Great British Railways
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for open access operators following the creation of Great British Railways.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the Minister, the speaking time limit for the following debate is four minutes. When the screen flashes, your time is up.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, for a debate on open access, many noble Lords have applied for the vacant slots. I am delighted that the Minister is in his place to pronounce on the quality of the bids.
Open access did not exist under British Rail, but privatisation, in which I played a modest role, allowed open access train operators to run passenger services. They identify available capacity and apply to the ORR, which then consults on the proposals and analyses their feasibility and benefits. New services have to pass a rigorous abstraction test to ensure that they will add passengers to the railways and grow total revenue, rather than removing passengers and fares from existing services. Open access operators then pay access charges to reflect the additional cost that their use of the railways incurs. They get no direct subsidy and carry the commercial risk of running the railway.
Applications are considered in accordance with statutory duties, including protecting the interests of users of railway services; promoting the use of the network for passengers and freight; and promoting competition and improvements in railway service performance. The final decision rests with the ORR, and neither the DfT nor Network Rail, nor the franchised operators, has a veto.
In 2000, the first open access operator entered the market: Hull Trains. Since then, there have been real benefits from open access—especially to underserved areas that provide the only direct link to London—for cities such as Sunderland, Hartlepool, Halifax, Rochdale and Pontefract, helping regeneration in those areas. With a cancellation rate of less than 1%, open access rail operators are the most reliable. They have focused on affordable fares, with Lumo’s average £40 fare between London and Newcastle as opposed to the £195 walk-up fare. These lower fares from open access operators have in turn attracted a broader demographic to rail travel.
Importantly, we now have a mature, evidence-based, 25 year-old case study on the east coast main line, where three open access operators compete with the Government-run intercity operator, LNER. Passengers travelling to the north and Scotland from King’s Cross enjoy robust fare competition and a choice of operators. Importantly—the Treasury should take note of this—LNER’s subsidy continues to fall, despite it facing robust on-track competition.
There have been wider benefits, promoting the Government’s growth agenda. FirstGroup has invested £0.5 billion in new rolling stock, securing jobs in the north-east, with a further £0.5 billion awaiting a decision. Open access operators account for around 19% of all new train orders placed in the UK in the past five years, although they provide only 0.9% of passenger services.
Last year’s Office of Rail and Road report said:
“An economic appraisal of the impact of open access operators in 2022 concluded that open access operators had been beneficial to the UK economy, and that this was particularly apparent for flows not already directly served by a franchised operator. Our 2023 report noted the particularly strong post-pandemic recovery for open access operators”.
All of the leading European countries with state-run operators, including Germany, France and Spain, have increasingly used open access as a vital tool in complementing their national service operators.
I turn now to the Government’s proposals, which dramatically change the terms of trade and put at risk the benefits that I have outlined. There should have been no cause for alarm because, in September, the previous Secretary of State said that,
“where there is a case that open access operators can add value and capacity to the network”,
as assessed by the Office of Rail and Road,
“they will be able to”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/24; col. 18WS.]
However, that is not what is proposed.
The consultation document of 18 February says:
“GBR will become the decision maker for key decisions on access terms that are currently led by the ORR: the duration and form of access rights, developing and setting the access charges framework and the design of performance incentive regimes contained in track access regimes”.
Then, we have the historic understatement:
“For GBR to have the space and authority to take access decisions on the best use of its network, the ORR’s current role must change”.
GBR will, in due course, absorb Network Rail and all the franchised train operators. It will have a massive conflict of interest in deciding whether an open access operator should provide a new service. We know this because, in the last 10 years, Network Rail opposed all 10 applications to the ORR for open access, which then approved five of them, with the DfT either opposing or not responding. The letter which the Minister circulated yesterday—to everyone except me—opposed nearly all the applications. These are the organisations which will decide in the future.
The ORR—the final arbiter, at the moment—will have its powers curtailed. Instead of being the referee, the ORR can overturn a decision only if GBR has not followed its own processes or has acted irrationally. But those processes could include a large increase in track access charges, making a proposition unviable. It could change the abstraction rule, again making current services uneconomic. The ORR would be powerless to intervene. Its role has been crucial to the success of open access, and it will be marginalised. This would be self-harm for the railway, the regions and passengers.
Behind all this is the Treasury—the controlling mind of the new regime, if ever there was one. It is the Treasury which insisted on the letter to the ORR in January, with its primary objective of minimising subsidy, setting aside the wider obligations of the ORR to promote competition and better use of the network. The consultation document does not refer to competition law or the CMA, which will remain in place. In the absence of a strong independent regulator, there is a risk that we could see more competition law challenges, which will be inherently unpredictable for operators and GBR.
Investors need certainty and confidence about the terms with which they engage with GBR. If we want to encourage investors in schemes such as Heathrow southern rail, which will be needed if there is a new runway, there will need to be a strong and independent regulatory regime to protect investors’ rights. These new reforms remove existing certainty and could shrink freight, the private rail sector and wider economic growth.
There is a devolution angle to all this. If the mayoral strategic authorities are to be empowered to take control over more railway operations, as Andy Burnham would like, they will need confidence about the terms on which they can access rail infrastructure that they do not own, and a strong independent regulator will be needed, overseeing the prices proposed by GBR that devolved authorities will be charged, and their ability to run trains extending across their own and GBR’s networks.
I noticed with alarm the press release of the RMT—which the Government were so eager to placate last July—headed, Why Open Access Rail is Incompatible with the Government’s Rail Policy. That is, by the way, the very same union that, in 2020, demanded
“urgent Government intervention to support the open-access sector and to protect all jobs at Grand Central and Hull Trains”.
The Minister needs to make it clear he does not share the view of the RMT.
To sum up, do the Government accept the need for a genuinely independent regulator if we are to continue to reap the benefits from open access? Can he confirm that he is genuinely open to persuasion on the proposals in the consultation paper?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for tabling this debate. Much of his involvement took place in the mid-1990s. At that time, he was my ultimate boss, and I became the ultimate student of this operation, in which, on the basis of the somewhat bizarre writing of an excellent letter, we could have been involved as well.
My simple answer to the Question is that open access should be phased out as quickly as reasonably practical. It is a bit of a shock to be informed that I am agreeing with the RMT on that matter. Rail privatisation was a product of the political doctrine of the day: that private ownership and competition would solve all our problems. My personal view is that privatisation as a generality has failed. Rail privatisation has failed, at best, bizarrely, and, at worst, disastrously. The bizarre part of it comes from the track being given to Railtrack, which is a sort of private sector company which went broke and then turned into Network Rail, which is a pretend independent company that was nationalised not by the Government of the day but by the ONS, which said that so much of it was tied-up with the Government that it was really a nationalised company. It dumped £34 billion on the national debt, which virtually nobody seemed to notice.
There was little pure competition in the railway throughout this process; open access was the closest, and was therefore pursued. There was some slack in the system and some open access operations emerged. It is my view that they undoubtedly cost the taxpayer money and that there was not much benefit. In future, they will inhibit total system optimisation.
Any operator of open access will need long-term stability of their rights, whereas the great thing about Great British Railways is that it will eliminate all the conflict in optimising the railway. There will be a single guiding mind. The only disputes in future are likely to involve open access operators, since they will be the sole source of external commercial pressure. This will absorb a disproportionate amount of management effort. The only case for open access is doctrine, and it is a doctrine I do not share.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions as my contribution. First, will he confirm that the regulator has objectives, but, in fact, all holders of the post have concentrated on the one about promoting competition to the exclusion of other duties?
The regulator costs the taxpayer £30 million a year and has 350 staff—in fact, it gives rise to much greater costs, as illustrated in the Williams review of the costs of running a railway. Because its decisions have the force of law, they compromise constructing a properly integrated railway timetable with an emphasis on connections, reliability and economic use of railway infrastructure. Is it true that the regulator allocates open access paths regardless of their impact on other trains on the network? Can the Minister confirm that this has delayed improvements to the timetable on the east coast main line for three years, costing the taxpayer a very large sum of money—hundreds of millions of pounds?
Are the regulator’s assumptions about revenue forgone and the generation of additional revenue sound? Have these been tested independently and properly verified? I believe that this is not the case and that, in fact, they are underpaying for access and exaggerating the revenue that they are generating for the system. I am not seeking to deny that there should be access from destinations not previously served by franchise operators, or to strike anybody off the railway map. I am particularly concerned that freight should have proper, guaranteed access to the network.
Railway regulation has not been a good thing for the railways. Indeed, regulation generally, as carried out by previous Conservative Governments, has been shown to be defective in almost all cases and for all utilities. We have to look only at the feeble responses of Ofcom and the power utilities to underline that case.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I feel a bit nervous speaking in this debate, alongside a former Secretary of State who was a major contributor to the railway we have; the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who ran London Regional Transport; and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is extremely wise and was one of the great modernising managers of the old British Rail. What am I going to say?
I am going to say that I do not want to see a return to a monopoly British Rail, but believe it is essential that the railways have a guiding mind and that decisions on access have to be taken in a single place if railway capacity is to be used most efficiently. At the same time, I think there should be a mechanism, as was in the Labour manifesto, whereby companies can make open access proposals that will be treated on a fair basis by the guiding mind.
It seems to me that the present system does not really work that well as an alternative to the monopoly. Open access operators pay marginal costs, not full costs, for use of the network. There is a risk that, if they are not adding to total passenger use on the route, public subsidy increases if the franchise operators are losing business as a result. That is a real problem. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Young, dismisses it. It is a real issue: it is not just the Treasury; it is a public issue as well. I would like to see something like what is proposed in the White Paper, possibly with strengthened rights of appeal. But there is a role for open access.
The key point about the guiding mind is that investment decisions have to be taken on the basis of what maximises use of the railway. There are many cases where open access proposals would make sense only if there is additional investment to provide additional capacity. I would like to see that. I agree that many provincial cities have benefited from a direct link to London, and that should not be taken away. I want to see an end to the Eurostar monopoly with more competition on services to the continent. I strongly support freight opportunities. There was a very good piece in the Financial Times yesterday about how parcel services are going to be operated from passenger stations. All that is to the good. We need a guiding mind, which we are getting through setting up Great British Railways, but we need the possibility of fair open access as well.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity, which my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has afforded us, to further consider the role of open access operators. Many of us were participants in the debates on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, where we had at least two opportunities to talk about this—from my point of view, always in the context of the role that open access operators have played and can continue to play in enabling the passenger railway system to have competition as an element in its activity. As I said during the course of that Bill’s passage, privatisation has not always worked. In particular, it has not worked where there has been an inability to secure competition. The key to privatisation is the link to competition. Where competition can be achieved, it is the most effective potential outcome.
In this particular instance, while the Government are, effectively, taking back into complete public ownership those areas that they regard as not susceptible to competition, it would be a serious mistake to remove opportunities for competition, because they drive innovation and better passenger outcomes. Indeed, in their briefing for the King’s Speech, the Government more or less said exactly that. The question is: are the Government now committed to that?
Only a few weeks after we completed the passage of that Bill, we found that the Secretary of State was sending a letter to the Office of Rail and Road—the Minister kindly sent it to us, to remind us—in effect saying that she had priorities. When I read the letter, I find that her priorities are not the same as what the Government said in their manifesto and King’s Speech briefing. They are particularly focused, and are intended to focus the Office of Rail and Road on what she regards as the difficulties associated with it not covering the cost of fixed-track access, which my noble friend talked about. She said that her expectation was that
“you give due consideration”—
to these priorities—
“whilst respecting your statutory duties. I wish to see the impacts on the taxpayer and on overall performance for passengers—such as potential congestion on the network—given primacy”.
This is clearly in order to say, “Don’t consider all your statutory duties. Don’t consider the statutory duty on competition”.
