both the aspirations of the students and the needs of the industry where they will be employed. I fear that this has got off to a rather shaky start, as our committee indicated. I am therefore concerned that we have a really good go at making a good job of this, providing young people with really good, interesting careers.
We do not seem to have anything up to indicate the time, but I am pretty sure that I have reached my limit. Ever willing and, I hope, able to keep to the rules, I now end my contribution.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend, who is quite right. We have notified the House authorities about the clock, but we still have the other monitor so, as the Whip at the moment, I will keep the time and, when it comes to five minutes, I will gesticulate appropriately. We still have a record of the time, but the debate has been excellent so far, so I suggest that we carry on.
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his dedicated—the size of the report indicates that—and skilled chairing of the committee. It was a pleasure to work on this, not least because it brought to fruition the lifetime’s work of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who has been a fundamental driver of change in the sector, which, as I hope we demonstrate, is of great significance.
What was interesting about the committee was that it took us into a wide range of issues and showed how difficult it is for modern government to touch every base. The first thing we hit was the elusive reality of joined-up government. It is practically impossible. If I had a pound for every committee meeting I have been to where people banged on about how one department does not talk to another, I would have a bit more money.
There were a large range of issues, some of which have been touched on—innovation, investment, cheap food versus food security, the environment and all those things. But with the time limit today, I will focus on a very narrow range of things.
The first thing that struck me is that this industry can grow substantially, and this country needs growth industries. One need only look 40 or 50 miles across the sea to the Netherlands to see a country about 17% of the size of the UK that has a horticultural sector that is five times greater. It can be done. The challenge we face is how to do it.
That leads me to the question of government. The Government’s strategy is non-existent. How can they not be enthusiastic about something that has such potential to grow? To add to that disappointment, I would be complimenting the Government if I said that their response to our report was anything other than totally anaemic. It does not help with anything that we want to achieve.
Why should we be doing this? What is the opportunity? It is best if I quote Sir James Dyson. His credentials enabling him to speak on this are that he has a large greenhouse, 760 metres long, in Lincolnshire, in which he has 1.25 million strawberry plants. He does all of that with heating from solar panels and anaerobic digestion. What he says is this:
“Sustainable food production and food security are vital to the nation’s health and the nation’s economy, whilst there is also a real opportunity for agriculture—
he says agriculture but I say horticulture—
“to drive a revolution in technology and vice versa… efficient, high-technology agriculture holds many of the keys to our future”.
That is what it is. We have the opportunity, so we need to look at technology. We cannot forever be competing with warm countries with long hours of sunshine and low labour costs. We need to get the technology right if we are to compete and deal with these key issues.
The committee was lucky enough to spend a day in Kent, on the Isle of Thanet, said to be the sunniest part of England. We saw two great exemplars. The first was an Anglo-Dutch joint venture growing tomatoes. It was brilliantly organised. It is, I think, the leading supplier of tomatoes to the UK and is world-class and competitive. Equally entrancing was a visit to a site a few miles away where a vertical farm had been built. It focused on producing leaves—that is, lettuces and things for supermarkets—in a really controlled environment which was pesticide-free, with minimal water and labour. It was absolutely fantastic. It did it on an amount of land which, to get the same output with conventional methods, would have to be 20 times greater. What is there not to like? Why are we not pushing and investing, and getting the Government to help in taking this forward?
So we know what to do and we have seen others do it. This sector has great innovative ability. People such as Sir James Dyson and the people on the Isle of Thanet are not in this because they want to be charities. We know how to do it. In response to the supermarkets’ continued pressure on margin, it will be only technology and innovation that get the right margin to supply the job.
We do need better training—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, touched on this—and the Government should be in that place. Frankly, I have never believed in the Government picking winners, but in this case I make an exception. The Government need to get behind this, but with a light touch: we do not want another bureaucracy, and we do not want another load of civil servants writing endless reasons why not. We just need to get on with it. So perhaps in conclusion the Minister might tell us whether he believes that some small part of the Defra underspend will be directed to this, as the Government have committed to the total amount of money going in during the lifetime of this Parliament.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, it was a pleasure and a privilege to serve as a member of this Horticultural Sector Committee, which was so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Redesdale. I thank my committee colleagues for making our meetings enjoyable and informative, and I wish to add my thanks to those already given to the clerks and expert witnesses, all of whom managed to enable the committee to cover considerable ground effectively in a short period of time. The visits we made, within London and without, were particularly useful.
Of the issues raised in the report, there are three I wish to revisit. The first is education, referred to in recommendations 22 to 30 in the report. We were constantly reminded by many witnesses of the value of contact for young people with nature, in the classroom and outdoors—“Green time, not screen time”, as one witness put it. Beneficial effects through the outside world for the purposes of general well-being are appreciated by educationalists and the medical profession alike, but the long shadow of Covid means that there will now be a generation that needs exposure to and education about nature more than any previous one. So it is particularly frustrating that the Government say there is no room on the national curriculum for the subject of horticulture as a stand-alone topic, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Fookes. I wonder whether the Government might reconsider this point.
The second issue I wish to revisit is that of food security and our recommendation 13. At the time the committee was sitting, the unseasonably cold and wet weather in Spain and Morocco had curtailed the availability of salads and tomatoes, with empty shelves in shops. The evidence given highlighted the small percentage of such crops grown in the UK in a normal year, thus adding to the susceptibility of annual shortages. As a consequence of the war in Ukraine and attendant energy cost increases, and with uncertainty attached to the availability of seasonal labour, many growers were cutting back. At the time, these seemed like exceptional headwinds, but the particularly wet weather this winter has brought about further jeopardy to the domestic supply chain, with crops unharvested from last autumn and crops not yet planted this spring. Can the Government give further thought to helping domestic horticultural producers wherever possible, particularly on the vexed issue of water storage—on which I hope that the Minister might comment—so that our percentage of self-sufficiency in horticultural products is not reduced further?
The third issue relates to research, development and innovation support from the Government in our recommendations 55 and 56. My noble friend Lord Carter of Coles has already slightly stolen my thunder on this point, because I too was going to refer to the site visit that we made to the vertical farming enterprise in Kent. This addressed positively many of the factors that the committee had heard negatively about, such as seasonal labour, energy and water consumption costs, and the detrimental effects of poor weather, which of course are not relevant to vertical farming at all. The disappointing note in our visit was that the funding for this enterprise and its planned follow-up site was coming from a US pension fund. Given that it is government policy to look for more inward investment from UK pension funds and insurance companies to infrastructure and businesses that might develop a public listing in due course, can the Minister give assurances that all possible financial help is given to similar horticultural enterprises in the future, along the lines of R&D tax alliances and preferential access to domestic capital markets?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. Let me also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his very competent leadership in chairing this committee, and to fellow members for their friendship and camaraderie throughout the process, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who sponsored the study. I also thank the staff team, who were brilliant and worked incredibly hard.
I hope that the Minister does not take these comments personally, but the response from his department was very disappointing. There is a common theme here. In my view, it fails to acknowledge the huge amount of work involved in the research and drafting of the report and therefore the importance of the horticultural sector. I am sure the Minister will try to reassure us that this is not the case. As has been referred to earlier, the Government announced in the 2022 food strategy that it would produce a horticultural strategy, then changed their mind and so rejected our recommendation, too. This means that the sector feels undervalued and let down. This is a big mistake and Defra should urgently review this decision.
As we have heard, horticulture is one of the most exciting sectors there is, with huge potential. It is exciting in terms of innovation, with new technologies, robotics and automation, and exciting in terms of career opportunities. I was very pleased that the Government recognised the role of TIAH in their response to some of our recommendations.
The Government’s commitment to try to maintain 60% self-sufficiency in domestic food production will never be achieved or maintained without a thriving horticultural sector. There is massive scope to increase production and reduce our heavy dependence on imports, particularly from water-deficient parts of the world that are severely impacted by climate change. As we state in the report, horticulture can also contribute much more to impact on the nation’s health challenges, including obesity, than any other sector. More fruit and vegetable consumption is essential if we are to improve the nation’s health. I am sorry to say that none of that comes across in the Government’s response.
I have a few specific topics that I would like to address. The Government’s response defers numerous times to the labour market review carried out by John Shropshire. When are we likely to get a response to that review?
Secondly, the Government have already committed to and are in the process of establishing an adjudicator for the dairy sector to address fair dealings in the milk supply chain. The Minister led the process in the Chamber very recently. In view of the extremely challenging trading conditions in the horticultural sector over the past couple of years or so, and very slim margins, a similar approach to horticulture is urgently needed; it is recommendation 11 in our report. Can the Minister confirm when this might take place?
Thirdly, an area of real concern, referenced in recommendation 56, is the inability of smaller businesses—SMEs—to access grants to improve productivity and invest in robotics, for example, due to a lack of capital to provide the matched funding required. The consequence is that the larger businesses will get larger and the SMEs will fail. All large businesses started life as an SME. It is vital that the Government look again at this issue, so that innovative small businesses have a chance.
Finally, an area of deep concern during our consultation, and which has been referred to already, was the funding of science. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, mentioned this. The bidding process for research projects needs to be reviewed. This is covered in recommendations 78 and 79. Despite an attempt by Defra in its response to reassure us that all is well, that is not the message we received loud and clear on our travels. We no longer have sufficient scientific capacity to pitch one scientist against another in a bidding process. When asked what he did for a living, a scientist friend of mine replied, “I delete emails and I write failed bids”. Too much valuable scientific resource is being spent writing failed bids. We need a much more collaborative process, which encourages institutions to work together where there are great centres of excellence. Short-term funding is discouraging to the scientific community and is impacting our productivity. Will the department please review this?
I could say much more, but time does not allow. I hope the Minister can reassure us this afternoon that he has taken these issues seriously.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, what a pity it is that a subject so important, and which has had such an input from the House of Lords, has such little time to be debated. I hope there will be other occasions on which we can talk about this.
I speak as a professional horticulturalist—I am less so nowadays, because I spend too much time here, and you cannot actually work in the fields and sit on these Benches. I must declare some interests. I am president of the Institute of Agricultural Management, and in that there might lie a key as to how I approach this job. I am also president of the Anglo-Netherlands Society, and that also probably is a key to how I view this job.
We were talking earlier about how we start in these things. Taylors Bulbs, the horticultural firm of which I am the third generation, was started by a man from London—an ex-soldier in the First World War who managed to get 10 acres of land in Holbeach and rented it as a Crown colony holding. From that, he grew the business. His two sons were born in London but became naturalised Holbeachians in time; I still say “flowers” in the way that I was taught to when I was younger—I cannot help it. From that beginning, we grew to a business of 200 acres, which we owned by the time I joined. We now own 2,000 acres, and the business is in the hands of my younger son and a nephew. They are running it very well, and many of your Lordships will know the products that the company offers.
That lesson shows you something about the way in which horticulture thinks of itself. It is an entrepreneurial business. It is not a form-filling and bureaucratic business—it cannot be so. It has to work with the grain; it cannot fight against it. It works with the climate and the seasons, and has a great deal going for it because of that. It is really important that the Government, in interacting with the industry, understand that basic tenet; it means they should regulate lightly in an area where enterprise and initiative may well lead to great solutions.
That is certainly the way in which the Dutch have worked. Having left school at 17—I should have gone to university but I did not, and I do not mind that I did not because I went somewhere that was vital for me—I went to work in Holland. As a result, I learned how the Dutch dealt with their business: how they worked and prioritised horticulture, and how all sections of the Dutch Government used natural gas and various attributes which came to the Netherlands to build an industry. It was very much the enterprise and focus of the Dutch Government, and the Dutch as a nation, that led to the huge development of horticulture in that country. We can still learn from that; we have very close relations. Spalding was built by Anglo-Dutch co-operation—it is still the area supplying most of the fruit and vegetables to the whole of this country. Even strawberries growing in Kent and melons from Brazil get distributed from Spalding. This is an important feature of the potential that we have.
We have a lot going for us. We should back our horticultural institutes—the National Institute of Agricultural Botany is superb in its East Malling venture, and should be invested in and encouraged. We have Kew, and we have the Royal Horticultural Society. We have so much going for us in this country. We also supply the nation’s greatest hobby industry—gardening. Are we not lucky? Are we not gifted? This is a superb report. I am so grateful to all those who have spoken and participated, and I am really grateful to my noble friend Lady Fookes for all that she has done in proclaiming the virtues of our industry.