During the passage of the Bill, the Minister very kindly responded, saying that it was not the Government’s intention to remove the statutory duty for the promotion of competition. There is a real risk that the Secretary of State has put herself in a position where she has asked the Office of Rail and Road not to undertake its statutory function in balancing its statutory duties in considering open access applications.
Happily, the Office of Rail and Road issued its guidance at the end of January and made it very clear that it will continue to balance its statutory duties, and rightly so. I cannot see that it has any option to do otherwise. In my view, the Secretary of State’s letter was wholly inappropriate and should not have been issued. If the Government want to change the decisions being made in the interim by the ORR, they should have issued new guidance. They had the power to do so, but they chose not to.
When we see the Great British Railways Bill and changes to the Railways Act, I hope we will continue to see competition, and the benefit that open access operators can give to the network in promoting competition.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for securing this debate. I have to agree with him, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and some of my colleagues that we are in grave danger of losing sight of what we are trying to achieve: a better deal for the passengers and freight customers.
There was a very good article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, quoting people from freight—I shall mention that in a minute. It goes on to say that Great British Railways will do a good job in co-ordinating but more than one body is involved. There is the infrastructure manager, which will still be owned by the Government. There are the government-owned railway undertakings and open access railway undertakings, and there is freight. That is not a monopoly; it is four different groups of people who need some independent body, which at the moment is the Office of Rail Regulation, to determine who gets priority on the track.
It is very easy to say that there is no capacity on the track. I did not have much chance this morning to read the 30 pages that the Minister sent us yesterday, but access is very difficult in some places, as noble Lords have said. To cite the Daily Telegraph, Tim Shoveller, the chief executive of Freightliner, said that,
“giving a state-run passenger railway the responsibility to allocate routes would undermine its ability to compete with HGVs”.
He says that Great British Railways will
“inevitably favour route applications for its own passenger services”.
That is just a normal way of doing business—and this is why it is so important to have an independent regulator with statutory duties to be able to make decisions on behalf of the whole sector.
My noble friend the Minister’s latest suggestion was that the regulator would be able to recommend to Great British Railways. Recommending to government, as we all know from experience, sometimes works but not always. It is about sustaining investment in the private sector, which is still there in the rolling stock companies and in freight—all freight is in the private sector—and still there in the open access. The last thing about that is that government in this format does not have sole discretion as to which stations should be served and which trains should run where. This is a matter on which many people have different views, and I am sure that many noble Lords will keep on talking about it today.
The Minister needs to think again and retain the role of the Office of Rail Regulation as a statutory consultee in something that to most of us is a competition issue. It needs to be fair and seen to be fair—and I hope that my colleagues in the Department for Transport will look at this and not insist that they can trample over the Office of Rail Regulation and get what they want, because they would rather have an extra train to Edinburgh when, in fact, you could have cancelled one of LNER’s trains and allowed Lumo to go in. Who is to say which is better? It is for the regulator to decide. I look forward to my noble friend’s comments.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that he is not alone in feeling a little nervous in speaking today. Like everyone else, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Young on securing this debate. It is an honour to briefly take part in what feels a bit like a relaunch of the band that we had for the passenger railway services Bill.
Like others, I express my gratitude to the Minister for circulating the notes yesterday. Today I would like to talk about the future confidence in open access. As recently as last month, the Minister in the other place said that open access operators “can also abstract revenue”. It is not the first time that such words have been mentioned. There are also examples of new bids being opposed by DfT. When you combine that with the noise and broader sentiment of the wider public ownership reforms, a narrative—at least to me—begins to build that one day, despite all the assurances, the beady eye of government will fall on them as the last bulwarks of capitalism, which have escaped public ownership up to now.
As has been touched on, investment from a private sector entity requires certainty if it wishes to invest and even expand. That made me think of one related example that is in the news: Heathrow. I am obviously not involved in the discussions on expansion, but surely a key part of the success of the current, and potentially larger, airport will require long-term assurances of open access, not only as part of the feasibility of the proposed expansion but for the success of what would become a larger airport, and having the connectivity it needs. The same issue of certainty applies to all providers, to secure investment and, ultimately, a better service.
What assurances can the Minister give to existing services that open access is here to stay? Current open access providers may well be safe for now, but what happens when their agreements come up for renewal? The Government state that economic growth is their priority, so when there is a discussion on the so-called abstraction of a provider, do they take into consideration the wider financial benefits that these services provide to areas as well as the negative impact that the withdrawal of the service would have on the cost to taxpayers in providing an alternative?
I am also grateful, as ever, to the Minister for recently forwarding a copy of the current rail consultation document. I do not wish to rehash the debates that we had on the rail Bill, and I am sure the Minister is unbelievably delighted that when the GBR Bill comes forward we will have plenty of the opportunities to talk about wider reform. Can the Minister give any indication of when that Bill will be introduced and when the Government see it taking effect?
Is not the point of the whole reform agenda to fix problems with our rail system? Today the Government announced that they are cutting NHS England, which has around 13,000 staff, and they are doing so for efficiency reasons. Later this year—soon, we hope—we will see GBR, but when you combine Network Rail and the TOC staff, you are potentially seeing over 80,000 staff. What assurances can the Minister give that, when we see this reform, there will be speedy change and costs will be kept down, when we have such a vast quango?
Finally, as has been touched on, the consultation refers to the importance of freight and says that there would be a growth target, which the previous Government also talked about. Does that mean that that target would be included in the Bill when we see it?
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, this is a debate when we can again lament the passing of the great Lord Prescott. I came down this morning on a Prescott express. One of the greatest, most transformative achievements of the last Labour Government was Hull Trains and the way it transformed the economy in the area that I represented. I do not think that, I know it—I live there.
Since the 1850s, there has been no train from Worksop to London, other than the royal train occasionally stopping there—none, for any passenger. There is a proposal for it to be brought in by Hull Trains. A letter of 4 February says, in reference to the “Hull Trains 27th Supplemental Agreement”:
“DfT analysis suggests that the proposed Hull Trains London-Sheffield services”—
the one that would connect Worksop directly to London for the first time in nearly 200 years—
“does not meet the threshold … We estimate abstraction of approximately £1.77m per annum … with EMR most negatively impacted”.
I am mathematical economist and I should like the Minister to give me the entire economic analysis and the presumptions it is based on. That says that people from Worksop go via Sheffield to London. I know the train drivers; my office was next to the train station in Worksop. I had to decide how to get to London by train. The ASLEF national negotiators—quite a number of them because of freight—were based in Worksop and had to make weekly, often daily, decisions about how to get to London by train. Huge numbers of staff from the railway industry live in Worksop and they were in the same situation. None ever went via Sheffield. It is simply not true. I stood at the station as an MP regularly, often constantly surveying the commuters. I know who goes into Sheffield and who goes the other way. I know where they park. I know most of the people by name. They do not go that way, so that figure is based on false assumptions and false economics.
The truth is that the Government are meant to be about levelling up. When I brought businesses into my area, I argued the case for a direct train service via Retford into London—if I could have done that via Worksop, it would have been even better—and it succeeded, with major companies coming in. That was the argument—I was there; I was making the argument with those companies. Laing O’Rourke is on the Sheffield side of Worksop, by the way. There is huge new investment on that industrial estate, including it. Cerealto, which came from Spain, is there. All they wanted was an improved service down the east coast main line. No one considered the East Midlands Railway.
I have nothing against Sheffield or that route. Point to point, it is dramatically longer, which might be the reason why people went the other way. The other route is far quicker and far shorter. The Hull Trains model has brought huge economic benefits. It has shifted the housing market. The Government want loads more houses with loads of land. That area is happy to have housing. It wants nuclear fusion there, which will involve massive investment—billions—and 3,000 new jobs. Again, connecting Worksop to London is an economic objective even more than a social one. It is convenient for getting down to the football, the theatre and all that kind of thing that people might want to do, but it is about the economic basis of it. I know every single major company that came in—I was there—and I know that this was part of the argument. These figures are wrong. There needs to be that flexibility.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for bringing this timely Question for Short Debate. It is a topic of much conversation in transport circles, as this debate shows. Open access railways have allowed private companies to operate train services independently of government contracts, and to date they have been competing with franchise services. However, they are going to be competing with the publicly run Great British Railways services, and that is where the rub may be.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, flagged some serious questions about regulation, which I hope we will hear clear answers on today. Noble Lords will recall that, at all stages of the passenger railway services Bill—it feels like a reunion here today—my colleagues and I stressed from the Lib Dem Benches that we were agnostic as to who actually runs the railway. We want real improvements, centred on the passenger.
As I read the DfT’s consultation paper, A Railway Fit for Britain’s Future, the Government are clear that a new, simpler framework will enable GBR to take decisions on the best use of its network. It goes on to say:
“GBR will take access and charging decisions in the public interest”.
In addition to those obligations, the Secretary of State can issue specific directions and guidance on access to and use of the railway when relevant. Presumably, those directions could be for no open access passenger services at all, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the RMT would support. Presumably it would be at the whim of whoever is Secretary of State, depending on what their view is of open access and what is allowed.
The only thing that is certain is that open access operators will have to fully pay towards long-term maintenance costs for the network and central support costs, which is something we would probably all agree with. However, the only open access that seems to be protected is around freight services—although, if you talk to the freight sector, it is not confident in that at all. There is nothing in this paper that suggests there is any future for open access operators. What assurance can the Minister give the sector today about its future? Even if the Government do not want to see any new open access operators, what guarantee can they give to the routes that already exist today, which, as we have heard, do so well serving places such Hull, and despite the quote that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, read from the Labour manifesto, which showed some commitment to open access?
The other issue I want to pick up, which is the crux of this debate, is that it may come at a cost to the taxpayer in attracting passengers away with open access trains, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, pointed out. The contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Young, provided contrary evidence that that was going to be a threat. I thought that I would add some international experience. Last year, a European Commission study looked at Spain, France, Sweden, Italy, Austria, Germany and other examples of rail on the continent. It showed that ticket prices decreased overall with the introduction of open access competition; that frequency has increased hugely on routes such as Vienna to Salzburg and Stockholm to Gothenburg, as well as in other places; and that the more trains there are available, the more passengers will see trains as a viable option and will demand increases. It has shown that open access really can add to the railway.
I conclude my remarks by saying that open access operators have a role to play in our future rail system, as long as they pay their way. They can also see investment in rolling stock and innovation in a way that will be healthy for the passenger. At the end of the day, what do we want? We want a service that is reliable, affordable, efficient and passenger-centred. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this debate.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for securing this important discussion.
His Majesty’s Government’s approach to railway reform has raised concerns, in particular around the potential risks of phasing out existing open access operators and rejecting new ones. Open access operators such as Lumo, which has a 96% customer satisfaction rating, have consistently delivered some of the highest levels of passenger service. On the basis that His Majesty’s Government’s stated commitment is to place passengers at the heart of the railway reforms, we naturally assume that they would wish to encourage and support open access operators, rather than restrict their role.
A fundamental aspect of the open access system is its ability to introduce new direct routes and foster competition, ultimately enhancing the passenger experience. Of course, this must be weighed up against the potential impact on taxpayer-funded operators. To ensure a fair balance, the Office of Rail and Road applies the “not primarily abstractive” test, requiring new services to generate at least 30p of new revenue for every £1 abstracted from existing operators. This test ensures that open access services contribute genuine growth to the industry, rather than merely diverting passengers from other operators.
Let us take as an example Lumo, which launched in 2021 between London and Edinburgh. Since its inception, Lumo has generated more than 6 million new rail journeys, which noble Lords will agree is a remarkable achievement. It has driven a significant modal shift from air travel to rail travel. Nearly half of all journeys on this route are now made by rail, up from one-third in 2019.