I hope the Minister will understand why there is disappointment with the Government’s response, not for any other reason than that they have failed to realise the potential that lies in this report and this industry. We should be optimistic, back it, and make it work for the interests of Britain.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that rousing speech, and to compliment the committee on its report, as others have widely and rightly done. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his clear introduction, and join the almost universal tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her long-term contribution to horticulture. I declare that I have an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with the Horticultural Trades Association.
I start, as pretty well every noble Lord has, by reflecting on the extreme disappointment there has been in the Government’s response to the committee’s report. The HTA, the National Farmers’ Union and the Worker Interest Group are severely disappointed by the Government’s failure to properly engage with this report, in particular their failure to acknowledge the need for a horticultural strategy. The Worker Interest Group is a coalition of nine not-for-profit groups representing and engaging with seasonal horticultural workers. It has written to Defra, pointing out many of the failures relevant to it in the Government’s response to the committee’s report. They represent a failure of basic functions and responsibilities of government, and for any noble Lord who is interested, I would be happy to share a copy.
I will take just one example from that. The committee’s recommendation 59 says:
“The Government must publish its review of the seasonal worker route, as promised in response to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s December 2022 report.”
I note that the chief inspector said in that report that
“the Home Office should significantly raise its game”.
One might say that in regard to a lot of things, but we are talking at the moment about the seasonal worker scheme. The Government’s response is that they will “in due course” publish a review of the scheme’s operation from 2020 to 2022. The only published full review of the scheme is of the 2019 pilot, which involved 2,500 visas. We now have 55,000 visas. It is entirely different in scale and nature.
Before I get back to that, I want first to address the overall failure of the Government’s response. It reflects a lack of understanding of the importance of the horticultural sector and the need for it to expand. We have just come out of a debate on housing and the environment. If the sterile, bleak housing estates that we are now building are to be enhanced and public health is to be improved, we need a much expanded, upskilled and valued environmental horticulture sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has powerfully covered the point about food. We need about 20 times more fruit and vegetables to be grown in the UK than we have now to be self-reliant and for a healthy diet.
I want briefly to look at the overall situation. There is a failure of labour policy, which I started with, but underlying that there is also a failure of policy to control and ensure a fair market for growers against the power of the big supermarkets and food manufacturers. They have been allowed and, indeed, encouraged by government policies over decades to entirely dominate our food system.
Behind that is a system of growing what vegetables and fruit we do grow here in outdoor factories, where there is huge pressure on the imported workers who come here for six months to pick rapidly and accurately. The worker advocates tell me that workers are subjected to significant bullying and abuse in the fields. If they are not seen to be picking fast enough and accurately enough, after a few hours they are sent back to their accommodation, which is likely to be a caravan. This might be housing six people, often speaking different languages. They go back every night, crying, to a caravan that is likely to be cold and mouldy. They see doors and accommodation without locks. They are not supposed to be charged for energy supplies, but they are. When you see your punnet of strawberries in the supermarket, it is worth thinking about what is potentially behind it. About 70% of the workers who come here take out debt to do so. Only 30% of them are confident that they will be able to pay that back.
For further information on this, I have to cross-reference the FLEX report, Bearing Fruit: Making Recruitment Fairer for Migrant Workers, which is out this month. It is worth saying that it does not have to be like this. Countries such as the US and Canada have far better models. They have bilateral arrangements with sending countries—workers come from a handful of countries. There are so many things to say, but I will finish on a reference to this FLEX report. Of the workers FLEX spoke to, 30% were from Kazakhstan, 18% from Kyrgyzstan, 10% from Indonesia and 18% from Uzbekistan, with others from Tajikistan and Moldova. We are bringing people to this country from around the world. They are going back to the rest of the world with a very negative impression of the UK and we are failing to provide ourselves with the horticultural sector that we need.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, before sowing seeds, one must have access to them and the right land on which to grow them. Of the report’s 167 conclusions and recommendations, only two relate to the seed from which all horticultural crops are produced and there is scant mention of our grade 1 land. These are serious omissions. Ironically, the remaining conclusions depend on them.
Post Brexit, the UK plant breeding sector seed suppliers are facing increased regulatory costs, delays and uncertainty. New plant health regulations have brought more bureaucracy, costs and problems in moving seed and breeding material to and from the EU; at least one breeding partnership between the UK and the continent has been cancelled.
The Government’s Animal and Plant Health Agency is not fit for purpose. At least 200 new vegetable varieties are currently affected by its delays and are stalled in the registration process. In a sector that is so dependent on seasonality, such delays can have a devastating impact on individual businesses. Some breeders are not submitting new varieties for registration. These problems pose an existential threat to horticulture growers’ future access to improved varieties, which will be essential to help them to respond to a changing climate, changing pest and disease threats, demands for more sustainable farming practices and changing consumer preferences.
Most of our vegetables and salads are grown on grade 1 land. I understand that much of this land is let on one-year farm business tenancies and that the rotations being practised are accelerating its degradation and threatening our food security. On the question of whether to continue to farm or to rewet these agriculture peatlands, does the Minister agree that it is better to carry on cropping them, protect the remaining carbon and reduce the overall GHG footprint through dynamic water level management and limiting the extent of summer water table drawdown combined with regenerative farming? This would spread the environmental impact over a longer timeframe and more tonnes of produce. Total rewetting raises the question of reducing food production capacity here and the vexed issue of offshoring, possibly to where worse practices take place. Furthermore, soils that have been waterlogged that are drained and then rewetted behave differently in their emissions of nitrous oxide and methane from soils that have never been drained, so carbon emissions might be reduced at the expense of increased emissions of more potent greenhouse gases.
I will go further than some today: I would like to see a radical rethink of how we translate our world-leading position in agriculture-related academic science into farm-level innovation and sustainable farming activity growth. The UK’s applied research base in crop science is too fragmented and lacks focus on key policy objectives. We need to learn from and copy what other countries have done in creating national centres of excellence and attracting investment in public-private projects and international partnerships, such as Wageningen in the Netherlands, Embrapa in Brazil and New Zealand’s Plant & Food Research. In conclusion, I make a plea to this and future Governments: stop making promises to farmers such that made to the horticultural industry which was broken only one year later.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the members of the Horticultural Sector Committee for their work in producing a thorough report highlighting the challenges that this undervalued sector experiences. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his excellent summary when opening this debate. It is an honour to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
My understanding of this sector has been greatly helped by conversations with horticultural business owner Matt Naylor in south Lincolnshire, whom I met at the Oxford Farming Conference a few years ago. Listening to Matt has brought home to me the immense obstacles that the horticultural sector has faced in recent years. As other noble Lords have indicated, the sector is not in isolation from the totality of the farming and agricultural sector. To ensure food security for the future, of which horticultural activity is an integral part, we need joined-up, long-term thinking. I share the disappointment of noble Lords in this debate that the Government scrapped their plans last year to publish a horticultural strategy for England.
I want to focus my remarks on two issues. The reality of the seasonal work that the sector requires is not suited to most UK residents, resulting in a reliance on migrant seasonal workers. Without them, the industry could not function. However, their working arrangements often place them in positions of vulnerability. As evidence to the committee revealed, their protection under UK employment law is frequently not upheld. Seasonal workers often face abuse and poor pay and working conditions. I agree with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on this matter.
I support the recommendation that the GLAA should ensure that welfare standards are upheld through compulsory welfare spot checks. I note the Government’s response that UKVI compliance staff already undertake some welfare checks, but the ICIBI’s inspection of the immigration system and the agriculture sector in 2022 showed the inadequacy of those visits. Issues raised at visits were not appropriately recorded, escalated or followed up, resulting in a lack of action. What use are they if no action is taken in cases where compliance issues are found? What steps will the Government take to ensure that seasonal migrant workers are not exploited and that employment laws are upheld on farms?
Secondly, I refer to the report’s final chapter highlighting the benefits that horticulture and interaction with nature have for us all, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, in comments about education. Newcastle GP Services’ social prescribing team has established projects allowing patients spaces to connect with nature, offering them community feeling, social inclusion and support for their mental and physical well-being. Benfield Park surgery has set up a community allotment as a space for patients experiencing loneliness or mental or physical health difficulties. Patients can access a garden and help as much or little as they wish. They have raised beds and greenhouses, and grow fruit and veg. The work is predominantly patient led, with the benefits being demonstrated by a patient being taken off medication because of positive changes to his mental health through tending the garden. I encourage the Government to continue to support these programmes.
When considering horticulture, discussions on the economy, business and supermarket power are often prioritised. Of course those issues matter, but in debating them we must not neglect the human aspect of horticulture—the people whom the sector relies on and the benefits that horticulture can have for us all.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-farming retired member of the National Farmers’ Union. I have been involved in agriculture all my working life.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and his committee on their excellent report. It is a first-class, complex piece of work that addresses the horticultural sector in great detail and provides the Government with pragmatic and sensible conclusions and recommendations. I know the report is strongly supported by the National Farmers’ Union.
There are a couple of points to which I shall draw your Lordships’ attention. I was fascinated and enthused to learn about salad production from vertical farming technologies, and the considerable benefits that are achieved by growing in this manner: less use of water and nitrogen, less waste, no pesticides and an efficient use of energy. The list of benefits is wide-ranging. In addition, vertical growing frees up significant areas of agricultural land, as we have heard today, for growing other crops. It produces constant year-round production and employment, giving added security to the grower and their workforce.
Yet, as the report states,
“vertical farms struggle to access government support”.
Why? With current global instability, we cannot and should not continue to rely on imports of foodstuffs that we are perfectly capable of producing in this country. The Government appear to be supportive of horticulture and agriculture, as stated by them at the Farm to Fork summit and in their food strategy, but platitudes and fine ideas do not put food on people’s plates.
I fear I am somewhat cynical when I say that in my opinion, no political party seems to have the enthusiasm or determination to fully back the agricultural and horticultural sectors, and it has been like that for a long while. The fact is that it is simply not a headline-making industry, whereas currently, matters of a green nature attract constant column inches and opportunities. In that vein, much as I support rewilding, I believe it should be done only on land that is uneconomical or unviable in production terms. We need every acre of good productive land to be available for cropping.
In conclusion, the report is excellent. The Government and Defra should support its findings and take immediate action to support them in full, with both actions and financial support.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I cannot claim to know anything about horticulture. I do know that it is important economically and because it helps to feed us, and for the sheer pleasure it gives. I know that you cannot pluck a cucumber off a tree already shrink-wrapped, but that is about the extent of it. It is not my subject, except that it is everybody’s subject, but I am a member of our House’s committee currently reviewing the Modern Slavery Act, so I have a particular interest in the section in the report on seasonal workers.
Exploitation is a continuum; it does not have to be modern slavery or trafficking to be a problem. My noble friend Lord Redesdale told me that Members were shocked at an early stage by the conditions to which some workers are subjected; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to this. More recently we discussed recruitment practices, which my noble friend described as the biggest issue, since agencies recruiting overseas workers are outside the jurisdiction. I have not picked up whether the National Crime Agency is able to pursue organised criminality in the sector. I do not disagree with his identification of these two areas of concern, but I would like to take a step back.
Why are there problems in this part of the sector? In my view, it is in part because the Government look at so much through an immigration lens—or perhaps I should say, not immigration. The high-level policy is that we should grow our own skills and use the domestic workforce, but seasonal agriculture work is not a career path. As the report points out, local workers are not available for work that is not available year-round. Of course, the seasonal worker route is treated separately from shortage occupations by the Home Office.
The committee thoughtfully refers to more than low wages. I had not realised some of the aspects of tax and national insurance. I do not know whether to describe as defensive or unimaginative the Government’s response, for instance, to the recommendation on auto-enrolment: “Saving for retirement”, they say,
“is a crucial right … exemptions… would undermine the success of workplace pensions.”
I doubt whether that is a priority for many in this group. HMRC has responsibilities with regard to compliance with minimum wage requirements, so it should understand some of the realities. Simplified arrangements for claiming overpaid tax from overseas or, better, waiving tax deductions until the tax-free limit is reached, seem obvious and right.