Crucially, Lumo’s success has not come at the expense of existing operators. Revenue on the London to Edinburgh corridor increased by 55% between 2019 and 2024. Moreover, LNER’s own revenue has grown, demonstrating that Lumo has expanded the overall rail market, rather than siphoning off passengers. Similarly, Hull Trains, which has operated between London and Hull since 2000, has been a resounding success. By 2010, revenue on its route had increased by nearly 300%, and, for every £1 of revenue abstracted from other operators, Hull Trains generated an additional 51p to 67p of industry revenue—far exceeding the ORR’s minimum threshold. Since 2019, Hull Trains has seen a 42% growth in passenger journeys, significantly outpacing other operators. This success has been supported by investment in new rolling stock, enhancing capacity and service quality.
Although some may view the abstraction of revenue from taxpayer-funded operators negatively, it is vital to consider the broader benefits that open access services provide. Free markets and increased competition lead to lower fares, faster journey times and substantial value-of-time benefits for passengers. Open access operators consistently achieve higher passenger satisfaction, thanks to their agility and customer-focused approach. Even when accounting for lower fares, open access operators on all three routes examined have generated revenue well above the 0.3 NPA threshold set by the ORR. His Majesty’s Official Opposition suggest that the evidence speaks for itself.
His Majesty’s Government are vocal on the subject of growth, investment, passengers and the environment, so I must ask the Minister this: will they please put passengers first? The ORR has praised open access because of the black-and-white data.
Finally, can the Minister please advise the Committee on when we will have sight of the passenger standards authority? What will those standards be, and how will they be enforced? The appetite of the new authority to hold GBR to account is what will matter. How, in tandem, will Great British Railways hold nationalised operators to the same high standards of service that passengers expect and deserve?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on securing this timely debate on an important subject. I offer him my wholehearted apologies for the omission of the letter that I sent everybody else; it was an administrative error but I it has, I believe, been rectified. I apologise to him for that.
The context of this debate is the live consultation document, A Railway Fit for Britain’s Future, which was published a few weeks ago and on which the Government welcome contributions. I hope all noble Lords here today will respond to the consultation document. It is not immediately apparent to me that everybody has ready every word of it, from what I have heard—perhaps that is reasonable—but it is important that noble Lords respond to it because it raises some of these subjects absolutely directly.
Having said that, I am not going to repeat large quantities of what is in the consultation document, for the obvious reason that it is in the public domain. People will respond to it; the Government will then consider their responses fully. It would be better if I spent my time looking at elements of the issues in front of us that noble Lords have raised.
I start with the noble Lord, Lord Young, who asked whether I share the RMT’s views. He deftly pointed out, however, that it appears to have two views that are contrary to each other at once. I can therefore say without compunction that I share some of its views but not all of them. It is entitled to its views because it represents the hard-working staff of the railways as their trade union, but they are not the determinants of future government policy.
The noble Lord expressed genuine concern about competition and asked whether I am open to listening to responses to the consultation. I am open to that; I have listened extraordinarily carefully to what noble Lords have said here today, and I believe that aspects of what they have said should influence the way we draft the legislation, following the responses to the consultation. It would be foolish and unnecessary for us to produce a consultation if we did not intend to listen to what people had to say about it.
The other thing I would say about the consultation is that it is over 30 years since a substantive railway Bill was in either House. It behoves us to do a good job this time because it may be a long time before there is another; you never know.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, had to say. His descriptions of some of the history were quite correct. I can correct him on only one material fact, which is that Network Rail slid into the public sector with a debt of £54 billion, rather than £34 billion; I remember remarking that it was higher than the national debt of New Zealand at the time I became the body’s chair. The noble Lord was right in describing that, in those days—at the time of the original privatisation of the railway and subsequently—there was some slack. It is true that quite a lot of additional services could be put into the timetable simply because there was plenty of room for them.
I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, extraordinarily carefully. He was a very senior railway manager when, sadly, I was still at school; he knows perfectly well how to run a busy, complex railway, and his memory is not diminished an inch by the effluxion of time since he did that. I do not think he is entirely correct to suggest that the ORR is concentrated on only one of its objectives—that would be doing it a disservice. But he is certainly entitled to a view about the extent to which it has balanced its objectives. He is indeed right about the east coast main line timetable. I had to answer a Question in the House only two days ago about the level of service at Alnmouth and Berwick. The last Government invested £4 billion to improve the capacity of the east coast main line. It has taken four years to get an agreement on that timetable, and that is because the number of people with rights on the east coast main line is so great that it required a huge meeting of railway operators. In the end, it also required the Secretary of State and I, as Ministers, to make a decision which on any normal railway would be taken by the railway administration. The noble Lord asked whether the ORR’s regulatory assumptions are sound and independently verified. They have been tested twice independently and found satisfactory at least.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned freight. The propositions about open access, whatever they are, do not apply to freight where the Government have already stated that they intend to have a target to increase freight. I believe we have also heard here that freight operators are apparently more comfortable with the regime proposed in the consultation paper.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, very carefully. I too want to see more trains on HS1 and through the Channel Tunnel, and the department is working as hard as it can to see that there are more trains and that any obstacles to further competition on the routes through the Channel Tunnel to Europe are removed. There are some things we can do, and we are proposing to do them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about what was in the King’s Speech and what, effectively, the Secretary of State wrote subsequently to the chair of the Office of Rail and Road. Opinions vary on this letter, but I think she and I are clear that what she said in the letter was not that there should be no open access. It did not say that we disagree with it; in fact, the consultation paper says that in the right circumstances, open access has a valuable part to play. But it would be negligent of her, and certainly negligent of me, not to reflect the fact that the railway post-Covid is costing the taxpayer an enormous amount of money. All of us in this Room, whatever political side we are on, cannot celebrate a railway that consumes twice as much public subsidy as before Covid. We need to do something about it. It is proper for the Secretary of State to reflect on the fact that one of the legitimate concerns of both the Secretary of State and, indeed, the ORR ought to be the whole cost of the railway to taxpayers. She talks about a balance: on the one hand, opening up new markets, driving innovation and offering choice to passengers, but also a balance that is mindful of the abstraction of revenue to taxpayers, as well as the charging mechanism. That letter sets out her views, which I do not think are anti-open access; it makes clear the role that the Government believe open access ought to have and the basis on which we are consulting.
The concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, were principally about freight, which I have already covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, said that the private sector was under threat. I say to him that, in fact, four-fifths of railway expenditure is in the private sector and, very largely, that will continue. The Government’s proposals to take passenger services into public ownership are not the same as taking the private sector out of the railway. Network Rail spends a huge amount of money with many private sector organisations to maintain and improve the railway and that will continue, as will freight operations and so forth.
The noble Lord also talked about the costs of GBR as a potentially large public body—I prefer that word to “quango”, having chaired two such public bodies. There is a considerable saving to the public purse from managing the railway better. The fact that every meeting on the railway needs 20 people in it to decide anything, because of the proliferation of different contracts, is a huge cost and a huge barrier to effective management of the railway.
As chair of Network Rail, I had a difficulty with the ORR, because we were told at one stage that there was a belief that the law suggested that there were only two dates on which you could change the national railway timetable a year. That is completely inflexible and militates against the public getting a good service from the railways, simply by baking some arthritic processes into what ought to be a dynamic situation to deliver better services to passengers and freight.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, talked with considerable passion about Hull Trains, and I respect his passion about that because it is clear that Hull Trains has produced a huge benefit for the city of Hull over the years it has been working. His observations about Worksop are probably more difficult, both for him and for me, but one of the issues with some proposals that the department has seen, but which will currently at least be considered by the ORR, is that the department at least considers that they will abstract from other services. The danger, of course, is that you offer a better service to a small number of people and the result of it is a higher cost to taxpayers and/or a reduction in services to others. Those are balances that railway administrations have had on their minds since 1830 or so, and they are considerations that GBR will have to have.
One thing that is obvious to me is that, in the course of further setting out how the new railway will work, you need a really comprehensive access and use policy. The consultation document says that GBR will have to have such a policy, that it will have to behave in accordance with it and, at the end of it, if people believe that it has not behaved in accordance with it, that will be appealable. In certain circumstances, the ORR will continue to be able to direct GBR to do something different.
I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that it is the passengers in the end—well, it is the passengers to start with—who ought to be the real consideration of the railway. One reason I am passionate about the case for reform is that passengers are not well served by the current circumstances. The railway costs too much to run, it is arthritic and it is slow—as I said, every decision needs huge numbers of people involved. When the east coast main line timetable is put in, it will justify the £4 billion of public investment put into the line because there will be a third train to Newcastle as a consequence. That is good for passengers. It will not affect Lumo, because Lumo will still run and its access rights will continue. Open access can of course add value.
I listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said. I must have read most of it before somewhere, in a number of documents principally put out by FirstGroup. The only thing I would say to him is that he is of course right about some of that. There is no doubt that Lumo, which did get open access provision, has made a real difference in the air competition to Edinburgh and it is to be absolutely commended for that. The number of routes on the railway where that is true is very limited, but it behoves us to want open access where it adds to the railway—and to be careful about it where it adds to the total taxpayer subsidy and would otherwise make the railway more congested and less reliable for passengers.
I close by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, again for his debate. I apologise once more that everybody else got a letter addressed to him before he did—I am really sorry about that. I thank him for raising the subject and allowing me to respond.
National Youth Strategy
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in developing a National Youth Strategy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, the time limit for this debate is one hour. With the exception of the opener and the Minister winding, noble Lords have three minutes, which is very tight. When the clock flashes, time is up.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, this short debate today gives us the opportunity to ask the Minister to provide more information to Parliament and of course to the public about the Government’s plans for a national youth strategy, the nature of their consultation process and the progress they have made.
In answer to my Oral Question last October, the Minister stated:
“This Government are committed to empowering young people to make a difference in their communities and are working with them to develop a new national strategy for young people”.—[Official Report, 31/10/24; col. 1208.]
That is a positive: the Government are partnering with young people to help develop the strategy and are managing a listening exercise to enable young people to have a say on decisions that affect their lives. It was, however, disappointing—the Minister will expect me to refer to this—that the Government decided to wind down the National Citizen Service from March this year. The service was a success and had cross-party support. Its closure will leave a hole in youth services this year while we await the publication and implementation of the Government’s plans.
I am grateful, as always, to organisations with expertise in this area for providing briefings for our debate today. I know that Peers have received expert briefings from organisations including the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, Girlguiding, the National Youth Agency and Youth Access, as well as other organisations.
In the run-up to the general election last year, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award launched its research paper, Youth Voices 2024. The findings showed that young people are ambitious for their own futures but continue to feel unheard and unsupported on the very issues that will define their lives and careers. The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award asks that the national strategy should include a youth pledge, committing to put youth voices and representation at all levels of policy and decision-making on the issues that impact young people. Today, I ask whether the Minister will consider responding positively to that recommendation.
I note that the DCMS has launched a survey, which it describes on its website as a
“national listening exercise to let young people have their say on support services, facilities and the opportunities they need outside the school gates”.
That sounds a very useful survey and I certainly support it; it was announced eight days ago and closes on 16 April. Although it is welcome, I hope that young people will know enough about it and will want to engage with it, to make it as valuable as it can be. It is, of course, a one-off specifically related to the drafting of the national youth strategy paper. I do not criticise that, but I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the request of the DoE Award that that kind of relationship with young people should be a continuing process.
At the moment, rather surprisingly, it is unclear how the national youth strategy will work in practice—work is under way—so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the following issues. Will the deficit in funding from the closure of the National Citizen Service be restored, or will that loss of further funding from the youth sector be a permanent reduction in funding? Which measures under the national youth guarantee will be carried forward, given the closure of the National Citizen Service? Does the Minister expect that the strategy will be accompanied by funding additional to that which was detailed in the initial announcement, as we now await the multiyear comprehensive spending review this summer?
How will the strategy work cross-departmentally? That is something I have always been interested in, having been a Minister myself; I know the importance and complexity involved in that. How will the cross-departmental work align and feed into initiatives such as the Young Futures programme, the child poverty strategy, the violence against women and girls strategy, the 10-year health plan, the curriculum and assessment review and indeed the Online Safety Act?
How are the front-line youth workforces, which are out there working so hard, being consulted about the national youth strategy and how it will become operational? There is also some uncertainty about when we might have sight of the national youth strategy or indeed, I appreciate, an interim version of it.
Last November, Ministers said that they were kick-starting—I thought it was rather unfortunate to use a rather violent image, but never mind; football was on their mind, as that was the season, so there we are—the process of consultation. We heard from the Secretary of State on 16 January this year:
“My officials are reviewing the evidence base, which they will consider, and we are launching the strategy in the summer, with an interim report expected in the spring”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/25; col. 46.]
However, we then heard from the Minister, Stephanie Peacock, on 11 February:
“We have now begun our engagement with young people and the sectors that work with them, as part of the co-production process”.
On the face of it, although I do not think this was intended, it looks as though those two statements are contradictory with each other. It would be nice to have some clarity on that. It sounds as though it is cart before horse happening there.
In the February debate, Stephanie Peacock went on to announce:
“We will provide more information to MPs within the next month regarding the development of the national youth strategy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/25; cols. 104-05WH.]
Even by my maths, I can see that that month has come and gone, so is the Minister able to deliver that further information today? By the way, I think that Members of the House of Lords, not just MPs, would be pleased to see that worksheet as well.
I appreciate that producing a national strategy is a difficult process, especially when one has carried out a wide and clearly well-drafted consultation process. I support the Government’s intent to co-produce that strategy with those who matter—the young people. However, it would be helpful to everyone, not just parliamentarians, for the Minister to be able to clarify what information will be available and when that is likely to be. I know that spring can extend a long way into the distance, but people, particularly young people and those who work with them, want to know the kind of information that is going to be provided publicly. It is crucial that there is clarity for young people to be reassured that the listening exercise really has borne fruit and that the delivery of the strategy will be funded appropriately. I appreciate the difficulty of that in the current climate, with decisions that have had to be made because of our need for the defence of this country, and of course we debate those matters elsewhere.
If a shortage of time prevents the Minister from answering all our questions today—and I suspect it might—then I would be grateful if she might respond to noble Lords in writing and place a copy in the Library of the House. In the meantime, I look forward very much to hearing all other noble Lords who are contributing to this debate.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, this is such an important issue. We have let down a generation of children and young people. The National Citizen Service, good as it was, and the International Citizen Service, good as it was, were never going to be a replacement for decent youth work activities where young people live, grow up and go to school. Therefore, we have seen disadvantaged children in this country fall behind even further. There are more of them living in families that have poverty and lack of opportunity these days, and I am shocked at how the eye on what was happening was taken off the ball in the past 14 years.
We know that children in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods make significantly less progress at both primary and secondary school. We know that they are more likely to be in lower-income households and that they are subject to more violence. There is a concentration of the poorest families and children with the poorest outcomes living in a clear set of neighbourhoods. I urge the Government and the Minister to think about this as they develop their strategy.
I really welcome the strategy—there is quite a lot of information for parliamentarians on the website, if you read it carefully, about how they should be engaging with young people in their constituencies or localities on what sort of services are needed and what is missing. It is important that they are invited, and we are invited, during the consultation to do things to help that along—and I shall be doing some of that work over the next few weeks. Will the Minister work on the cross-government involvement and the involvement of civil society?
I was at an event yesterday with AllChild, a place-based children’s and young people’s charity doing really interesting work. It is very enthusiastic about the strategy and needs to be involved. I hope that the Minister will talk to the DfE about training and skills development for those who will be needed to work with young people, whatever we come out with. As somebody who did that for a decade before I came to this place, I could cry when I see how much it has been neglected of late. Furthermore, will the Minister make sure that the Government recognise and understand the importance of place-based work for young people, so that where they grow up and where they go to school there are services that open up opportunities for them?
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the national youth strategy, particularly as it has a significant amount of co-production with young people themselves—although I find it hard to pin down what they will actually produce.
Like others, I have received helpful briefings from a number of organisations, including the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award—which calls itself DofE these days, rather confusingly—as well as the Scouts and OnSide, which runs 15 youth zones across the country. I will focus on enrichment activities carried out by organisations such as these, including sports, arts and cultural activities, volunteering, social action and adventures away from home, which I hope will form a prominent part of the national youth strategy.
There is clear evidence—for example, from a recent DofE report—that these activities can help to address some of the major challenges facing young people and schools. Such challenges include: absenteeism from schools; the growing numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training; mental health challenges; and the lack of essential life skills that are needed for work, which employers so regularly complain about. Enrichment can be particularly valuable for young people with special needs or from disadvantaged or challenging backgrounds, who may need the extra support that youth organisations such as OnSide can provide. Much of its work is targeted at young people needing extra support.
All I have time for are some more questions for the Minister. First, how will the strategy ensure that the benefits of enrichment activities are fully available to all young people? Will the Government consider the idea of an enrichment guarantee, as proposed by several youth organisations?
Secondly, how does work experience, surely a key enrichment activity, fit with the national youth strategy? Having run work experience programmes myself, with both schools and other bodies, I know how crucial it is in preparing young people for employment, and quality is just as important as quantity.
Thirdly, I was concerned to hear Professor Becky Francis, the chair of the curriculum and assessment review, say at a recent APPG meeting that enrichment was outside the review’s terms of reference. How will the Government ensure that enrichment activities, including work experience, are recognised as an essential complement to, if not part of, the curriculum? Might they consider providing guidance to schools on the use of enrichment activities to improve attendance and tackle other issues facing schools?
I am rapidly running out of time, if not of questions, so I will just end with one more. How will the success of the national youth strategy be defined, and then measured?
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the announcement of a national youth strategy which will be with us by the summer is good news. The Minister will therefore forgive me if what I have to say may sound a little carping. I have three areas of concern. Where is the funding to come from? What plans are there to co-ordinate the different government departments that may be involved? How is the success of this venture to be evaluated, even in the short term?
On funding, the Government have committed £85 million, plus £100 million to come from a frozen assets fund. The demise of the National Citizen Service will remove perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds from the wider sector, including funding for about 250 youth organisations, much of which was due at the beginning of the new financial year in April. Are the £50 million savings predicted by the removal of the NCS additional to the Budget figures announced?
A further worry is which department is responsible for dispensing the budget. It would seem that the broad remit described would involve several government departments—for example, employment, health, mental health, crime, justice, education and other youth work would, by my count, involve at least five different government departments.
We all know that the best policies in the world can get lost, or modified beyond the original aims, in the business of governance. I have long argued that a Minister for children should be appointed at Cabinet level, thereby giving the planned strategy the weight it deserves and the guarantee of implementation across government. What assurances can the Minister give that the report scheduled for the summer of this year will be implemented in its entirety?
Last November, and before the announcement of the national youth strategy, UK Youth convened the Joined Up Summit. Some 500 leaders and decision-makers from all sectors, together with a representative group of 16 to 25 year-olds, discussed what, in their opinion, the strategy should include. After 15 years of brutal cuts to local government youth work budgets—by about three-quarters since 2010—the consensus was that major investment was now needed. It was agreed not only that such a strategy had to go beyond engagement to empowerment but that young voices must be heard and included from the design and implementation to the evaluation stages. Can the Minister say that this will in fact happen, despite cost and co-ordination issues that may arise?
Finally, I will look briefly at priorities. Who is doing the prioritising and what might the criteria be? It is estimated that three-quarters of youth clubs have closed down. The impact of this is profound. If young people, especially in rural areas, have nowhere to go where they can be both safe and engaged, the inevitable result is street gatherings. Recent research demonstrates that violent gangs and knife crime are significantly more frequent and more serious in those urban and rural areas lacking any youth facilities. I am sure I will get into trouble over this, but I must just say that surely somewhere for the youth to go must take precedence over, for example, one-to-one therapy on gender-change issues?
Recent surveys of generation Z people indicate support—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
The noble Baroness has reached her time limit.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
I am speaking so fast that I can hardly hear myself talk.
My most important point is this. In view of the fact that our youth is somewhat disillusioned, which we know from research, whatever else we do, we have to get this strategy right.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, my contribution will be a little tangential to this history of what I would call a civic service.
A year ago, on 7 March, I put down an Oral Question, taken on the Floor of the House, about whether His Majesty’s Government had any plans to introduce compulsory, or some other form of, military service. The answer came back clearly: “No. We rely on people being recruited and being volunteers, and we have very good Armed Forces”. At the time, I said that it seemed to me that “warning signals” were coming up and that we would need to review this.
The timing, a year on, is absolutely dead on. Now we move on a year and what do we find? We have a serious lack of men and women for our Armed Forces. We also know from looking at the television that, in today’s world—including in what is happening on the front in Ukraine against Russia—it is men and women and the numbers on the ground that remain important, not just armaments and things flying through the sky. The time has come when we might have to look again at some form of youth service, though not through a copy of the 1948 Act.
I remind the Minister here of what the Minister at that time, Mr Isaacs, said during the passage of the then Bill:
“Primarily, the need for the Bill arises from the fact that the regular components of our Forces have seriously run down, owing to the fact that there has been no regular recruitment during the war”.
Our forces are the same but for other reasons. He then referred to
“the need for the nation to build up efficient, well-trained reserve and auxiliary Forces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/1947; col. 1671-73.]
That was rightly accepted on an all-party basis.
Today, our country and Belgium are the only two countries that have no form of military training. Everyone else in NATO has all sorts of different kinds. My request to the Minister and the Government—which will, I am sure, have the support of my party—is that this matter be looked at in the context of today’s situation on the ground. I repeat the final words that Churchill said, having supported the then Bill all the way through:
“We should have carried far more weight in the councils of peace if we had had national service”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/1947; col. 1697.]
We have a Prime Minister who is carrying weight in the context of what I am talking about. The challenge is there for the Government. All I say for myself is that I will do anything I can to help on that front.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this debate. I draw the Committee’s attention to my register of interests: I am the chair of trustees for the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and I chair Sport Wales.
As the chair of trustees for the DoE, I see at first hand how deeply young people care about their communities and how they want to shape a better world for all of us. We have put young people at the heart of all our work; I hope that the Government will continue to do the same. Yet, as a generation, they continue to face unprecedented challenges: the lasting impact of Covid-19, rising levels of anxiety and mental health problems, and the cost of living crisis, not to mention a politically turbulent global landscape—and all the while trying to navigate an increasingly digital and atomised world.
At the DoE, we are proud to be part of the Black Youth Alliance, a coalition of leading youth organisations. Together, we share a vision: a future where young people feel safe, respected and heard, and in which they can successfully navigate the undeniably tough time that is adolescence, developing the skills and capabilities that they need to thrive in life and work. Now, more than ever, we need to step up and recognise that young people need and deserve a truly sustainable and effective youth strategy that puts young people at the very heart of policy.
We should perhaps learn from the work happening in Wales. In 2016, Wales set a global precedent by appointing the world’s first Future Generations Commissioner, a role dedicated to safeguarding the interests of young people and future generations. At Sport Wales, we have continued proudly to support the commissioner’s work, and our School Sport Survey shaped the Vision for Sport in Wales. The School Sport Survey 2022 gave young people a powerful voice on sport and well-being, as well as providing an insight into their attitudes and behaviours. It has helped the wider sector better understand how to create a more inclusive and impactful sporting opportunity for young people.
I commend the Government on prioritising the views of young people at the current stage of this consultation. I ask the Minister: can our Lordships’ Chamber be assured that they will continue to engage with young people at every stage of this process to ensure that this will be a youth strategy that delivers equal access for all?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the idea of asking young people what they want is obviously a great one, and I support the national youth strategy as far as it goes. My problem is that a lot of young people simply do not know the opportunities that should be available to them. Some have a very privileged life and go to great schools where huge numbers of facilities are available to them, and some do not and do not get the opportunities to go to the theatre or play an instrument. If they knew much about them, they would probably find them life-changing. The schools into which Andrew Lloyd Webber has gone, with his mission to give everybody a musical instrument, have benefited hugely from that. But did those young people really know that their lives would be changed by playing in an orchestra? I suspect not. It is that sort of issue that needs addressing, and that is why a children’s Minister in Cabinet might well be a good starting point.