There is an ad-hoc response to shortages of labour in different sectors, which has led to a clunky visa regime. Rolling out a scheme before reviewing the pilot is unhelpful. One aspect of workers needing visas is vulnerability to exploitation and poor working conditions. Workers who do not understand the system are vulnerable to exploitation by the person who holds the power in the relationship. Starkly, that is through illegal recruitment fees, loans taken to pay them from loan sharks and organised crime gangs, and resulting debt bondage. The report’s paragraph about the scams offering non-existent jobs is powerful.
The Government’s response that the GLAA has published guidance for employers recruiting overseas, coupled with the explanation that it has no relevant powers, and of course the cuts to its budget and those of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, are unhelpful. Employers want certainty; the only certainty seems to be that it is known that budgets to deal with modern slavery and human trafficking and exploitation are to be cut year on year.
Can the Minister be clear, and if necessary write to me, about what powers the GLAA has to inspect workplaces at which workers are based? In other words, what can it do, systematically and by way of spot checks, to address abuses? Similarly, can he provide a list of memoranda of understanding between the GLAA and Governments of the countries of origin of workers? What binding agreements are there in respect of fair recruitment? Time defeats me, as it has defeated all of us, but I congratulate my noble friend and the committee on its report.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his introduction and all committee members, who produced such a thorough and impressive report. We have heard from a number of them today: the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, my noble friend Lord Carter, and the noble Lords, Lord Colgrain and Lord Curry. We thank them for their work on the report.
We know that growth in productivity, innovation and sustainability is an ambition that the horticultural sector has held for some time. The Government initially amplified that in their own food strategy and talked about the need for
“a world leading horticulture strategy for England”,
aiming to boost production in the UK, create skilled jobs and future-proof the sector in the face of climate change. I thank at this point the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for sharing his industry experience, because it is important that we look at things in the context of industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that, despite those government promises in the report, we badly need a horticultural strategy; I am sure that we are all looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. We also heard about health. Any strategic plan to increase fruit and vegetable production, for example, needs to be coupled with efforts to increase fruit and vegetable consumption for the future health of our young people.
A recent report commissioned by the NFU talked about the increases in production costs over the past two years; it put the figure at 39%, with the main drivers being energy, labour and fertiliser. Although some producers have secured some increases from their customers, this often has not been at the rate required to keep pace with costs of production, clearly putting pressures on the industry.
We have also heard about how fragile our supply chain is, due partly to ongoing global instability—the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, talked about that. Retailers and government should not rely on imports, however, to plug our self-sufficiency gap to feed the nation. The Government should match their own ambition to grow the horticultural sector, as they outlined in their Farm to Fork summit and their food strategy. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, talked about the strategy and the importance of the Government acting on what they know to be the right direction for the horticultural sector. However, the recent EFRA Select Committee report expressed disappointment in the strategy for not having food security as part of its focus. Can the Minister explain why that was and just how high up the agenda food security is?
Defra has also had its fairness in the supply chain consultation. The consultation did not include ornamentals. I wondered why that was. It closed in February, so when are we going to hear? The Government said that the consultation did not include ornamentals because they were going to be part of a different consultation in the future. Again, I wonder when we are likely to see that.
Public procurement has also been mentioned during the debate. We know that dynamic procurement practices could support smaller growers. As part of that, the Government’s response said that they would update the government buying standards for food and catering services
“to showcase the use of sustainable, high welfare, quality produce in the public sector”.
As far as I can see, that has not happened yet; neither has there been a publication of a formal response to that consultation. Perhaps the Minister could update us.
We have also heard quite a bit about trade. There are concerns about border control posts posing severe biosecurity risks for the horticultural sector, particularly for the protected salad sector, which imports young plants. The risk is that BCPs become a point of infection and not inspection. The proposed authorised operator scheme being piloted excludes many horticultural businesses due to the narrow eligibility criteria. Perhaps the noble Lord could expand on how the industry is being supported in relation to that.
Many noble Lords have talked about skills. There have been unprecedented challenges, including labour shortages, from the many changes internationally: the EU exit, the European conflict and the Covid pandemic. The report highlights that the horticultural sector faces a persistent deficiency in both workforce and skills—although it clearly highlights, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the T-level qualification in land management which has been launched recently.
However, there does not seem to be sufficient encouragement for young people to engage in horticultural careers; the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, particularly talked about this. In terms of apprenticeships, the report notes that there are several barriers, both for apprentices and industry, preventing apprenticeship schemes reaching full potential. I noted in the Government’s response that there is not anything new on apprenticeships. Again, I wonder if the Minister could elaborate on the Government’s thinking around that.
A number of noble Lords talked about seasonal workers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle talked about workers’ conditions, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her remarks. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referenced the recommendation that the Government should publish their review of the seasonal worker route but also respond to the Migration Advisory Committee’s latest report on the shortage occupation list. We heard that the first is going to come in due course in the Government’s response, and that the second is being carefully considered. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I would really welcome any chance of a clarification from the Minister.
On climate change and biodiversity, the committee had noted that the
“utilisation of green spaces in urban environments … can help to support the reduction of urban heating and surface water flooding”.
We have had a number of questions from noble Lords around water supply and storage, so I will not go into that, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Also, I am afraid that I am going to mention the land use framework again to the Minister. I am aware that he has made it quite clear that we should see it before the summer but, about a month ago, there was a story that there were comments from Defra suggesting that it would have the status only of guidance—I just wondered if that was the noble Lord’s understanding.
On research and development, the committee emphasises that the landscape needs to improve. My noble friend Lord Carter talked about the importance of technology, as did the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. On that note, I wonder if the Minister is able to give an update on the automation review. I could not find anything on that, but perhaps I have missed it.
We have heard a lot about peat. The Minister is aware that everyone is waiting to find out what will happen regarding the proposed ban of peat use in amateur gardening. Again, it would be interesting to know whether the Government are likely to support Theresa Villiers’s 10-minute rule Bill, which has been brought forward in the other place.
Finally, I will just say a bit on horticulture and health. The report explains the significance of horticulture for better health and well-being, including alleviating mental and physical health difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, talked about the importance of health and getting out into nature and the importance of outdoor activities. The report also talks about the benefits of community gardening and allotment spaces, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about the importance of this in his introduction. The committee also acknowledges, however, that:
“Not all green spaces are equally accessible,
and there is also a correlation around ethnicity and income regarding deprivation of access. As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, mentioned, in the context of rising obesity, pressures on the NHS and a greater shift towards plant-based diets, growers and horticulture can play a really vital role in supporting the nation’s health while also boosting the sector as we go forward.
I also mention, as was mentioned in the report, the Community Eatwell scheme. There were pilots promised around this; I think that there might be a local scheme in Manchester, but I do not know if that is on the part of the Government or a separate thing. It would be interesting to know more about how that is moving forward.
On green social prescribing, the Government have done an evaluation report, which will apparently be published as soon as possible. Sheffield Hallam University seems to be doing something on it, but I cannot see anything from the Government. Again, it would be useful to know.
I should have said that I am a member of the APPG on horticulture, thanks to the strong encouragement of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. It is disappointing that the Government’s response did not adequately address all the concerns. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said, there has not been enough action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for the very enjoyable dinner that we had with the HTA a month or so ago. It was a very interesting and pleasurable experience and introduced me to the subject in no short order.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Redesdale, on securing today’s debate. I start by addressing a common theme: the disappointment in the Government’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, predicted that this was not the intention. It certainly was not, and if any member of your Lordships’ committee felt that was the case, I assure them that it most certainly was not. I applaud the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the Liberal Democrats will be leading the charge later this year, and I wish him very good luck.
I also welcome the opportunity to speak about the Horticultural Sector Committee’s report and the Government’s response, which, as noble Lords know, was published in February. I hope that, in the comments I am about to make, I can address some of the issues that have been raised today. I also thank committee members for all that they have done, and continue to do, to champion the vibrant and vital English horticultural sector, and to those who have contributed to today’s very interesting and informative debate. I also thank those who contributed to the public evidence sessions, provided written evidence and attended visits made by the committee, which contributed greatly to its inquiry.
As many noble Lords have commented, the importance of the horticultural sector to the economy, the nation’s health and well-being, and the environment should not be underestimated. This is a country that has a unique agricultural heritage, with a fruit and vegetables sector that we can be rightly proud of. It is a hugely diverse and vital industry, and one with great potential to grow, which has been highlighted on a number of occasions today. However, it is not just the fruit and vegetables sector. As the report and the debate have shown, we also have a vibrant ornamental sector. Our reputation as a nation of gardeners is beyond dispute, as is the tremendous value of those green spaces, which we should rightly champion.
As I have just mentioned, horticulture, allotments and their associated benefits have an incredibly important role in promoting well-being—although this is now being questioned, with the noble Lord’s example of digging his allotment. They also add enormously to the nation’s mental health benefits and reduce social isolation. However, it is perhaps the sector’s economic contribution that is most significant. In the latest study from June 2022, there were 3,398 horticultural farms in England, employing over 36,000 people. In the same year, UK horticultural sector production was worth approximately £5 billion to the UK economy. By any measure, this is very significant and worthy of the Government’s full attention.
The committee’s report is split into six chapters, containing 93 recommendations covering a broad range of areas. Many of today’s questions fall into six main categories: cross-government working and a horticultural strategy for England; government support; environmental land management schemes; biosecurity and the border target operating model; the common user charge; and peat. I will start by talking about these six areas and addressing some of the questions that were raised in them.
Recommendations put forward include requests that the Government
“consider establishing a cross-departmental horticultural sector working group”,
publish a horticulture strategy for England, and have a Minister responsible for horticulture. The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Colgrain, and many others, raised the issue of ministerial responsibility. Recognising the broad scope of the sector, ministerial responsibilities are shared in Defra between the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, covering edible horticulture, and the Minister for Nature, covering ornamental horticulture. We work closely together, and across government, to ensure that the sector is fully represented.
On a horticultural strategy, we already take a strategic approach by working across government to ensure that resources are focused on major issues, such as labour, science and innovation, climate resilience, food security and plant health. However, I take the points made in today’s debate and will keep under review the need for a formal strategy.
I turn to the level of government support on offer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, alluded to, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made a very inspiring speech about his family’s business and its growth over the last three or four generations. The subject was also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Carter and Lord Colgrain, and many others. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting the horticultural sector and fully recognise its significance. We have shown this in several ways. A range of funding offers is open to our horticulture sector, including the sustainable farming incentive, the farming investment fund and the farming innovation programme, all of which help our growers to deliver improved environmental sustainability and to increase productivity and innovation.
Earlier this year, we announced a range of measures to boost resilience and innovation in the sector, including the largest-ever grant offer, expected to total £427 million. This includes doubling investment in productivity schemes, bolstering schemes such as the improving farm productivity grant, and solar installations to build on-farm energy security. As an element of that grant offer, we are offering £70 million for productivity equipment as part of the successful farming equipment and technology fund, and increasing the improving farm productivity grant from £30 million to £50 million, which covers robotics, automation and rooftop solar, to build and support on-farm energy security. Many of those new initiatives were the result of the committee’s report, and I will continue to work closely with the horticultural industry to ensure that growers understand the full range of grants available to them. We remain open to future suggestions, including looking at any potential underspend in Defra—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Environmental land management schemes were also a focus of the report and questions today. Many horticulture growers and farmers are already benefiting from our schemes, helping to meet our food security commitments to produce at least 60% of the food that we consume in the UK and to grow their businesses sustainably. We have a strong existing offer for the sector across our environmental land management schemes, which we are further enhancing by improving existing actions and adding new ones as money flows from the common agricultural policy into ELMS over the transition period.
We encourage horticulture farmers and growers to join the 16,000-plus farmers who have already applied for the sustainable farming incentive. They can pick and choose from a range of actions for soils, integrated pest management, nutrient management and farm wildlife, and be paid for taking these actions. In addition, we will make up to 50 new actions available this year, including those to support the uptake of precision farming. This will enable horticulture farmers to reduce their use of costly pesticides and fertilisers, improve yields, productivity, and air and water quality, and benefit biodiversity and soil health—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Caithness. To give him some reassurance: as part of the SFI, farmers are being awarded for actions that protect soil from erosion, increase soil organic matter, and enable plants and organisms that live in the soil to function correctly.
We will also continue to update farmers and growers on our current and emerging offers through our tailored communications to the sector, helping them to find a package that works for their business. As we continue the agricultural transition, we are keeping the eligibility and payment rates of our schemes under review, and we continue to work with farmers and growers to develop those offers. That includes tests and trials to shape the development and delivery of our schemes, showing that we are committed to working with farmers to identify issues and develop solutions.
Biosecurity and the border target operating model are key themes in the report in respect of trade. The Government are aware of concerns from the horticultural sector about the introduction of the border target operating model, especially as May is a particularly busy month for that sector. In all the very many meetings I have had with the HTA, I have been clear that the implementation of the border target operating model should be a gradual process and avoid any delays or interruptions to trade. I have written to this effect to all border control posts.
The pragmatic approach is not, as it was described by the noble Lord, a fudge or a disaster. It is simply that at the request of the industry we approach this with a degree of caution and work slowly into it as we all settle in. In response to his question as to who the responsible Minister will be and whether they will be from Defra, the answer is that it will be me, and I am a Defra Minister.
The Government are also keen to continue engaging with the sector in the run-up to 30 April, when import checks will move to border control posts and control points, and we will implement daily calls with key stakeholders such as the NFU and the HTA to provide further support. I have made that commitment and spoken to them. The hotline is available, and they are all connected to it.
The introduction of robust controls on EU imports will result in new costs to fund the operation of planned government-run border control facilities. These controls are vital to ensure that physical inspections on sanitary and phytosanitary imports can be undertaken safely and securely and improve our wider biosecurity regime.
I turn now to the issue of the common user charge, which was raised by many noble Lords. First, I quite accept that the communication around the charge itself was delayed, and I apologise for that. Consignments of medium-risk and high-risk plants and plant products will attract a charge of £29 but, as the noble Lord will know, we have capped this at a maximum of £145 per common health entry document to avoid a disproportionate cost to traders, particularly SMEs. I appreciate that any new costs are unwelcome, but we have endeavoured to make these costs as low and as fair as possible. We believe that this approach will bring a critical biosecurity control to goods coming in from the EU, and it uses global risk-based models, data and technology to reduce the burden on businesses wherever possible.
The place of destination scheme will not be carried forward beyond 30 April 2024. It was only ever intended to be a temporary solution, and moving controls to border control posts and control points is vital in achieving the biosecurity aims of the border target operating model, by increasing the percentage of consignments that we are able to inspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the issue of peat. The report also outlines how horticultural practices can contribute directly to climate change through reducing unsustainable practices such as peat extraction and use. The Government remain committed to our proposal to ban the sale of peat for use in amateur gardening, and plan to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. As noble Lords will be aware, we propose no restrictions on peat use by the professional sector until after 2026, followed by exemptions that will allow peat use to continue for those areas where no ready alternative currently exists.
I am conscious of the time and the wide range of questions raised. A number of noble Lords asked about labour, in particular seasonal workers and their conditions. I might respond in writing to those questions rather than go through all that detail here today. I am also aware that questions were asked about education, water, long-term funding, research and development and apprenticeships. There were quite a few other detailed questions, in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Again, rather than getting into all that detail this afternoon, I might write to noble Lords.
Once again, I thank those who contributed to this interesting, informative debate. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his admirable work in chairing the committee and securing this debate in the Chamber.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply; members of the committee still believe, I think, that more could be done with the response. However, now that I have the opportunity to make a second speech, I will not fall into that trap, as many noble Lords do.
I thank the members of the committee who are present, as well as the many committee members who could not be here today and apologise for that, for the work they undertook. This was my first experience of chairing a committee. It was a most enjoyable experience, mostly due to the incredible knowledge expressed by many of the committee’s members.
I have one point to make. I really would not want the Minister’s job in the next couple of months. I feel that it will be a very testing time with the introduction of the new border control point. I wish him all the best.
Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee Report
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lisvane
That this House takes note of the Report from the Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee Proceed with Caution: Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems (HL Paper 16).
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this debate on the report of the AI in Weapon Systems Committee. I am very grateful to the business managers for arranging an early debate; this is a fast-moving subject and it is right that the House has an early opportunity to consider it.
It was a real privilege to chair the committee, for two reasons. The first was its most agreeable and expert membership, who were thoroughly collegiate and enthusiastic. The second was the outstanding staff support that we received. The excellent Alasdair Love led a first-class team by example. As well as Alasdair, I thank Sarah Jennings, our gifted policy adviser; Cathy Adams, who led us authoritatively through the complexities of international humanitarian law; Stephen Reed, who provided Rolls-Royce administration; and Louise Shewey, who was the ideal communications expert. Our two specialist advisers, Professor Dame Muffy Calder from the University of Glasgow and Adrian Weller from the Alan Turing Institute at the University of Cambridge, were invaluable.
AI will have a major influence on the future of warfare. Forces around the world are investing heavily in AI capabilities but fighting is still largely a human activity. AI-enabled autonomous weapon systems—AWS—could revolutionise defence technology and are one of the most controversial uses of AI today. How, for example, can autonomous weapons comply with the rules of armed conflict, which exist for humanitarian purposes?
There is widespread interest in the use of AI in autonomous weapons but there is concern as well. Noble Lords will be aware of recent reports that Israel is using AI to identify targets in the Gaza conflict, potentially leading to a high civilian casualty rate. In a society such as ours, there must be democratic endorsement of any autonomous weapon capability. There needs to be greater public understanding; an enhanced role for Parliament in decision-making; and the building and retention of public confidence in the development and potential use of autonomous weapons.
The Government aim to be “ambitious, safe, responsible”. Of course we agree in principle, but aspiration has not entirely lived up to reality. In our report, we therefore made proposals to ensure that the Government approach the development and use of AI in AWS in a way that is ethical and legal, providing key strategic and battlefield benefits, while achieving public understanding and democratic endorsement. “Ambitious, safe and responsible” must be translated into practical implementation. We suggest four priorities.
First, the Government should lead by example in international engagement on regulation of AWS. The AI Safety Summit was a welcome initiative, but it did not cover defence. The international community has been debating the regulation of AWS for several years. Outcomes could be a legally binding treaty or non-binding measures clarifying the application of international humanitarian law—and each approach has its advocates. Despite differences about form, an effective international instrument must be a high priority.
A key element in pursuing international agreement will be prohibiting the use of AI in nuclear command, control and communications. On one hand, advances in AI offer greater effectiveness. For example, machine learning could improve detection capabilities of early warning systems, make it easier for human analysts to cross-analyse intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data, and improve the protection of nuclear command, control and communications against cyberattacks.
However, the use of AI in nuclear command, control and communications could spur arms races or increase the likelihood of states escalating to nuclear use during a crisis. AI will compress the time for decision-making. Moreover, an AI tool could be hacked, its training data poisoned or its outputs interpreted as fact when they are statistical correlations—all leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes.
Secondly, the Government should adopt an operational definition of AWS which, surprisingly, they do not have. The Ministry of Defence is cautious about adopting one because
“such terms have acquired a meaning beyond their literal interpretation”,
and an
“overly narrow definition could become quickly outdated in such a complex and fast-moving area and could inadvertently hinder progress in international discussions”.
I hear what the Government say, but I am not convinced. I believe it is possible to create a future-proofed definition. Doing so would aid the UK’s ability to make meaningful policy on autonomous weapons and engage fully in discussions in international fora. It would make us a more effective and influential player.
Thirdly, the Government should ensure human control at all stages of an AWS’s lifecycle. Much of the concern about AWS is focused on systems in which the autonomy is enabled by AI technologies, with an AI system undertaking analysis on information obtained from sensors. However, it is essential to have human control over the deployment of the system, to ensure both human moral agency and legal compliance. This must be buttressed by our absolute national commitment to the requirements of international humanitarian law.
Finally, the Government must ensure that their procurement processes can cope with the world of AI. We heard that the Ministry of Defence’s procurement suffers from a lack of accountability and is overly bureaucratic—not the first time such criticisms have been levelled. In particular, we heard that it lacks capability on software and data, both of which are central to the development of AI. This may require revolutionary change. If so, so be it—but time is short.
Your Lordships have the Government’s reply to our report. I am grateful for the work that has gone into it. There are six welcome points, which I will deal with expeditiously.
First, there is a commitment to ensuring meaningful human control and human accountability throughout the lifecycle of a system and the acknowledgement that accountability cannot be transferred to machines.
Secondly, I welcome their willingness to explore the establishment of an
“‘AI-enabled military operator’ skill set”
and to institute processes for the licensing and recertification of operators, including training that covers technical, legal and ethical compliance.
Thirdly, I welcome the commitment to giving force to the ethical principles in “ambitious, safe and responsible”. The Government must become a leader in setting responsible standards at every stage of the lifecycle of AWS, including responsible development and governance of military AI.
Fourthly, I am glad that the Government are reviewing the role of its AI ethics advisory panel, including in relation to our recommendation to increase transparency, which is key if the Government are to retain public confidence in their policies.
Fifthly, I welcome the recognition of the importance of retaining ultimate ownership over data, and making this explicit in commercial arrangements with suppliers, as well as the importance of pursuing data-sharing agreements and partnerships with allies. This is crucial for the development of robust AI models.
Finally, I welcome the Government’s readiness to make defence AI a more attractive profession, including by making recruitment and retention allowances more flexible, enabling more exchange between the Government and the technology sector and by appointing a capability lead for AI talent and skills. This is essential if MoD civil servants are to deal on equal terms with the private sector.
Two cheers so far—the Government could do more. They have no intention of adopting an operational definition of AWS, and I think they must if the UK is to be a more serious player. Perhaps the Minister can update us on a trip down the Damascus road on that one, but at the moment there appears to be no movement.
They do not commit to an international instrument on lethal AWS, arguing that current international humanitarian law is sufficient. If the Government want to fulfil their ambition to promote the safe and responsible development of AI around the world, they must be a leader in pressing for early agreement on an effective international instrument. The reports of the use of AI in the Gaza conflict are clear evidence of the urgency.
Our recommendation on the importance of parliamentary accountability is accepted, but the Government seemingly make no effort to show how accountability would be achieved. Parliament must be at the centre of decision-making on the development and use of AWS, but that depends on the transparency and availability of information, on anticipating issues rather than reacting after the event and on Parliament’s ability to hold Ministers effectively to account.
The Government accept that human control should be ensured in nuclear command, control and communications, but they do not commit to removing AI entirely. However, the risk of potentially apocalyptic consequences means that the Government should at least lead international efforts to achieve its prohibition.
The Government have accepted the need to scrutinise procurement offers more effectively and our recommendation to explore bringing in external expertise through an independent body, but they provide no detail on how they would create standards relating to data quality and sufficiency, human-machine interaction and the transparency and resilience of AWS.
Overall, the Government’s response to our report was “of constructive intent”. I hope that that does not sound too grudging. They have clearly recognised the role of responsible AI in our future defence capability, but they must embed ethical and legal principles at all stages of design, development and deployment. Technology should be used when advantageous, but not at an unacceptable cost to the UK’s moral principles. I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, the chairman of the committee, who was absolutely excellent in the way he carried out the job. I have no doubt that he had somewhat of an advantage over many of the rest of us on the committee, as he had spent quite a lot of time in the House of Commons on the Defence Select Committee, which must have given him great inside knowledge of what was going on in the defence field. That was very useful to all of us.
I am very glad to have been on the committee. I have always believed that, if we are to win wars, we need two major components. First, we have to train and motivate our troops properly. I do not think anybody doubts that the British are world leaders in training the military; indeed, we do it for many other countries as well. The professionalism that our Armed Forces show is the envy of the world. I wish I could say the same of the ability of the Ministry of Defence to procure equipment, which has been lacking for years, even in the days when I was responsible for some of it.
The interesting thing that has changed is that, in the old days, industry used to look to defence to spend taxpayers’ money on research and development, hoping that some of that technology would move over into the private sector and it would benefit. That has all completely changed now. The sums of money that have been spent on research and development by the private tech companies in the United States, for instance, are so enormous that technological change is moving at a very fast rate. Let us face it: defence is benefiting from the private sector rather than the other way around. As a result, technology is moving on so fast that it is very difficult for any of us to keep up with it.
So I am very keen that we should embrace AI. We will be left at a serious disadvantage if our enemies adopt AI with enthusiasm and we do not. It is extremely important that we take this on board and use it to save the lives of our troops and improve our chances of winning wars.