However, the starting point that we have now is a national youth strategy to which the nation’s youth will be asked to contribute. I shall therefore contribute remarks relating particularly to the idea of democracy, which is what this is all about. A survey from the Electoral Commission this year found that a third of 11 to 17 year-olds had not heard any mention of politics in their school in the entire last year. That is a year in which there was an election in this country and in the United States—one of the most important in a long time—and their schools did not even talk about it. So it is not surprising that, when the Electoral Commission asked 11 to 25 year-olds whether they would like to know a little more about how politics and democracy work in the country in which they live, 74% said that they would.
My question to the Minister is: what will she do about enabling those children and young people to understand the democratic process, before going deeply into the national youth strategy and asking them all to opine on any number of things? The Electoral Commission found that the majority do not believe that the Government do anything very much and a third do not understand at all what the British Government do. It is not surprising if they feel completely alienated. My suspicion is that this exercise risks only increasing the cynicism among a large number of youngsters.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, three minutes is not enough time to cover all aspects of the subject we are looking at, but it will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I will focus on employment for young people. Whatever youth strategy is developed, agreed and delivered, it must help to stop the flow of young people becoming NEET. Nearly 1 million of our young people are in the NEET group. What does that cost in finance, in economic terms for business, in personal issues and, of course, in social cohesion?
Many young people today grow up in families where they are loved, nurtured and supported at different times in their journey in life. But let me tell noble Lords this: many young people are not—I have met them. Many young people, sadly, are left to their own devices, with no guidance. They do not have a clue what life holds for them. They have every potential to become NEET, to be involved in crime and gangs, to have health issues, and to be economically inactive. I could go on.
I met someone from the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme—the young man is over there—and he showed me a quote from a young person who said, “Is it a surprise I’ve got mental health issues, when I haven’t got enough money to live on?”. The issues that they face are absolutely phenomenal. Young people are on a journey. Whether it is starting out in their early years, or whether they are categorised as NEET, it is a journey, and it is one on which they need somebody to be with them, to take them through the highs and lows of life.
In my book, it is about the destination. For me, the destination is that, whatever services a youth strategy provides, it should help young people to transition into the labour market, not leaving them at any point if something goes wrong. I have seen it work: it is cost effective, and if we measure the return on the investment needed, I am telling you, it is magic. I will give your Lordships just one example. I worked on a project where 76% of the young people we got into work were still there a year later. They did not fall out, and the money we invested in keeping them there was well, well worth it. Eighty-five percent of them drastically improved their attendance at school, and 60% of them got five GCSE’s at grade A to C. Ninety-six percent of them are currently involved in education, employment or training. The youth strategy will cover a number of things, but let us get them into work, keep them there and give them a future.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, in my limited time, I shall reflect on how the arts can empower the next generation, particularly in light of the lasting harm caused to young people by the previous Government’s misguided EBacc policy, which systematically diminished the value of creative subjects in schools.
As the Government embark on their ambitious national youth strategy, we have a rare opportunity to put arts, culture and creativity at the forefront of national renewal. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, these are not just enriching experiences, but essential tools for fostering confidence, ambition, collaboration and the generation of ideas—vital skills for a challenging world. They bring out the best in every child, rather than excluding those who do not fit the mould.
The national youth strategy is rooted in a simple but powerful idea: young people should have a say in shaping their own futures and communities. We often discuss youth policy in terms of crime prevention, mental health and economic mobility, yet arts and culture also serve as powerful tools for tackling these challenges. They can also help to solve the special needs crisis, which consumes so much local authority spend. Creative engagement supports mental well-being, reduces anxiety and fosters social connections. Most of all, it bolsters self-esteem.
In our efforts to dismantle barriers to opportunity, we must support initiatives such as the better youth spaces programme, ensuring that every young person has a safe, inspiring place to create and collaborate, regardless of their postcode. The expanded creative careers programme will provide real pathways into industries that contribute over £125 billion to the UK economy.
Through practical guidance, mentoring and work experience opportunities, the programme connects education with industry while breaking down historical barriers to entry in creative fields. This approach recognises that, while talent exists everywhere, opportunity does not, and aims to bridge that gap. At a time when our society can feel divided, the arts offer us a shared language to celebrate diversity—including neurodiversity—bridge differences and cultivate pride in our local and national identities.
The Fabian Society’s recent report Arts for Us All by the independent Arts and Creative Industries Unit rightly advocates for a cultural pass for young people, mirroring successful models in France, Germany and Spain to increase cultural participation among young people. Let us ensure that every young person in Britain can access the creative experiences that will shape their confidence, career and community, regardless of where they come from.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of Career Connect and patron of the Royal Life Saving Society UK. A new national youth strategy that engages and empowers young people is not only welcome but essential. This approach, which rightly seeks to place decision-making power in the hands of those affected, offers a valuable opportunity to learn to nurture the future pillars of our nation. I commend the efforts made thus far to co-produce the national youth strategy alongside young people. The national listening exercise, the online survey extending to those with special educational needs and disabilities, and various workshops have demonstrated an effort to consult and collaborate with young people, which is to be applauded.
While the Government have committed £85 million from government funds and £100 million from the dormant assets scheme to improve youth outcomes, there are concerns about whether that funding will be sufficient to address the diverse needs of young people across the country. The decision to wind down the NCS programme from March 2025 has raised concerns about the continuity of support for young people. The new strategy needs to ensure that the services previously provided, which were working well, are effectively replaced or improved on.
The pressures of social media and new technologies are growing ever present. How will the strategy address these challenges to support young people’s mental health and well-being?
I turn to the topics of co-ordination and collaboration. Effective collaboration with various stakeholders is crucial for the success of the strategy. Ensuring effective co-ordination among these groups, as noble Lords know more than most, can be complex. What will “good” look like?
Finally, following the pandemic, young people were denied valuable experiences. The strategy must address the long-term impacts of that disruption on their development and opportunities.
I am delighted to say that we welcome the national youth strategy, particularly its commitment to include the voice of young people from the outset. We also welcome the commitment to better co-ordinated youth services and policies at local, regional and national level.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this important discussion.
As my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott has highlighted, it appears that we are at a genuinely critical juncture where statistics suggest that approximately 987,000 individuals aged between 16 and 24 are not engaged in education, employment or training. This group of citizens not only face personal challenges but represent a material loss to our nation’s productivity and social cohesion.
It is of huge concern that many young people in our country appear to be in silent crisis. His Majesty’s Official Opposition recognise the huge importance of nurturing our future hard-working and upstanding members of the community, ensuring that they are equipped with skills and values while being offered the opportunities that are necessary to lead fulfilling lives and contribute meaningfully to our society.
It is therefore a great loss from our perspective that in November last year His Majesty’s Government ended the National Citizen Service scheme, introduced by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton as part of his big society initiative. The scheme had an approval rating of 93% and delivered over 1 million experiences to young people, and participants have taken part in over 18 million hours of volunteering. The programme helped our youth to feel valued and purposeful, with my noble friend Lord Cameron describing the decision as a deeply backward and regrettable step. With all due respect to the Government, His Majesty’s Official Opposition agree. On our watch, we committed to allocating £500 million over the period 2023-26 to fund the national youth guarantee, which sought to ensure that every young person in England aged between 11 and 18 had access to regular clubs and activities for after-school enjoyment, experiences away from home and opportunities to volunteer.
We have a number of questions for the Minister. What were the key reasons behind the decision to abolish the National Citizen Service scheme, given its role in engaging over 1 million young people since its inception? How does the new national youth strategy differ from the NCS in terms of objectives, funding and reach, and how will it ensure the same or greater levels of youth participation? The NCS provided structured opportunities for personal development, social mobility and civic engagement. How does the new strategy plan to replace or enhance those elements?
Can the Minister please clarify how the funding previously allocated to the NCS is now being used under the national youth strategy, and whether there will be increased investment in grassroots youth services? Lastly, given the need for consistency and long term planning in youth development, how do the Government intend to measure the success of the national youth strategy, compared to the impact assessments previously conducted for the NCS?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for initiating this debate and for her ongoing commitment to this subject. It is clear from the debate that, although there may be a difference in our views on how to deliver youth services, there is a collective understanding across your Lordships’ Committee that this is a really important issue and potentially that something needs to change. I thank noble Lords from all sides of the Committee on their interesting and considered contributions. This feels very timely, given recent announcements by Youth Minister Stephanie Peacock, mentioned by a number of noble Lords.
Like many noble Lords here, I have witnessed the crucial and transformative role that youth services play in young people’s lives. Our Government strive to support this sector so that young people are able to be part of a supportive community and have access to positive and enriching activities. This work on the youth sector will help to deliver on the Government’s missions, spreading opportunities, making our streets safer and taking pressure off health services. I was pleased to hear young people’s mental health referenced.
This work will be in partnership with the development of the young future hubs, the curriculum review and further work that our Government have committed to in order to improve young people’s lives. That is why, in November, we announced a co-production of a new national youth strategy. This aims to set out an ambitious long-term vision for young people for the next 10 years and put them at the centre of decision-making on policies that affect them. As noble Lords will be aware, we are co-producing this strategy with young people and the youth sector. This approach will be key to making sure that this strategy supports and recognises the real experience of young people across this country.
Since we last spoke on this topic, we have made excellent progress in our engagement with young people. We have identified how we can work better at reaching those whose voices may not generally be heard and at establishing our way forward. Ministers have met with iWill ambassadors and young people in Bristol. Alongside this, a variety of focus groups have been held across the country, thanks to our regional youth work units. So far, we have heard from young people that they want to see clear solutions, to have access to safe spaces and to feel like the Government are listening to them. This strategy aims to achieve that, and more.
To ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of the process throughout, we have appointed 13 young people to form a youth advisory group. They have been selected for their impressive contributions in the public space. These members have experience across key areas, including advocacy, violence prevention, social mobility and mental health. An expert advisory group will work alongside the youth advisory group to help to guide the national conversation with young people, providing expertise and challenging our thinking throughout the strategy development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referenced the national youth survey, which was launched on 5 March. It asks young people what they need to be able to thrive. This survey has already had just over 6,000 responses in the past week, and we clearly hope to get many more. We will collate these and all future responses to shape our strategy, which will be published in the summer.
We are engaging with young people up and down the country through one of the most ambitious listening exercises for a generation, making sure that we reach young people where they are. An expert consortium with cross-sector partners will facilitate widespread youth engagement, working with 10 youth collaborators who are recruited to ensure that all activities are genuinely co-produced. Alongside this, the consortium is also collating data and insights via an evidence review, ensuring that the new national youth strategy builds on what has gone before.
In response to my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top on cross-government engagement—a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—I say that there has already been extensive cross-government work between the DfE, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, DHSC and others. There is great collaboration and huge enthusiasm to join up on key strategies for young people. We have also shared an engagement toolkit so MPs can hold their own discussions with young people or share the toolkit with organisations in their constituencies who work with young people. I encourage Members of your Lordships’ House to do the same.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about why this had not been circulated to Peers, we had hoped to circulate the same pack through an all-Peers email but, understandably, there are very strict criteria, which I understand the pack failed to meet. I will, however, send it to all Peers present today and will place a copy in the Library.