There have been a number of very alarmist stories going around. It caused me a certain amount of concern that the committee might think that this is a business that should be regulated out of business altogether due to the possibility of things going wrong. Indeed, while we were on the committee, there was a report in the newspapers of a piece of AI equipment being trialled by the United States that went completely wrong on the simulator and ended up killing the operator and then blowing itself up. We asked the United States what its reaction had been to this. The answer we got was that it had never happened. That might be true—who knows?—but it is slightly sad as we want to learn lessons from all these things, rather like the airlines do when things go wrong. They share the information with everybody in the business and that makes the whole airline business much safer than it would otherwise be. I imagine that, if this did happen, the United States withdrew the whole system from its inventory and went back to the manufacturers and told them to get their act together and not make these sort of mistakes in the future.
My concerns about the committee being somewhat Luddite were misplaced. The report we have produced recognises that we have to take on AI in our defence equipment and that, if we do not, we will be put at a singular disadvantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, mentioned the question of international humanitarian law. I am not as much in support of this as perhaps I should be, having signed up to the committee report. I am absolutely certain that nothing whatever is going to happen on this front. The committee was given clear evidence that there is no international agreement to tighten up international humanitarian law. I do not think that we should look to international humanitarian law as an answer to our problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, also mentioned the question of nuclear. Unilaterally, we have to ensure that human control remains an element in the whole use of nuclear weapons. I share his concerns about leaving all this to machines: machines can very easily go wrong.
We took a lot of evidence from people who called themselves Stop Killer Robots. I did not understand why so many of them seemed to be put in front of us, but we ended up with these people. When we asked them about Phalanx, they said that this did not apply to that. Your Lordships will know that Phalanx is a point defence system on most of our major Royal Navy ships. It can be used manually or as a completely automated weapons system, identifying targets and opening fire on them if they are coming towards the ship. I would be surprised if it was not being used as an AWS in the Red Sea, where there is the constant threat of Houthi missiles coming in. That system saves the lives of sailors in our Royal Navy.
We should always recognise that AI has a very important role to play. We should be careful about saying that we want to stop all lethal robots, given that they could make all the difference between us winning and losing wars.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. Like him, I congratulate the committee’s chair, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and thank him for securing an early debate on the report, for his comprehensive and powerful opening speech and for his adroit and inclusive chairing of the committee. It is most important in these circumstances to have a chair who is inclusive. It was a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship and it is an equal pleasure to recognise and thank the clerks, the staff and advisers for their exemplary support.
The report and the record of its proceedings contain a great deal that is of value, including testimony from a range of experts which would repay concerted attention from Ministers and officials. Mindful of the time constraint, I wish to focus on one specific area: our working definition of AWS, or rather, the absence of one, which presents very real difficulties, both domestic and international.
The gateway through which I entered this somewhat Kafkaesque debate was a sentence from the Ministry of Defence which purported to explain why this country does not have an agreed definition of AWS. Cited on page 4 of the report and intermittently thereafter, it suggests that we do not have a working definition of AWS because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has quoted more broadly than I will, such terms
“have acquired a meaning beyond their literal interpretation”.
The floor of your Lordships’ House is not an appropriate forum for a detailed textual exegesis, although I do enjoy that. However, that sentence recalled Hazlitt’s criticism of the oratory of William Pitt, which he stigmatised as combining
“evasive dexterity, and perplexing formality”.
This impression reflects the conclusion of the committee that this explanation is plainly insufficient. How can we actively seek to engage with policy in regulating AWS if we cannot find even provisional words with which to define it? It is like attempting to make a suit for a man whose measurements are shrouded in secrecy and whose very existence is merely a rumour. These are, of course, enormously complex questions but in making good policy, complexity should not be a refuge but a rebuke. It is the job of Governments of any political stripe to be able to articulate their approach and have it tested by experts and dissenting voices.
In advising the Government to adopt a definition, the committee was careful. While it suggested that a future-proofed definition would be desirable, the report makes it clear that even a more provisional operational definition would be useful. We understand that this could change as the technology dictates, but it would at least have the advantage of reflecting the Government’s contemporary thinking. In lieu of that, we are forced to make a series of inferential leaps in guessing details of the Government’s approach to this question. We are given to understand that the Government use the NATO definition of “autonomous”, which takes us a small step forward, although as the report makes clear, that leaves terms such as “desired”, “goals”, “unpredictable” and, extraordinarily, “parameters”, entirely undefined.
Questions about an agreed definition have vexed policymakers in other domestic and international fora, but we should at least be working towards a definition that would bring some measure of clarity to our regulatory and developmental efforts. I would urge, therefore, the Minister to reconsider the question of an operational definition.
In so doing, I remind the Minister of the evidence of Professor Stuart Russell, who noted that the lack of specificity was creating damaging ambiguity in intergovernmental co-operation, and of Professor Taddeo’s concern that the current definitional latitude allows unscrupulous states to develop AWS without ever describing them as such, and her further exhortation upon this Government to develop
“a definition that is realistic, that is technologically and scientifically grounded, and on which we can find agreement in international fora to start thinking about how to regulate these weapons”.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne, whose companionship in the committee was but one of its many delights.
I start by drawing attention to my relevant interests in the register, particularly my advisory role with three companies, Thales, Tadaweb and Whitespace, all of which have some interest in the exploitation of AI for defence purposes.
It is great to see a few dedicated attendees of the Chamber still here late into Friday. My motivation to speak is probably as much to do with group loyalty as the likelihood of further value added, so I will keep my comments short and more focused on some contextual observations on the committee’s work, rather than in the pursuit of additional insights. There is not much more I want to stress and/or prioritise regarding the actual conclusions and recommendations of the report, and our chairman’s opening remarks were typically excellent and comprehensive. However, there are some issues of context that it is worth giving some prominence to. I will offer half a dozen, all of which represent not the committee’s view but a personal one.
The first comment is that the committee probably thought itself confronted by a prevailing sense of negativity about the risks of AI in general and autonomous weapons systems in particular. The negativity was not among the committee’s membership but rather among many of our expert witnesses, some of whom were technical doom-mongers, while others seemed to earn their living by turning what is ultimately a practical problem of battlefield management into an ethical challenge of Gordian complexity.
My second comment is specifically on the nature of the technical evidence that we heard, which, if not outright conflicted, was at least extremely diverse in its views on risk and timescale, particularly on the risks of killer robots achieving what you might call self-generated autonomy. The result was that, despite much evidence to the contrary, it was very difficult to wholly liberate ourselves from a sense of residual ignorance of some killer fact. I judge, therefore, that this is a topic that will as we go forward require persistent and dynamic stewardship.
My third observation relates to the Damascus road. I think that the committee experienced a conversion to an understanding of how, in stark contrast, for example, to financial services, the use of lethal force on the modern battlefield is already remarkably well regulated, at least by the armed forces of more civilised societies. In this context, I think that the committee achieved a more general understanding, confirmed by military professionals, that humans will nearly always be the deciding factor in the use of lethal force when any ethical or legal constraint is in play. Identifying the need to preserve the pre-eminence of human agency is perhaps the single most important element of the committee’s findings.
My fourth comment is that the committee’s deliberations played out in the context of the obscene brutality in Ukraine and Gaza. It was a constant concern not to deny our own people of, if you like, the benefits of ethical autonomy. There is so much beneficial advantage to be derived from AI in autonomy that we would be mad not to proceed with ways to exploit it, even if the requirements of regulations will undoubtedly constrain us in ways that patently will not trouble many of our potential enemies.
My fifth comment, it follows, is on our chosen title, Proceed with Caution. I forget whether this title was imposed by our chairman or more democratically agreed by the whole committee. I wholly accept that “proceed with reckless abandon” would not have survived the secretariat’s editorship, but, on a wholly personal level, I exhort the Minister to reassure us that the Government will not allow undue caution to inhibit progress. I fear that defence is currently impoverished, so it has to be both clever and technically ambitious.
I want to say something by way of wider context. The object of our study, AI in autonomous weapons systems, necessarily narrowed the focus of the committee’s attention on conflict above the threshold of formalised warfare. However, I think the whole committee was conscious of the ever-increasing scale of conflict in what is termed the grey zone, below the threshold of formalised warfare, where the mendacious use of AI to create alternate truth, undermine democracy and accelerate the decline of social integrity is far less regulated and far more existentially threatening to our way of life. This growing element of international conflict undoubtedly demands our urgent attention.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for introducing this debate.
I read the report as soon it was published. I agree with it and with the position of HMG and the MoD. However, looking around the corner, I see that reality may conflict with what the report says. Its title is of course very appropriate—although we might wonder how we got it. I am relaxed about the MoD’s reluctance to define AWS. A definition has the danger of excluding certain unanticipated developments.
It may be helpful to the House if I illustrate a potential difficulty with a fully autonomous system, to show why we should not willingly go in this direction. Suppose His Majesty’s Armed Forces are engaged in a high-intensity conflict and an officer is in control of a drone system. He reads his intelligence summary—INTSUM—which indicates fragility in the cohesiveness of enemy forces. The officer controls the final decision for the drone to engage any target, in accordance with our current policy. The drone detects an enemy armoured battalion group but the AFVs are tightly parked in a square in the open, not camouflaged, and the personnel are a few hundred metres away, sitting around campfires. In view of the INTSUM, it would be obvious to a competent officer that this unit has capitulated and should not be engaged for a variety of reasons, not least international humanitarian law. It is equally obvious that a drone with AI might not recognise that the enemy unit is not actively engaged in hostilities. In its own way, the report recognises these potential difficulties.
My concern centres on the current war in Ukraine. Both sides will be using electronic warfare to prevent their opponent being able to receive data from their own drones or give those drones direction. That is an obvious thing to do. But if you are in a war of survival—and the Ukrainians certainly are—and you have access to a drone system with AI that could autonomously identify, select and attack a target, absent any relevant treaty you would have to use that fully autonomous capability. If you do not, you will lose the war or suffer heavy casualties because your enemy has made your own drones ineffective by means of electronic warfare. So long as drones are being used in the current high-intensity conflict, we need to recognise that it will be almost impossible to prevent AI being used fully autonomously. Equally, it will be hard to negotiate a suitable treaty, even if we attach a very high priority to doing so.
The whole nature of land warfare is changing very rapidly—the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, used the phrase “fast-moving”—and we do not know what the end state will be. However, we can try to influence it and anticipate where it will end up.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the excellent report from the committee and thank it for this work. My brief contribution will focus on AI in the maritime domain. My starting point is that if, like me, you believe we need a bigger Navy then it is obvious that we will need to use AI-enabled systems as an effective force multiplier.
We should therefore enthusiastically welcome the Royal Navy’s leadership in a wide range of maritime use cases. For example, in the surface fleet there is the so-called intelligent ship human autonomy teaming; in the subsurface environment, autonomous uncrewed mine hunting, partly supported by the new RFA “Stirling Castle”, as well as new sensor technologies and acoustic signature machine learning for anti-submarine warfare; and in maritime air defence, AI-enhanced threat prioritisation and kinetic response using tools such as Startle and Sycoiea, which are obviously vital in an era of drone swarms and ballistic and hypersonic missiles. These and other AI systems are undoubtedly strengthening our nation’s ability to deter and defend at sea. They also enhance the Royal Navy’s centuries-old global contribution to rules-based freedom of navigation, which underpins our shared prosperity.
Looking forwards, my second point is that Parliament itself can help. When it comes to experimentation and trialling, there is a sense in some parts of defence that peacetime risk-minimisation mindsets are not currently well calibrated to the evolving and growing threats that we now face. Parliament could therefore accept and encourage a greater risk appetite, within carefully set parameters. Many innovations will come from within the public sector and we should support investment, including in the excellent Dstl and DASA. But in parentheses, I am not convinced by the report’s recommendation at paragraph 17 that the MoD should be asked to publish its annual spending on AI, given that it will increasingly become ubiquitous, embedded and financially impossible to demarcate.
Where Parliament can help is by recognising that most innovation in this space will probably involve partnerships with the commercial sector, often with dual-use civil and military elements, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, argued. In fact, figures from Stanford published in Nature on Monday this week show that the vast majority of AI research is happening in the private sector, rather than in universities or the public sector. The MoD’s and the Navy’s accounting officers and top-level budget holders should be given considerable latitude to use innovative procurement models and development partnerships, without post-hoc “Gotcha” censure from us.
This brings me to my third and final point, which is that we need to be careful about how we regulate. The Royal Navy is, rightly, not waiting for new international public law but is pragmatically applying core UNCLOS requirements to the IMO’s four-part typology of autonomous maritime vehicles and vessels. As for the Navy’s most profound responsibility, the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent, the Lords committee’s report rightly reasserts that nuclear weapons must remain under human control. Anyone who doubts that should Google “Stanislav Petrov” or “Cold War nuclear close calls”. But the report is also right to argue, at paragraph 51, that this paradigmatic case for restraint is not wholly generalisable. Parliament would be making a category mistake if we attempted to regulate AI as a discrete category of weapon system, when in fact it is a spectrum of rapidly evolving general-purpose technologies.
An alternative approach is set out in the 2023 Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy, which includes key ethical and international humanitarian law guard-rails. That framework is now endorsed by more than 50 countries, including the US, France and the UK, but, regrettably, not by the other two permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China, nor of course by Iran or North Korea. Work should continue, however, to expand its reach internationally.
To conclude, for the reasons I have set out, AI systems clearly offer enormous potential benefits in the maritime environment. Parliament can and should help our nation capitalise on them. Although the committee’s report is titled Proceed with Caution, for the reasons I have given today, the signal we should send to the Royal Navy should be: continue to proceed with speed.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for his opening summary of this important report and to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for his remarks just delivered, reminding us of the maritime context of this debate as well. I also thank those involved in the creation of the report. Perhaps this alone is worth noting: AI did not produce this report; human beings did.
My friend the right reverend Prelate the former Bishop of Coventry was a member of the committee producing the report and he will be delighted that it is receiving the attention it deserves. He is present today, and I hope he does not mind me speaking on his behalf in this regard.
The principles of just war are strongly associated with the Christian moral tradition, in which it is for politicians to ensure that any declaration of war is just and then for the military to pursue that war’s aims by just means. In both cases, justice must be measured against the broader moral principles of proportionality and discrimination. This, then, is where AI begins to raise important and urgent questions. AI opens new avenues of military practice that cannot be refused, together with new risks that must not be ignored. The report rightly says that we must “proceed with caution”, but it does say “proceed”. Here, there is an opportunity for the UK to fulfil its commitment to offer leadership in this sphere in the international field.
There is a risk of shifting the decision-making process and the moral burden for each outcome on to a system that has no moral capacity and too much opacity. To implement AI’s benefits well, military cultural values need to be named, explained and then translated into AWS’ command and control—especially where the meaning of “just” diverges from the kind of utilitarian calculus that most easily “aligns” digital processes with moral choice.
Inherent human values, including virtue, should also be embedded in the development, not just the deployment, of new AI-enabled weapon systems. As recent use of AI systems shows in the context of global conflict, AI changes questions of proportionality and discrimination. When a database identifies 37,000 potential targets using “apparent links” to an enemy, or an intelligence officer says
“The machine did it coldly. And that made it easier”,
it is vital to attach human responsibility to each action.
AWS designed according to military culture will, at best, practically strengthen the moral aspects of just war by reducing or eliminating collateral damage, but we should guard against a cultural rewiring or feedback loop that dilutes or corrodes the moral human responsibility that just war depends on. It is reassuring, therefore, as other noble Lords have noted, to see a clear statement that accountability cannot be delegated to a machine in the Government’s response to the report, together with the Government’s commitment to fully uphold national and international law.
Current events across the globe and the rapid pace of development of AI in both civil and military contexts make this a timely and important debate. I commend the committee, and those in government and in the MoD charged with transforming its helpful insights and practical recommendations into concrete action.
Public confidence and democratic endorsement of any plans the Government might have in the development of AI are vital. I therefore urge the Government to commit to ensuring public confidence and education in their ongoing response to this report.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, this has been a very useful report, because it gets us thinking properly about these things.
I declare an interest in the whole world of generative AI and LLMs, with Kaimai and FIDO, which is looking at curated databases to extract information. It is very useful for that sort of thing. With that, as mentioned in the report, comes the whole issue of training materials. The results you get depend on what the AI is looking at. If you fire it off against a huge amount of uncurated stuff, you might, and you can, get all sorts of rubbish back. Certain tests have found AI returning things that were 70% to 80% inaccurate. On the other hand, if put against something carefully targeted, such as medical research, where everything that has gone into the dataset has been studied and put together by someone, it will find stuff that no one has had time to read and put together, and realise that it is relevant.
In the same way, AI will be very useful in confusing scenarios facing a military commander, or in military decisions, to help them weed out what is right and what is wrong and what is true and what is not. I seem to remember, though I cannot remember when it was, that there was nearly a nuclear war because, at one point, various sensors had gone wrong and they thought there was a military attack on the United States. They nearly triggered all the defences, but someone suddenly said, “Hang on, this doesn’t look quite right”. It may well be that an artificial intelligence system, which may not be confused by some of the fluff, might have spotted that more easily or accurately, and reported it and said, “Don’t believe everything you’re looking at; there is another problem in the system”. On the other hand, it might have done the opposite. This is the trouble, which is why the human intervention point is very important.
We also have to remember that, although AI started being developed in the 1980s, with neural networks and things like that, it is only really getting into its stride now. We do not know quite where things will end up, and so it is very difficult to regulate it.
My interest in this stems from the fact that I served with the TA for 15 years, and so I am interested in this country’s ability to defend itself. I worry about what would happen if we start trying to shackle ourselves to a whole lot of things that reduce that capability—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. We should worry about that, because many countries may well pay lip service to international humanitarian law but an awful lot of them will use it to try to shackle us, who tend to obey it, while they themselves will not feel constricted by it. Take, for instance, the international Convention on Cluster Munitions. We are signed up to that, and so are many good countries, but there are one or two very serious countries, including one of our allies, that did not sign up to it. I personally agree with it, absolutely—it is a most appalling munition, because of the huge problems with the aftermath and the tidy-up.
I was also amused by conclusion 8 in the report, which mentioned testing AI “against all possible scenarios”. I seem to remember that there was a famous German general who said, “When anybody has only two possible courses of action, he will always adopt the third”. That is the trouble. I think the British are quite good at finding the third way in these things; that is possibly how we run, because of the unlikelihood of what we do.
The other thing I worry about with autonomous weapons systems is collateral damage. If you start programming a thing with facial recognition—you program in a face and ask it to take out a particular person or group of people, and off shoots the drone to make a decision on it—how do you tell it how much collateral damage to allow, if any? That is a problem. Particularly recently, we have seen that with other things, where people have decided that the target is so important that it is all right killing a few others. But it is not really—at least, I do not feel so. When you create a lot of collateral damage, particularly if it is not in a war but an insurgent situation, you reinforce the insurgents’ desire to be difficult, and that of their family and friends and all the other people. People forget that.
The other thing is that parliamentary scrutiny will be too slow. We are no good at scrutinising at high speed, and things will be changing quite rapidly in this area. We need scrutiny, we need human control at the end, and we need to use AI when it is useful for making that decision, but we must be very careful about trying to slow everything down with overbearing scrutiny.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for his excellent introduction and for chairing the committee so ably. I also thank all fellow colleagues on the committee. We had some very interesting discussions, and those who were more informed were patient with people like me who were probably less informed. I also thank our advisers and the clerks, who supported us so well. This has indeed been a fascinating committee to serve on and is an example of how the House of Lords plays an outstanding role in highlighting some of the most pressing concerns of the day. My remarks are mostly personal reflections.
Whether we like AI or not, it is here to stay and is developing exponentially at a previously unimaginable rate. This complex technological revolution has the potential to reshape the nature of warfare, with advantages but also disadvantages. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned, today’s warfare, in a competitive, volatile and challenging world, is often conducted in the grey zone, through hyper competition, on the internet and in so many areas of life. It begs the question: what is a weapon in today’s world? Interference with a country’s systems, be they economic, infrastructure or social, can be subtle but effective in undermining and disabling. However, with a limited time to report, we confined our conversations to lethal weapon systems.
Although AI creates the ability to calculate with such stupendous speed, we should be mindful that there are areas not covered by binary calculations—humanity, empathy and kindness, to name a few. Will faster analysis fuel escalation, due to rapid response and a lack of time to consider repercussions? As others have mentioned, we can see the chilling ability to quickly identify thousands of targets, as the use of the Lavender system in Gaza reveals, with, it is reported, 20 seconds’ consideration given to each individual target.
Whatever military systems are used, we have a national commitment to the requirements of international humanitarian law, and there are huge ethical implications in relinquishing human control over lethal decision-making, with profound questions about accountability and morality. To what point can machines be entrusted with the responsibility of the enormity and breadth of decision-making about life and death on the battlefield?
The MoD’s defence AI strategy, published in 2022, signalled its intention to utilise AI
“from ‘back office’ to battlespace”,
demonstrating how all-pervasive AI will be in every system. While recognising the advantages in many ways, we also have to recognise the dangers in this strategy. Systems can be hacked, so it is equally important to develop security to ensure that they are not accessible by those who wish us harm. The strategy also sets out an autonomy spectrum framework, demonstrating the different levels of interrelationships between humans and machines.
AI is being developed mostly in companies and academic institutions. This too presents challenges: the threat of an arms race with systems that can be sold to the highest bidder, who may or may not be hostile. The majority of this development is being carried out by men, but, as half the world is female and women see things in a different way, we must encourage more girls and women to play their part to ensure a lack of gender bias.
With the glaring example of the Post Office scandal, the opaque nature of AI algorithms makes it difficult to judge whether they are accurate, up to date and appropriate. However much testing is carried out, it is not easy to know for sure whether systems are reliable and accurate until they are deployed. But the reality is that there is no going back, and as these systems proliferate, hostile nations and non-state actors may have access to, interfere with and deploy their own systems, and they may not wish to conform to any international standards imposed.
I thank the Government for their response to our report and congratulate them on the AI summit held last November at Bletchley Park, resulting in a commitment from 28 nations and leading AI companies with a focus on safety. However, I understand that weapon systems were not part of the conversation. It will be difficult to harness the development of this new technology as it gathers speed, so I hope that weapon systems will be part of the conversation at future summits.
Stephen Hawking once warned that the development of full AI
“could spell the end of the human race”,
so “proceed with caution” has to be the mantra with regard to AI in weapon systems.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, I have had the honour to sit on many committees of your Lordships’ House; some were good, some not so good. This committee and its investigation into autonomous weapon systems have been in a different league. The committee was masterfully chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and I have never witnessed such skill in chairing a committee and then combining our deliberations so seamlessly. And what did we produce? A cracking report, which is of the moment. We should all be very proud.
Sadly, I cannot be so complimentary about the Government’s response. Ours was a serious and well-researched document, but the Government took little on board. Their reply was tepid and, on occasion, wrong. We deserve better. Because the subject matter is so dynamic and changes by the day, I pushed hard to set up a formal review mechanism to keep this report up to date but, predictably, the Government totally ignored this request. Is the Minister able to suggest a structure for keeping this important subject continuously reviewed and relevant?
I will confine my comments to the section dealing with procurement, innovation and talent. My constant worry with government procurement in the fast-moving tech market is that Whitehall is ill equipped to manage relationships with tech companies. Instinctively, the MoD is old school, totally at home purchasing hardware equipment from the likes of Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Raytheon—they have been doing it for years. But AI is a different story. At its heart, it is sophisticated software designed by the informal tech bros in Silicon Valley, emotionally ill matched to the arms suppliers of yesteryear. It is a measure of the pace of external developments that some key actors in the AI sector today are barely referenced in our report, not because of incompleteness in our deliberations but because of the sheer pace of development.
Let us take the case of Nvidia. In our report it warrants just one footnote but, today, it is the third most valuable company on the US stock market. It is a leader in designing AI chips and is indispensable in building many forms of autonomous weapon systems. It has come from nowhere to world leader in just a few short years. Anduril Industries is also based in California. It manufactures AI weapons that can hover and then identify their target—in effect, attack drones. It did not cross our radar either, but now its weapons are in use in Ukraine. Its founder, on a formal day, wears Hawaiian shirts, shorts and flip-flops—he is 30 years old. There are many like him in the tech world and, more and more, they are turning to weapon systems.