It is vitally important that we reach young people from all parts of the country, and I welcome your Lordships’ support in achieving this aim and in forwarding the toolkit to your networks. Our national youth strategy will be designed to meet young people’s needs, so we are shaping the content of the strategy around what we learn from them. The strategy will ask 10 to 21 year-olds, expanding to the age of 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities—a group that was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. We are asking young people what they need from the Government and what issues are most prevalent in their lives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly mentioned cross-government liaison. We are working with other government departments to ensure that our strategy provides insights on a variety of issues, from tackling anti-social behaviour to improving physical and mental health, to help us make the biggest impact possible on young people’s lives.
On some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, among others, mentioned enrichment. The Department for Education is working to make sure that all children and young people have access to a variety of enrichment opportunities at school. The £3.4 million Enrichment Partnership pilot aims to improve the enrichment offer to up to 200 secondary schools in three education investment areas. It seeks to enhance school enrichment offers, remove barriers to participation and unlock existing finding and provision. As somebody who benefited hugely as a young person from music in schools and other enrichment opportunities, I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Wheatcroft, on the importance of this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised a lack of understanding or of engagement. It is important for us politicians to recognise that we are responsible for this—it is not necessarily always the young people. I think that was the way in which the noble Baroness approached the issue. We agree that it is essential that pupils develop an understanding of their place in a democratic society so that they can become responsible citizens in a modern Britain. The national curriculum for citizenship provides essential life skills to prepare pupils for adulthood. Pupils also learn the skills of active citizenship through practical opportunities to address issues of concern to them within school and in the wider community. Recruitment to citizenship initial teacher training courses remains unrestricted, enabling providers to recruit future citizenship teachers without constraints from government. The Youth Parliament is DCMS’s key mechanism in the department for engaging with young people and ensuring that their voices are heard in policy and decision-making; I believe that it met relatively recently in the other place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also raised the question of whether there should be a children’s Cabinet Minister. The Prime Minister has been clear that we already have one who sees their own role as the Children’s Minister, and every department in the Government is expected to care and genuinely cares about young people, championing their access to opportunities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in particular, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, highlighted the importance of us addressing the need for employment opportunities for young people. The Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for all young people, and we fully recognise the importance of supporting young people at risk of becoming economically inactive at an early age or struggling to find work. Additionally, through the dormant assets scheme, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the Youth Futures Foundation has supported over 25,000 young people facing barriers to accessing quality, employment and training since 2019. As part of the Building Futures programme, up to 5,000 young people will be supported to stay in education, employment or training, with intensive mentoring and one-to-one careers coaching.
Returning to the national youth strategy funding, while the local government finance settlement for 2024-25 makes over £69 billion available to local authorities in England, we are investing within DCMS through the national youth strategy. The detail and scale of the funding commitments included in the strategy will be shaped by engagement with young people and the youth sector, and it will be dependent on spending review decisions. While this strategy will take a long-term view of these issues, we are also working hard to provide support during 2025 to local authorities, through our local youth transformation fund to build back lost capability. We have committed over £85 million of capital funding to create fit-for-purpose spaces in places where it is most needed. This includes the better youth spaces fund and completing the youth investment fund projects already started.
As referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, there have been significant cuts over the past 15 years, and spending by local authorities on youth services has decreased by 73% over the past decade. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referenced the reasons behind the closure of NCS. Last year, this Government made the decision to wind down the National Citizen Service programme from the end of this financial year and to close the National Citizen Service Trust when parliamentary time allows. We recognise the impact NCS has had on a generation of young people. It has enabled over 1 million 15 to 17 year-olds to connect across backgrounds, build confidence and gain vital life and work skills, and those involved should be truly proud of these achievements. However, as my noble friend Lady Armstrong highlighted in the strongest terms, the challenges young people face today are vastly different from when NCS was created. The world has changed and we need a youth strategy and youth organisations that reflect that.
Today’s complex challenges require us to adapt, focusing on cocreating a new strategy with young people to better co-ordinate funding and support where it is needed most. By working across government, civil society and business, we can empower youth more effectively. Today’s debate, which I really welcome, has focused on our commitment to a national youth strategy. This Government are working hard to deliver on our national missions. Supporting the next generation to access the right opportunities forms a cornerstone of this work. Through the new national youth strategy, we are working collectively across government to set a new direction for young people, listening to what they need and responding to those needs with both universal and targeted youth provision.
With noble Lords’ indulgence, I have just a couple more comments before I conclude. We have made excellent progress through our commitment to hearing young people on the things that matter. We have launched one of the most ambitious listening exercises in a generation and are truly excited to share the results in a few months’ time. This debate has been a great opportunity to showcase the role of youth provision in the lives of young people, and I look forward to seeing what we can achieve together. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing the debate, and all Members who have attended and taken part.
Sale and Display of Human Body Parts
Lord Boateng
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the offence caused to the indigenous peoples affected by the sale of human body parts in public auctions, and their display and retention in public collections.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, this Question and its answer are not to be confused with, and set no precedent in relation to any issue with, the Benin Bronzes or the Elgin marbles, important though they are—they also demand a just and equitable resolution. This Question is about a shared and common humanity, basic common decency and the sanctity in death of the human body in all its parts, in any shape or form, of any age, race or religion. It is about respect for diverse belief systems and the spiritual longing in us all for rest and resolution. The trade in human body parts is an affront to all of the above and is, literally and figuratively, an abomination. The retention of those human parts in any shape or form, without the option of return or decent disposition according to the wishes and sacred rites of their community of origin, is deeply offensive.
The question was put this way by one affected person:
“How would you feel knowing that one of your family members is in some strange place and more importantly hasn’t been afforded the right burial? This has an impact on the psyche of a group”.
This question was put some years ago by Ned David, then chair of the Torres Strait land council. He was recalling the comments of an elder among his people. It is a good question, and I wonder how any of us in this Room would answer it. How would the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, answer it? One of his ancestors was a governor in Virginia—at that time the site of numerous skirmishes with the native indigenous peoples of the state. Another was a soldier in the Russo-Turkish war. If history had turned out another way, could the noble Earl’s ancestor’s scalp have turned up for sale in a public auction in Oxfordshire—the site of numerous attempts to auction human body parts—or on the world wide web where, I fear, scalps are on sale to this very day? If, on a visit to the Ottoman Naval Museum in Istanbul, a quite remarkable museum that I have been to on a number of occasions, he was to find his noble ancestor’s skull in the shape of a goblet—because that is the reality for many people in this day and age—how would we feel?
The offence is real and the hurt continues from generation to generation. This abominable trade must stop, and the continued retention and objectifying of the remains of indigenous peoples in our public collections, against the will of their descendants and the originating communities concerned, must cease. The legislative and other obstacles to their return should be removed. I hope the Minister’s answer will give us some cause for hope that this will now happen, albeit belatedly.
As a first step, the guidance issued to museums by the department needs to be strengthened so there is a presumption in favour of the return of human body parts, whether modified or not, on request by the affected persons and originating community groups, and we need a national data base so that we know what is held in our public collections—because at the moment we do not. Will the Minister undertake to do that and convene a group of experts to advise her department on the way forward on this and other issues affecting human remains, and will Ministers ensure that the voices of indigenous communities affected are heard in this process? Will the Minister agree to meet, with me and other interested parties, some of those indigenous groups when they visit Britain, as I know they intend to, in June and October this year?
The Government of which I was a part sought, almost a quarter of a century ago now, to give effect to a joint statement by the then Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, saying that we
“recognise the special connection that Indigenous communities have with ancestral remains, particularly where they are living descendants”.
There has been insufficient progress since that statement was made by the two Prime Ministers, albeit the Minister’s distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, produced some excellent recommendations and charted a way forward, which sadly was not followed up by the subsequent Conservative Government, despite several opportunities to do so. I hope that the expectation is that the Minister will give us some indication that, in response to this grievous and continuing wrong and this gaping hole in legislation, the need to implement our international obligations will be met and recognised by this new Labour Government.
But the good news—and there is good news—is that despite this dismal tale of theft, disrespect, and the continuing retention of the parts of fellow human beings in public institutions and their hideous and deeply offensive sale as objects of curiosity in public auction and on the world wide web, there are some outstanding examples of good practice to be found in the work of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford and of a number of charities that have worked over many years to address this issue. The Honouring the Ancient Dead initiative, or HAD, offers museums the opportunity to register the human remains that they hold, and the work of Survival International and the organisation Routes to Return are cases in point—plus the work of campaigning journalists, such as Patrick Pester, who have exposed the worst excesses of this odious trade.
We can build on this good practice, and I hope that the Minister’s answer indicates that our Government will do just that—but the bad practice needs to be addressed also, by museum trustees themselves now, as a matter of urgency. They should not have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to change their current practice and interpretation of all too often ambiguous law to do the right thing. Chief among these recalcitrants, as in other matters, is the British Museum—forever seemingly on the defensive and on the back foot, and ripe as an institution for long-overdue reform.
Take this as an example: the museum’s returns policy starts with the presumption that the collection will remain intact. As a result of that, it has refused to hand over several—indeed, there are seven—preserved Māori tattooed heads, as well as the skulls of two named individuals from the Torres Strait Islands that have been decorated for use in divination. One of the descendants of those persons from the Torres Strait Islands said this:
“They are bastards, mate, bloody bastards. I can’t say anything good about them, man. They’re just—well, they’re the British Museum. I guess no one tells them what to do, eh? There’s not an ounce of humanity in that group. They’re bloody thieves. They stole it. They nicked it. There’s no way in the world they have any right to hold on to those remains”.
I conclude with that. Those are the words of an indigenous person affected. We need to hear them. We need to give effect to our signing of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. We need to make ourselves an example of best practice, which we can do with the good will, talent and expertise that is to be found in the museum sector in this country.
I hope that, in her answer, the Minister will enable us to build on those relationships and that capacity so that we have a sense of pride in a common humanity—in a shared past and a lived present that is a source of pride rather than a source of shame, and which is rooted in respect for the bodies of our ancestors.
Baroness Black of Strome (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for raising this important issue and securing this short debate. I am an anatomist who led a large teaching and research department for 15 years. I am also a forensic anthropologist. So I understand the legislation surrounding human remains, their ownership, their display and the macabre fringe community that finds this subject of interest and value.
The law regarding both the purchase and the sale of human remains is fragmented and remains largely unchallenged until an incident occurs, which is not rare. This weakness is exploited by those who seek financial gain from the sale of the dead. Most human remains are housed in museums or licensed anatomical premises, where they are regulated or have guidelines for a code of conduct, but the legal status regarding those held privately remains ambiguous and open to both commoditisation and exploitation.
If death occurred within the last 100 years, human remains fall within the remit of the Human Tissue Act 2004 —the HTA. Therefore, those who died prior to 1925—in the lifetimes of my grandparents—do not carry such protective legislation. It is also important to note that the HTA requires consent and makes only sale for the purposes of transplantation illegal.
What about those remains that fall outside these restricted boundaries? There is a buoyant market in the sale of body parts from the deceased. In 2012, Etsy led the way by banning the sale of all human remains; eBay followed suit in 2016. Both deem it unacceptable to be responsible for the sale of any part of a human.
What is being bought? Where do these remains come from? Are they people or are they property? In English law, there is no property in a human body. However, if an element of skill or technical process is applied to the remains, they can be classified as an object of art and legally bought or sold—so there is precedent.
In 1998, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld a conviction against an individual who stole anatomical specimens from London’s Royal College of Surgeons on the grounds that the application of skill to create the specimens technically made them property and that, therefore, their removal was a legitimate theft. Is it not ironic that the law recognises the skills but not the propriety of the deceased person who became property?
Real human bones as objects of alleged art can be found for sale mainly online but also in curiosity or Gothic shops, where they have been turned into lamps. Skulls are carved with symbols and images or dentally altered to look like vampires. There is jewellery made out of human teeth and bones. There are skulls with their teeth removed and coffin nails drilled into each cavity. There are human bones turned into pieces for Ouija boards or chess sets, as well as wind chimes made out of human ribs. There are also—I apologise for the image—earrings made out of freeze-dried human foetuses. We are not just talking about the skeletons of adults; these are also the remains of children, babies and foetuses. It is shameful, deeply disrespectful and unacceptable to any decent person.