Our report highlights that the MoD procurement processes are particularly lacking in relation to software and data, both of which are important for the development and use of AI. Tech bros and Whitehall mandarins are not natural bedfellows. We need translators. I wonder whether our Ministry of Defence procurement officials are temperamentally equipped to engage with those Silicon Valley companies. My guess is that they are not. Perhaps the Minister can comment on this.
Finally, let us look at salaries. Top AI programmers and system designers can earn six or even seven-figure amounts, which is light years away from what our public sector can pay. Such disparities will grow and it will be increasingly difficult for the MoD to recruit top employees. So what do we do? One answer could be for private companies to second their staff to the public sector. We suggested that, but I am not sure that we were heard.
Ours was an outstanding report. The Government could have produced a much more helpful response but, sadly, they did not.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, “proceed with caution” is for an ideal world, but with warfare on the horizon, it is important to move on from abstract and procedural. With the world headed into a dark place, the geopolitical implications of autonomous weapon systems in modern warfare are immeasurable and will require crucial global diplomacy.
The race for AI supremacy and the increased speed of warfare with first-mover advantage, armed with automated systems, drones and predictive analytics, have implications for the balance of military power between states, even transcending national states, with a far-ranging impact on global peace. Non-state actors that also have access, by one means or another, to this advanced technology will have to be added into the conundrum.
Weapon systems that involve no human oversight present challenges but also opportunities beyond ethical questions. They will test democracy and geopolitics and will change the nature of warfare, in that placing human soldiers in harm’s way will become untenable. Autonomous unmanned underwater, surface and air weaponry can also be set to perform the same tasks of automatically engaging incoming missiles. This becomes machine-speed warfare, with humans no longer the central lethal force in the battlefield.
This is closer than many anticipate. Defensive and offensive AI-controlled fighter jets will become smaller, far faster and more manoeuvrable, and will be able to operate in swarms. Predicting intelligence behaviour with the deployment of kinetic forces against a third party that is not human will accelerate, with the rights norms to proportionate military response in effect no longer applicable.
At state level, therefore, countries should work to establish conventions in which the use of lethal force or nuclear is always subject to human command and control mechanisms, never automated, with emergency communication trip-wire channels or early warning system activates established. As immediate retaliatory responses may no longer be legally or morally justified, the historic conventions of war will require revision, with alternate arbitration systems devised at UN Security Council level.
I have three conjectural questions in conclusion. If an AI system were to physically operate on a human, to what extent should its algorithmic programming be open to public due diligence? Who would be liable in the case of misuse when human oversight is required? How do we counter the spatial distance of a development team at the far end of the world from unethical behaviour, making accountability impractical?
It would be amiss of me to end by not thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and his committee.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this critically important debate. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as advisor to Boston Ltd. I too congratulate all those involved with the committee—not least its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for his potent introduction to this afternoon’s debate—and indeed all the committee staff who have been responsible for putting together an excellent, pertinent and timely report.
I believe that, when it comes to AI across the piece, it is time to legislate and it is time to lead, with principles-based, outcomes-focused, input-understood legislation and regulation. This is no more true than when it comes to AWS. I remember when we did the Lords AI Select Committee report in 2018. With all the media lines that we put out, the one line that the press wanted to focus on was something like, “Killer robots will destroy humanity, says Lords committee”. It was incredibly important then and is incredibly important today. If we have principles-based, right-size regulation, we have some chance of security, safety and stability.
We know how to do that. I will take a previous example of something as significant: IVF. What can be more terrifying and more science fiction than bringing human life into being in a laboratory test tube? Why is it today not only a success but seen as a positive, regular part of our lives? Because of a previous Member of your Lordships’ House, the late and great Lady Warnock, and the Warnock commission publicly engaging on such an important issue. We need similar public engagement, not just on AWS but on all the potential and current applications of AI—and we know how to do that.
I will discuss just one of the recommendations of the report—I agree with pretty much all of them—recommendation 4, which has already been mentioned, rightly, by many noble Lords. Without a meaningful definition, it is difficult to put together a mission, plan and strategy to address optimally the issue of AWS. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government will consider reopening the question of a meaningful definition? That will then help everything that flows from that. Otherwise, I fear that not only are we trying to nail jelly to the wall but it is that serious that we are attempting to nail gelignite to that same wall.
We should feel confident that we know how to legislate for these new technologies. Look at what we did with the Electronic Trade Documents Act last year. We know how to do innovation in this country: look at Lovelace, Turing, Berners-Lee and more. Yes, the Bletchley summit was a great success—although it did not involve defence and many other issues that need to be considered—but perhaps the greatest lesson from Bletchley is not so much the summit but more what happened two generations ago, when a diverse team gathered to deploy the technology of the day to defeat the greatest threat to our human civilisation. Talent and technology brought forth the light at one of the darkest periods of our human history. From 1940s Bletchley to 2020s United Kingdom, we need to act now, not just on AWS but across the piece on human-in-the-loop, human-led and human-over-the-loop AI. It is time to legislate and lead for our safety, security and stability, for our very human civilisation, and for #OurAIFutures.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Lisvane and his committee on this detailed report. Coming last to the crease, I will try to raise a few issues that have not been raised by others.
We are certainly living in very uncertain and precarious times, with the emergence of this new form of fast-moving AI battlefield management systems. It is perhaps opportune that we are having this debate today, within just a week of the aggressive Iranian attack on Israel, diffused by the effective use of AWS. The power of AI systems applied to battlefield management has been powerfully demonstrated by Ukraine, in its continuing war with Russia, harnessing the limited resources provided by the West. We are, clearly, in a new form of arms race, with nations seeking superiority in military AI technologies.
I find it alarming that, in his recent Budget, the Chancellor made no provision for increased military expenditure. I refer to the very pertinent point made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Houghton of Richmond, who referred to defence as being impoverished. I also could not find any statistics on the percentage of the defence budget that will be allocated to the development of AI weaponry.
Page 70 of the report, and the Financial Times a few days ago, draws reference to the fact that the European Parliament has taken a far tougher approach to the regulation of AI weaponry systems than the UK. Many commentators believe that overregulation is counterproductive to innovation in the sector. There is, of course, the risk of singularity. Singularity refers to the possibility of computer intelligence surpassing that of humans, but this is unlikely in the short term. We need to harness and promote innovation.
Much has been written in this report on the different spectrums of autonomy. The prospect of fully autonomous weapons capable of making lethal decisions without human intervention raises questions of accountability, morality and compliance with international law.
AI warfare is so much more complex than traditional war, and I am no expert in the military field. AI has the capability to shape new realities, generate deepfakes or even show false videos of masked surrender to lower battlefield morale. This was referred to on page 38 of the report as “intelligentised”—I can hardly pronounce the word—warfare. Clearly, the nature of warfare is continually being redefined.
As several noble Lords have mentioned, AI algorithms have the ability to enhance the accuracy and reliability of missile systems and other precision-guided munitions, facilitating strike capability with reduced collateral damage. Time precludes me delving into the subject of cybersecurity risks and the malfunction of lethal weapon systems, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton.
The future landscape of AI in weapon systems will depend significantly on international co-operation, regulatory frameworks and ongoing dialogues on ethical standards and accountability mechanisms. Balancing technological advancements with responsible use will be paramount in ensuring global security and stability.
There is no doubt that AI weapon systems are having and will continue to have profound implications for future warfare by enhancing capability but also challenges. I welcome the report, but I hope that the Minister in winding up can give us assurances that the Government will give a lot more focus to funding this important sector.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I add to the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on his excellent chairing of the committee and his outstanding introduction today. I thank the staff and advisers of the committee, who made an outstanding contribution to the report. It has been a pleasure hearing the contributions today. I add my thanks to the military who hosted us at the Permanent Joint Headquarters, at Northwood, where we learned a huge amount as part of the inquiry.
Autonomous weapon systems present some of the most emotive and high-risk challenges posed by AI. We have heard a very interesting rehearsal of some of the issues surrounding use and possible benefits, but particularly the risks. I believe that the increasing use of drones in particular, potentially autonomously, in conflicts such as Libya, Syria and Ukraine and now by Iran and Israel, together with AI targeting systems such as Lavender, highlights the urgency of addressing the governance of weapon systems.
The implications of autonomous weapons systems—AWS—are far-reaching. There are serious risks to consider, such as escalation and proliferation of conflict, accountability and lack of accountability for actions, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, emphasised the negatives—the lack of empathy and kindness that humans are capable of in making military decisions. I thought it was interesting that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in a sense argued against himself, at the beginning of his contribution, on the kinds of actions that an AI might take which a human would not. There were issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St John, as well, about misinformation and disinformation, which is a new kind of warfare.
Professor Stuart Russell, in his Reith lecture on this subject in 2021, painted a stark picture of the risks posed by scalable autonomous weapons capable of destruction on a mass scale. This chilling scenario underlines the urgency with which we must approach the regulation of AWS. The UK military sees AI as a priority for the future, with plans to integrate “boots and bots” to quote a senior military officer.
The UK integrated review of 2021 made lofty commitments to ethical AI development. Despite this and the near global consensus on the need to regulate AWS, the UK has not yet endorsed limitations on their use. The UK’s defence AI strategy and its associated policy statement, Ambitious, Safe, Responsible, acknowledged the line that should not be crossed regarding machines making combat decisions but lacked detail on where this line is drawn, raising ethical, legal and indeed moral concerns.
As we explored this complex landscape as a committee—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, it was quite a journey for many of us—we found that, while the term AWS is frequently used, its definition is elusive. The inconsistency in how we define and understand AWS has significant implications for the development and governance of these technologies. However, the committee demonstrated that a working definition is possible, distinguishing between fully and partially autonomous systems. This is clearly still resisted by the Government, as their response has shown.
The current lack of definition allows for the assertion that the UK neither possesses nor intends to develop fully autonomous systems, but the deployment of autonomous systems raises questions about accountability, especially in relation to international humanitarian law. The Government emphasise the sufficiency of existing international humanitarian law while a human element in weapon deployment is retained. The Government have consistently stated that UK forces do not use systems that deploy lethal force without human involvement, and I welcome that.
Despite the UK’s reluctance to limit AWS, the UN and other states advocate for specific regulation. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has called autonomous weapons with life-and-death decision-making powers “politically unacceptable, morally repugnant” and deserving of prohibition, yet an international agreement on limitation remains elusive.
In our view, the rapid development and deployment of AWS necessitates regulatory frameworks that address the myriad of challenges posed by these technologies. I was extremely interested to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others during the debate on the relationship between our own military and the private sector. That makes it even more important that we address the challenges posed by these technologies and ensure compliance with international law to maintain ethical standards and human oversight. I share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that this is both possible and necessary.
Human rights organisations have urged the UK to lead in establishing new international law on autonomous weapon systems to address the current deadlock in conventional weapons conventions, and we should do so. There is a clear need for the UK to play an active role in shaping the nature of future military engagement.
A historic moment arrived last November with the UN’s first resolution on autonomous weapons, affirming the application of international law to these systems and setting the stage for further discussion at the UN General Assembly. The UK showed support for the UN resolution that begins consultations on these systems, which I very much welcome. The Government have committed also to explicitly ensure human control at all stages of an AWS’s life cycle. It is essential to have human control over the deployment of the system, to ensure both human moral agency and compliance with international humanitarian law.
However, the Government still have a number of questions to answer. Will they respond positively to the call by the UN Secretary-General and the International Committee of the Red Cross that a legally binding instrument be negotiated by states by 2026? How do the Government intend to engage at the Austrian Government’s conference “Humanity at the Crossroads”, which is taking place in Vienna at the end of this month? What is the Government’s assessment of the implications of the use of AI targeting systems under international humanitarian law? Can the Government clarify how new international law on AWS would be a threat to our defence interests? What factors are preventing the Government adopting a definition of AWS, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, asked? What steps are being taken to ensure meaningful human involvement throughout the life cycle of AI-enabled military systems? Finally, will the Government continue discussions at the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and continue to build a common understanding of autonomous weapon systems and elements of the constraints that should be placed on them?
As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, started off by saying, the committee rightly warns that time is short for us to tackle the issues surrounding AWS. I hope the Government will pay close and urgent attention to its recommendations.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my register of interests, specifically my association with the Royal Navy.
I feel that I should start my contribution with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. When I joined your Lordship’s House, I was delighted to be appointed to the AI in Weapon Systems Committee and very much enjoyed my attendance. However, my work on the Front Bench did not allow me to fully participate, so I apologise that I was unable to remain on the noble Lord’s committee. I am, however, delighted to be responding on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to such a timely and considered report, and congratulate both the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and his committee on the report and today’s informed and challenging debate.
As has been highlighted throughout the debate, if we ever needed a reminder of the changing strategic environment within which we operate, we need only consider the use of drone warfare in both the Ukrainian theatre and the targeting of Israel by Iran at the weekend, compounded by events overnight. Technology is developing at speed, hybrid warfare is increasingly the norm, and consideration of autonomous weapons systems as part of our coterie of defensive platforms is no longer the exception. As the technology develops, the onus is therefore on us to ensure that we are considering the lethality and ethical impact of each new system and tool available to us, ensuring that any AI-enabled systems help to augment our defensive capabilities, not replace them, and that human decision-making remains at the core of every military action. This report has thoughtfully highlighted some of the key challenges this and any future Government will face when procuring and deploying new technology, and working with allies to ensure that our defensive platforms operate within the currently agreed norms.
Turning to the detail: in order to explore and manage an issue, it is vital that we can agree what we are talking about. Although I appreciate the Government’s concerns regarding a narrow definition and the potential legal pitfalls which may follow, the lack of an agreed definition must make conversations harder with partners, including industry. As the committee established, there is no internationally agreed definition of AWS currently in place with NATO allies and our Five Eyes partners. It is vital that, with our key allies, we seek to broadly define and agree the concept of AWS, if only to ensure clear communication channels as the technology develops—defence is rarely an ideal area for ambiguity. If a definition is considered unhelpful by the Government, would the Minister consider the adoption of an agreed framework in this area as an alternative?
“Artificial intelligence” is a fashionable term, and the impact of advanced machine learning is being considered in every field. For defence, the embrace of new technology is nothing new, and the use of machine learning has been a core part of the development of our capabilities during my lifetime. However useful machines are and however effective our technology becomes, the reality is that humans must always be accountable for the operations that our military undertakes. This is a necessary guarantee to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law, and I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to this premise. However, as this technology develops, can the Minister provide us with slightly more detail than was afforded by the Government’s response to this report? Specifically, what new processes are being considered by the department to ensure human accountability if some weapons systems are fully autonomous, as seems increasingly likely?
As the events of the past two years have made all too clear, we are living through a period of global turmoil that requires renewed consideration of our defence capabilities. No one in your Lordships’ House is seeking to undermine the efforts of the United Kingdom to defend itself and work with its allies; in fact, it is increasingly clear that a technological edge in defence capabilities, in concert with our allies, is as crucial to our doctrine of deterrence now as it ever has been. To that end, can the Minister update us on how the department plans to reform the procurement process in order to reflect the changing nature of the available technology? The committee recommends that the MoD’s procurement process should be revamped to be appropriate for the world of AI, and says that the current process lacks capability in software and data, which are essential to AI, and has limited expertise in the procurement of these platforms.
As the Minister will be aware, the Labour Party has pledged, if we are fortunate enough to form the next Government, to establish a fully functioning military strategic HQ within the MoD as a strategic authority over the capability that our Armed Forces must have and how it is procured, in order to make Britain better defended and fit to fight. We will also seek to create new strategic leadership in procurement by establishing a national armaments director. The NAD will be responsible to the strategic centre for ensuring that we have the capabilities needed to execute the defence plans and operations demanded by the new era. This role will be key to the development of a new procurement process, which will secure the platforms and technologies needed across all services as the strategic environment changes and will be core to the procurement plans under a future Labour Government, including the procurement of AI-enabled weapon systems.
So, although I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the need for significant change to transform the MoD procurement process on this and every other issue in order to commission AI-ready platforms effectively, can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the Government’s plans and how the MoD procurement process will be reformed to ensure that it has the capacity and expertise for the software and data procurement projects that are essential for developing AI?
In his Lancaster House speech earlier this year, the right honourable Grant Shapps MP stated that we are
“moving from a post war to a pre-war world”.
Given recent events and the range of hot conflict zones now impacting UK strategic interests, it is vital that we use every tool available to us to protect our national interest. This includes the use of AI and AWS; we just need to make sure that we always develop and deploy them in line with our shared value systems.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the committee for their thoughtful work and for ensuring that we have taken the time at the right juncture to consider how we will progress in defence as technology develops so rapidly.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those present for their considered and, at times, heartfelt contributions to this debate. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for bringing this debate to the House and for his excellent opening remarks; and to the entire committee for its informative report on artificial intelligence in weapon systems, which was published at the end of last year and which the Government have considered and contributed to most seriously.
As many noble Lords will be aware, the Government published their formal response to the committee’s recommendations in February. They concurred with the committee’s advice, as a number of noble Lords pointed out, to proceed with caution in this domain. As we have heard today, all sides of this House appreciate that artificial intelligence will be transformative in many ways—a balance of risk and opportunity.
For defence, we can already start to see the influence of artificial intelligence in planning operations, in the analysis of vast quantities of data and imagery, in protecting our people, in the lethality of our weaponry and, crucially, in keeping both our Armed Forces and innocent civilians out of harm’s way.
Take the example of revolutionising the efficacy of CCTV, and surveillance more broadly, in removing the serious levels of risk in bomb or mine disposal, or in refining the pinpoint accuracy of a military strike specifically to avoid collateral damage, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, identified. In this fast-evolving sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, also rightly pointed out, it is essential that our Armed Forces are able to embrace emerging advances, drive efficiencies and maintain a technological edge over our adversaries who, noble Lords can be sure, will be pursuing the opportunity with vigour.
The MoD has established the Defence AI Centre to spearhead this critical work, bringing together experts from its strategic command centre in Northwood, its Defence Equipment and Support body in Bristol, and its science and technology laboratories near Salisbury, alongside a broad range of industry and academia: a genuine government and private sector partnership of significant potential.
The MoD also has some 250 projects either already under way or imminently starting work, and has tripled investment in artificial intelligence-specific research over the last three years, reaching more than £54 million in the last financial year. It is £115 million directly over the last three years, to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso.
AI is an enabling component, not a capability per se. It is contained within so many capabilities that, probably, the investment is nearer to about £400 million in activities outside raw research.
Evidently, the potential of artificial intelligence in defence will continue to raise myriad technical, ethical and legal questions and challenges. This Government will continue to work through these judiciously, with as much transparency and consultation as possible, within the obvious national security constraints. To guide its work and its use of artificial intelligence in any form, defence is governed by clear ethical and legal principles. In June 2022, defence published its defence AI strategy alongside our “Ambitious, safe, responsible” policy statement, which set out those principles. We were one of the first nations to publish our approach to AI transparently in this way.
To inform our development of appropriate policies and control frameworks, we are neither complacent nor blinkered. The MoD regularly engages with a wide range of experts and civil society representatives to understand different perspectives. Equally, it takes the views expressed in this House and the other place most seriously.
To categorically reassure noble Lords, the British Ministry of Defence will always have context-appropriate human involvement and, therefore, meaningful human control, responsibility and accountability. We know, however, that other nations have not made similar commitments and may seek to use these new technologies irresponsibly. In response to this, we are pushing and pursuing a two-pronged approach. First, the UK is working with its allies and international partners to develop and champion a set of norms and standards for responsible military AI, grounded in the core principles of international humanitarian law. Secondly, we are working to identify and attribute any dangerous use of military AI, therefore holding those irresponsible parties to account.
I realise that the question of how and whether to define autonomous weapons systems is extremely sensitive. The noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who is no longer in his place, have raised this matter. These systems are already governed by international humanitarian law so, unfortunately, defining them will not strengthen their lawful use. Indeed, it is foreseeable that, in international negotiations, those who wilfully disregard international law and norms could use a definition to constrain the capabilities and legitimate research of responsible nations. It is also for that reason that, after sincere and deep consideration, we do not support the committee’s call for a swift agreement of an effective international instrument on lethal autonomous weapons systems—that would be a gift to our adversaries. However, I must emphasise that this Government will work tirelessly with allies to provide global leadership on the responsible use of AI.
On the question of fully autonomous weapons, we have been clear that we do not possess fully autonomous weapons systems and have no intention of developing them. On the very serious issue of autonomous nuclear weapons, which is understandably a troubling thought, as identified by a number of noble Lords, specifically the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hamilton, we call on all other nuclear states to match our commitment to always maintaining human political control over nuclear capabilities.
We will continue to shape international discussions on norms and standards, remaining an active and influential participant in international dialogues to regulate autonomous weapons systems, particularly the UN group of governmental experts under the scope of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which we believe is the most appropriate international forum to advance co-operation on these issues.
International compliance will continue to be paramount, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, brought attention to and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. I will write in detail about the many questions that he asked about this specific point; I am afraid we just do not have the time now.
We believe the key safeguard over military AI is not a definition or document but, instead, ensuring human involvement throughout the life cycle. The noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, rightly raised that issue. What that looks like in practice varies from system to system and on the environment in which they are deployed. That means every defence activity with an AI component must be subject to rigorous planning and control by suitably trained, qualified and experienced people to ensure that we meet our military objectives in full compliance with international humanitarian law, as well as all our other legal obligations.
This year we will publish governance, accountability and reporting mechanisms. We will build challenge into our processes and input from outside experts in the form of an independent ethics panel. The MoD accepts the committee’s recommendation to increase the transparency of that panel’s advice, and we have just published the minutes of all six previous advisory panel meetings on GOV.UK, alongside the panel’s membership and terms of reference. We are also re-examining the role and options for the ethics advisory panel to include the views of more external experts in sensitive cases.
The committee made a number of recommendations around expertise, training, recruitment and pay, and quite rightly so. The MoD offers some unique opportunities for people interested in national and international security, but we are far from taking this for granted. We have accepted recommendations for the Haythornthwaite review, which will be familiar to many in the House and the other place, to enable any new joiners the option of careers that zigzag between regulars and reserves and, importantly, between the public and private sectors.
This is a highly attractive and highly competitive market, as outlined by a number of noble Lords, in the widest context. We are taking a range of additional steps to make defence AI an attractive and aspirational choice. We are looking at recruitment, retention and reward allowances, developing new ways to identify and incubate existing AI talent within our ranks, and developing new partnerships with private sector companies of whatever company size—particularly SMEs, because they are particularly strong in this area—to encourage more exchanges of expertise.
I also point out that my honourable friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is alive to this issue and has been driving substantial reform through the integrated procurement model, injecting agility and challenge into a system that I think everybody accepts needs considerable work. We will also shortly appoint a capability lead for AI talent and skills to drive this work forward in partnership with the frontline commands and our enabling organisations.
The committee also made a number of eminently sensible recommendations around testing of AI systems and operators. The MoD already has effective processes and procedures in place to ensure that new or novel military capabilities are safe and secure and operate as intended. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, illustrated, trial and risk appetite is an important aspect of consideration. We will ensure these are reviewed and updated as necessary as we integrate AI technologies into our armoury.
The Government are committed to providing as much transparency as possible around defence AI investment to aid public and parliamentary scrutiny. However, AI is always going to be an enabling component of much broader systems and programs. It can therefore be very difficult to isolate and quantify the cost of the AI element separate to the wider system. However, we are exploring solutions in the medium term that may give a better picture of specific and overall AI spending and investment across defence.
In conclusion, the department welcomes the overarching conclusions of the committee and the very wise advice to “proceed with caution”. We are determined to use AI to preserve the strategic edge, but we are equally committed to do so responsibly and in conformity with our values and obligations. Defence has a proven track record of integrating new technologies across the UK Armed Forces, and we should meet this one head-on. While we recognise that the adoption of AI will raise many new challenges, we believe that being open to challenge ourselves, including from Parliament, is an important part of the way forward.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, 3 pm on a Friday afternoon is not a particularly auspicious time for a long final spot, but I am extremely grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have taken part in the debate. Their interest, views and expertise have made this a very valuable proceeding. I am extremely grateful for the kind remarks from many about the committee’s work. I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whose idea it originally was that the committee should be set up. I hope that he is pleased with the result.
I am also grateful to the Minister for some positive announcements made during his speech, although he will accept there are issues on which he and I will need to agree to disagree, at least for the time being. Finally, the importance of the subject and the speed of developments make it certain that your Lordships’ House will need to consider these matters again before long, and I look forward to the occasion.