Where did these remains come from? There is an increase in vandalism of graveyards and forced entry into crypts and mausolea. Twenty-one skulls were stolen from an ossuary in a Kent church, with the intention to sell them on social media. Each human skull can sell for around £l,000, and if there is mummified skin or hair attached to it, it can fetch more. A child’s skull will fetch over £4,000. The majority of specimens in private hands, however, are the result of trade from impoverished societies. They may be trophies from antiquarians of the past or, more likely, originate from the medical supply trade of the last 150 years. At its peak, India was exporting over 60,000 skeletons each year for the instruction of medical and dental students. It was a lucrative colonial trade route, from remote Indian villages to the distinguished medical schools of the West. India placed a ban on sales in 1985 but, prior to that, almost every doctor and dentist trained in the UK had access to a real human skeleton that they had purchased.
Hundreds of thousands of human remains are in circulation, sourced mainly from India without consent. The means of acquiring these remains was unethical by today’s standards and, I would argue, by any standard. They were acquired by our medical schools and they have, in turn, been handed down to family members and frequently, of course, brought out to decorate at Halloween. Over time, though, people have started to become uncomfortable about the box of teaching bones in the attic, the skeleton hanging in the school biology laboratory or the articulated foot in the doctor’s surgery, and they wish to divest the responsibility for housing the remains of these unnamed deceased. Even the anatomical departments now shy away from the use of real human remains, replacing them with plastic teaching skeletons.
What should we do with all those real bones? Museums will not accept them without a licence and neither will anatomy departments. So the artists, the collectors and the macabre curiosity sellers will buy them and sell them—thousands of them. The Human Tissue Act 2004 provides no assistance for the management of these remains, even though they were purchased for the purpose of instruction in human anatomy—indeed, traders often quote the Human Tissue Act to legitimise their sale. The critical issue, as we have heard, is surely about dignity, decency and respect for the remains of those who have gone before us, and our responsibility, as the living, to speak for the dead and protect them from exploitation. How can we tolerate desecration or mutilation of human remains with impunity, when, as a society, we will send somebody to prison for 10 years for desecrating a statue?
We have a precedent in law that bans the sale of ivory but, ironically, we have no legislation that bans the sale of human remains, except for transplantation. Surely the overarching responsibility is to ensure respect for the deceased, and it should not be measured by how long they have been dead or whether we can attribute a name to their bones. I therefore hope that the Minister will take heed and help us take a global lead in instigating an outright ban on the sale and purchase of any part of a dead body. Surely it is unconscionable to do anything less. It should be a very simple process that would affect only the traders, because museums and anatomy departments do not sell human remains.
I think we should set up a task force of experienced personnel who can advise the Government and help find the best way forward. We could create an amnesty for the material that currently exists in our private collections, but I think that we must, surely, create a robust legal framework that bans the sale of the dead and addresses what is currently held in these private collections. It is no accident that when we choose to bury those we love, we trust that they will “rest in peace”. That should apply to all. We already have precedent and some guidance to work with; we just need to become international leaders, with a strong moral compass, through a simple mechanism that protects and prioritises the dignity and decency of, and respect for, the dead.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, who made an extremely powerful and obviously expert speech. I will come back to her point about the chance of global leadership here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate and apologise for missing the first few seconds of his speech—I will get my printer sorted out one day.
It is disappointing that there are so few speakers in this debate. In the Chamber, they have just finished a debate on the UK’s global position, and I had to drop out of that to be able to take part in this debate. But what we are debating here is important not just as a moral or a legal issue; it is an issue of major importance to the UK’s standing and place in the world and to the way we are regarded by particularly significant parts of the world—parts that it is crucial to work with to defend human rights and the rule of law when major global players seek instead to impose the rule of might and the cynical interests of corporations over the well-being of the human and more-than-human world.
I feel it is important to declare my own position here. I come from a white settler background in Australia, and I grew up on unceded lands that were stolen from the Aboriginal people. My speech will focus particularly on public ownership of human remains—the noble Baroness, Lady Black, already covered private ownership very well. In acknowledging my Australian origins, I will begin with a single tale—it is just one, and there are many more—of the genocide with which white settlers established themselves on the Australian continent. It is a story of one man and of barbarous settler behaviour.
On the land of the Bunuba people in what is now Western Australia, Jandamarra became a famous leader of the indigenous resistance. For three years, he was hunted by settlers and police, until in 1897, when he was aged about 24, he was cornered by the police, shot and killed, and his body was beheaded. His skull was sent as a colonial trophy to a private museum in a gun factory in Birmingham. The factory was demolished in the 1960s and Jandamarra’s skull has disappeared. Bunuba elders and researchers continue to this day to search for that skull. His story is very important to indigenous people and other people in Australia. It was first put on stage as a play at the 2008 Perth International Arts Festival and, more recently, it was staged with the Bunuba people by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. That is my telling of an indigenous story.
I also want to put on the record the words of another indigenous leader from another continent, with another coloniser: Mnyaka Sururu Mboro. Speaking for his ancestors, in Berlin, last year, he opened a symposium on colonial human remains with these words:
“Free us from the museums. Free us from the basements where they spray us now and then with disinfectant. Free us from the universities, from the clinics where they keep us on the shelves with the skulls of monkeys, gorillas and orangutans. Free us from the depots where we cannot breathe. Bring us back home and rest us in peace forever”.
At the conference where those words were said, he also told a story told to him by his grandmother about an acacia tree where she, with hundreds of others, was forced in 1900 to witness the hangings of 19 regional leaders, among them Mangi Meli. He was regarded as the most senior, so he was the last to die. After he was hanged, the Germans chopped off Mangi Meli’s head and took it for their colonial collections. There is no record of it after that.
Two different colonised nations, two different awful colonial powers, two remarkably similar stories. There is a huge issue there, which has already been well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. He focused this debate on remains such as those of indigenous peoples, and I note that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations has said that it should become an offence to sell ancestral remains or put them on public display without consent, and the noble Lord, Lord Boateng set out some other legal steps that should also be taken. The APPG rightly says that that would be a modest form of reparation for past wrongs—the kind of wrongs that I was telling the tale of—together with the return of the remains, whenever possible, with appropriate treatment by the communities from which they were taken.
Rightly, the APPG also points to the issue of Egyptian mummies. Perhaps, until we heard the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Black, we might have thought that we had made some progress since the days when mummies were ground up for medicines or even to colour paint. There was a colour of paint called Mummy Brown, made from the flesh of mummies mixed with white pitch and myrrh, from the mid-18th century into the 20th century.
It is worth noting that last year the Chau Chak Wing Museum at the University of Sydney—I declare an interest as it is one of my former sites of study—decided to remove fragments of mummies from public display, and has been seeking to rename its so-called mummy room to something more respectful. They removed a mummified foot that had been donated in an old biscuit tin, the preserved feet and partial shins of a child, a partially bandaged adult head and a mummified hand that had been donated in a separate biscuit tin. As the curator there said, the ancient Egyptians are not around as a people today to object to this disrespectful treatment, but that does not mean that we should not look more broadly than just at those remains for whom there are identifiable peoples who are still able to speak for them, such as the voice I quoted from Berlin. It is not just about those remains; we should be thinking about all remains.
As I started off by saying, this is a geopolitical issue and an issue of reparations. Most foundationally of all, it is an issue about what kind of society we want to be. It is not about the remains at all; it is about us and what we are like. If we are going to be respectful of human life of the past, the present and the future; what is in our museums; what our children visit and view; what our scholars study; and how they are presented with the past, that has an impact on the nature of our society today. We often hear talk about being world-leading. If we were to take the steps outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Black, we would be world-leading and we would also be taking steps to improve our own society.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this important debate. I will speak to the two issues posed by this Question for Short Debate separately—namely, the sale in public auctions; and subsequently the display and retention in public collections.
As it stands, businesses and auction rooms decide whether to prohibit the sales of human body parts, taking into account the consent and licensing provisions of the Human Tissue Act 2004. There are some gaps in that Act, in that it bans commercial dealings of human tissue only in the context of medical transplantation, rather than sales as artefacts. However, in many cases—not all, but many—where a business is perceived to be in the wrong when selling human body parts, the solution is that they withdraw their auction lot. In fact, we saw this in October 2024, when an auction house in Oxfordshire withdrew human and ancestral remains from a sale following criticism from native groups and museums.
The director of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, which holds such items in its collection and is in dialogue with communities over the future of such remains, said that she was “outraged” at the proposed auction and praised the decision to remove the items. She said that the sale was “ethically really problematic” for many communities worldwide, and went on to say:
“The fact these objects were taken is really painful, and the fact that they were being put on sale is really disrespectful and inconsiderate”.
This is a live, worked example of challenging constructively and the complainants were indeed within their rights to do so. It illustrates that, generally speaking, the sensible free market appears to be operating with a measured approach and in an appropriate way that does not necessarily need to come under closer regulatory control. I quote Tom Keane, an auctioneer and valuer and the owner of the Swan auction house:
“We looked into it, we respected the views expressed and we withdrew the items”.
However, I very much take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Black, that there are clearly some extremely disturbing practices in other sale markets, which obviously need to be addressed.
On the display of human body parts, I highlight the great importance of museums in their educational function. Museums preserve historical artefacts, and I would hope that their trustees are sensitive to the subject of displaying human body parts; their intentions should be honourable. Through the display and retention of human body parts, we learn the lessons of the past. The British Museum, for example, has a truly magnificent collection of mummified bodies and Egyptian art, inspiring everyone, young and old, to learn about the pharaohs, the curse of Tutankhamun, Cleopatra and, most recently, Thutmose II. Through these displays and exhibitions, future Egyptologists learn about ancient burial practices and techniques.
The British Museum holds and cares for more than 6,000 human remains. They mostly comprise skeletal remains but also include bog bodies and intentionally or naturally mummified bodies, as well as objects made either wholly or in part from human remains. The key phrase here is “cares for”, whether it is the curator, the learning and participation team, front of house, the conservation or restoration technician, the museum technician or a fundraiser. While I cannot speak for everyone involved, I hope that the majority of those individuals treat body parts with the extreme respect and courtesy they rightly deserve as playing a part in the rich and varied history of the past. Losing this reminder of history could have a detrimental effect on people’s learning about the time it represents.
I quote a British Museum spokesperson, who said:
“The museum is mindful of ethical obligations and closely follows the guidance set out by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Human Tissue Act 2004, which ensures that human remains held in its care are always treated and displayed with respect and dignity”.
Most importantly, many museums, such as the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, are reaching out to communities whose human remains they display, so that the communities themselves can let the museums know how they would like those museums to care for them, or whether they would like them to be repatriated.
Finally, I highlight by way of an example—we have many different arguments here—the removal of a mummy from Spain’s National Archaeological Museum. The 11th-century remains of a 40 year-old chief of the Guanche, the indigenous group who populated the archipelago before the Spanish arrived, was moved from display in Madrid in response to new decolonisation laws. The president of the Government of Tenerife denounced the mummy’s removal to a warehouse as “inadmissible”, describing the mummy as
“a symbol of our ancestral culture … with an incalculable historical and cultural value for our people”.
Obviously, this is a subject that must be treated with the utmost respect and sensitivity. We have heard arguments on both sides of the coin. It is our wish that we try to find a workable solution that honours the views and feelings of those directly affected by this issue while attempting to retain the educational value, where appropriate, of any items by mutual consent between museums and communities. Clearly, work also needs to be done on what is acceptable for all parties involved so that everyone is happy with the outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Boateng for securing this debate on this sensitive and hugely important topic.
I begin by echoing the Deputy Prime Minister who, speaking in the other place last year, declared the sale of human body parts, regardless of their age and origin, to be abhorrent. I am personally appalled by any disrespectful treatment of human remains and agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy Prime Minister’s view. As my noble friend said, this issue is about basic human decency. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, I genuinely cannot see how we have more stringent law around the sale of ivory—the briefing I got mentioned birds’ nests and birds’ eggs—than around human remains. It feels completely out of step with where we should be as a society.
I know the Museums Minister met with Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP this morning to talk about this topic. The Secretary of State and I have also spoken, and I have read with interest the report Laying Ancestors to Rest, published by the APPG for Afrikan Reparations yesterday. Its recommendations will inform the Government’s consideration of the issues raised today and is very timely. It is clear that the practices that prompted this debate impact many people, with the potential to cause significant distress and offence to communities across the globe. As a result, this topic should be given the respect and attention it deserves.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the number of speakers in this debate, I point out that the time allowed for speakers as a result of the number of speakers means that noble Lords have had more time, which feels more appropriate than a more rushed debate. I was in the youth debate immediately before and people had three minutes each; this feels much more appropriate so that we can go into a bit more depth on this important issue. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is about the type of society we want to be.
On the issues in my noble friend’s Question, I will discuss the treatment of human remains, first in museums and secondly at public auction, before turning to what I hope are some helpful next steps we will take as a Government in the coming weeks. I apologise that some of this reflects the current position we are in and not necessarily where people might wish us to be.
Although I acknowledge that museums are operationally independent of the Government and that decisions relating to their collections are for their trustees to make, I expect them to be respectful in the way they care for and display human remains. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boateng that this country should lead in relation to best practice—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Black. Arts Council England clearly requires museums to abide by the long-established code of ethics, overseen by the Museums Association, as a prerequisite for museum accreditation. All museums in England are able to remove human remains from their collections. National museums in England, which otherwise have legal restrictions on the disposal of items in their collections, were permitted by the Human Tissue Act 2004 to remove human remains from collections, provided that they are reasonably believed to be the remains of a person who died fewer than 1,000 years ago.
My noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referenced the Pitt Rivers Museum, which has, for example, taken steps to remove all human remains from public display and is working to contact descendant communities to agree ways forward. As noble Lords will be aware, DCMS issued guidance for the care of human remains in museums in 2005. This encourages museums to establish an advisory framework to assist in determining repatriation claims and provides a set of criteria that need to be taken into account in assessing claims. I read this guidance this morning, and it is clearly 20 years old; the world has changed substantially, as yesterday’s APPG report makes clear. It is also clear that, sometimes, incomplete collections and databases make it really difficult to know what and where human remains are held—which, in this age of digitalisation, seemed surprising to me, although I am not an expert.
My noble friend Lord Boateng referenced the British Museum and the issue of the tattooed Māori heads. DCMS Ministers regularly meet with the British Museum’s chair and directors, and I will ensure that this is raised with them, as well as other issues raised during the debate.
As I mentioned earlier, the majority of museums in England would be able to return mummies and mummified remains. However, the cut-off date in legislation is currently a thousand years from the date the relevant sections came into force. Although many museums do undertake extensive and detailed work while looking at the return of human remains, documentation establishing the provenance of some human remains is often incomplete, lacking detail or incorrect. As a result, the research and identification process is a challenging and resource-intensive task. I am not underplaying the importance of that task; it is a vital piece of work to ensure that the human remains are treated with appropriate respect.
Since the introduction of the Human Tissue Act 2004, a number of successful repatriations of human remains have been made. For example, the Natural History Museum has returned the remains of just under 600 individual people to a number of countries, including to communities in Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii. They are continuing with detailed provenance investigations to inform potential future returns.
I understand that museums often hold repatriation ceremonies when returning ancestral remains, to try to ensure that the communities involved feel that they have an opportunity for healing and to honour their ancestors. We are in regular contact with relevant museums and we support them in their work to return human remains. This includes recent meetings to discuss the concerns raised, the communities impacted and recommendations for further action.
The topic of the sale of human remains via auction houses, online or by any other means was spoken to at length by the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome. As she made clear, while the Human Tissue Authority created by the Human Tissue Act in 2004 regulates the public display of human remains, it does not cover sales or purchases, as the Act does not regulate the sale of human remains that were not intended for transplantation.
Over the course of the week since I started preparing for this debate, I have been appalled by the type of objects that are readily available online. In my view, it is appalling and unacceptable. UK auction houses have to set their own standards and best practice in this area, taking into account the consent and licensing provisions of the Act as it stands. As DCMS officials have already relayed to the sector’s representative bodies, the Government expect all organisations and individuals to act appropriately and respectfully in relation to these sales.
I turn briefly to the UK art market—this is not art, in my opinion. However, we have one of the largest art markets in the world and play host to some of the most renowned institutions for the study and practice of art. This Government are committed to maintaining this reputation and want us to be a global centre of expertise, both in arts and in culture.
Although the sale of human remains is rejected by representatives of the UK art market, recent events, including, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, in Oxfordshire, have demonstrated that some auction houses are involved in the sale of body parts. This is hugely concerning. This Government call on all auction houses to scrutinise their activities rigorously and for anyone trading in human remains to consider very carefully the ethical implications of this deeply disturbing activity for those communities impacted.
As a Government, we must also consider how we can work together to address these issues, which cut across multiple departments. The Health Secretary met with Bell Riberio-Addy, MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill, in December, following concerns she raised in the other House on the topic of the sale of human remains online and via auction. In the last year, and again over the past few days, DCMS officials have raised the sale of human remains with the British Art Market Federation, the Society of Fine Art Auctioneers and Valuers and the Human Tissue Authority, as well as discussing the display and care of human remains from indigenous and other peoples in public collections with representatives from the museums sector.
We are now in a position to set up a cross-Whitehall meeting of relevant Ministers and policy officials to discuss a range of options, including legislative change, to prohibit the abhorrent sale of human remains and to further protect the dignity of those remains belonging to indigenous peoples.
I once again thank my noble friend Lord Boateng for bringing this topic to my attention and the attention of my department and the Government.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down—she has given a very encouraging response to the Question—will she address the question of a possible meeting between indigenous communities, when they visit the United Kingdom in June and October, and her and other Ministers, because that would be hugely encouraging to this conversation? It must be said that when in the past they have met representatives of the British Museum trustees, they have not returned with an answer that was acceptable to those indigenous communities, and it would help them to meet with Ministers.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was just coming to the point that I would be very happy to invite my noble friend to meet me, or another Minister from DCMS, to continue this conversation. I would be very happy to facilitate a meeting of the type he has requested. I am happy to commit to a meeting myself. I will pass on the request to other Ministers, as is appropriate in my view, rather than committing my colleagues to specific meetings, but I am very keen to work with him to discuss pathways forward to address some of the hugely disturbing and distressing practices discussed today, which should be for the past, not the present day.
Biodiversity and Conservation
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grayling
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their strategy for biodiversity and conservation.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to launch this debate today. I am going to bring together a number of themes that I followed when I was in the other place, and which I have been very committed to continuing here. I hope that the number of noble Lords here this afternoon indicates to the Minister and her colleagues just how passionately many of us feel about getting biodiversity and conservation right.
I want to start by pushing the Minister on a subject that I worked pretty hard on in the last Parliament. Some progress had been made, but not enough, on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. Bottom trawling is a way of fishing that is devastating to the creatures and ecology of the seabed. It does immense damage, and it is extraordinary that it is still permitted in many of our marine protected areas. The public would expect those areas to be protected but they are not; they are hugely exposed to some of the most industrial fishing techniques. Boats come from other countries with vast nets that drag along the seabed, causing damage to fish, other sea creatures and the ecology of seabed, whether it is plants or corals. We were not able to address this while we were a member of the European Union, but we have been able to since we left, freed from the rules of the common fisheries policy. It is an issue on which we had started to make progress. The Dogger Bank, for example, was one of the first marine protected areas to see a proper ban on bottom trawling, and I very much believe that that work needs to continue.
That work needs to continue carefully, because I am acutely aware that there are a number of communities around the United Kingdom that use small fishing boats—local people with local livelihoods—and I would not want to see those damaged or destroyed. But of course, a small trawler coming out of a port in Devon, for example, does not do anything like the damage that is done by a huge industrial trawler, so it is very possible to shape rules that leave smaller boats the flexibility to operate as they always have done in local fisheries. Frankly, in reality, those communities have always wanted to protect their surrounding marine ecology, because that is what delivers their livelihoods. However, these large vessels should not be coming into our marine protected areas, and I have two requests for the Minister today.
First, the previous Government made a start, and I was pleased with it, but they did not move fast enough, and I challenged them on a number of occasions to get a move on and extend this ban to the other marine protected areas. I very much hope that the Minister and her colleagues will do that expeditiously, because it is fundamental to our marine ecology.
I turn now to an issue that I hope the Minister will take up with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office. There is no doubt that, as part of the Government’s much-advocated reset of relations with the European Union, we will come under pressure to grant back substantial fishing rights to other countries. Without judging the rights or wrongs of that, it should not include rolling back environmental protections. I know there are those who wish to fish for sand-eels in the Dogger Bank, but to go back to that kind of fishing would do huge damage to what is a very precious ecology. I do not believe that any of us, whether a Brexiteer or a remainer, want to take a step back on environmental standards. To walk away from the protections that have begun to be put in place as part of that negotiation would, in my judgment, be a huge mistake. I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues to make sure that that does not happen.
That is my first priority: that we get on with the protections that are needed for our marine protected areas and make sure we do not step back from them. The second point—which is very topical this week—is around the issue of biodiversity and development. This is always a difficult balance to find. There are safeguards that have been put in place. One of the things I pushed for in the last Government, and which I am glad was put in place and would ask the Minister to make sure is protected, was a safeguard against the ability of a developer to clear a site before they apply for planning consent. I suspect those of us who have been in the House of Commons have all experienced this—a developer buys a small plot, completely bulldozes it and gets rid of any nature on the site before they even get planning consent. There have been very real examples of serious ecological damage being done. There was a case in the south-west—I used to be the hedgehog species champion in the other place—of a large number of hedgehogs that were killed by industrial strimming of a site to clear it ahead of development before planning consent could even be granted. So, whatever comes out of the planning Bill, I ask the Minister not to compromise on that.
There is another particularly worrying concern in the planning Bill. Departments do not always read across what others are doing, as I know, so I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention. I cannot believe it is an intentional consequence of what has been brought forward this week, but it is a real consequence. In a system in which each developer has to pay a fixed tariff into a nature restoration fund for a particular type of site, with no flexibility in it, a developer with a good record of trying to look after the environment, who would spend money on a nicely landscaped pond, wooded areas and amenities among the housing, has to pay the same tariff as somebody who comes and bulldozes the site and builds over everything. That makes no sense at all. Every developer would then have the incentive just to bulldoze. I am sure that is not what the Government intend, but as the measure comes forward, I would ask her to talk to her colleagues and officials and see whether that can be addressed. None of us would want that situation; we want developers to behave in the most responsible way possible. We want to see a proper balance, so that we see proper investment in nature and developers treating nature sensitively.
There is one other big question around conservation that emerges from this week. None of us really understands where biodiversity net gain fits alongside the new systems being put in place. Biodiversity net gain was one of the things that I felt was a positive step forward taken by the last Government. It takes away from the developer to ignore the nature side of things. There are now established structures in place that not only put money into compensation funds—that is one avenue—but invest in specific projects around the country. I do not think it is clear yet—and it is certainly causing anxiety—what the role of biodiversity net gain is alongside the new funds that are being put in place. We have legally binding targets for 2030. The Government’s idea of having funds that can be reinvested in nature and facilitate development without ignoring the nature issues is potentially beneficial. We will debate the detail of that as the legislation comes through the other House and this House. But it is important to explain early on precisely how that fits together with what is already there.
There are two or three points to wrap up with. On the farming front, there is obviously a significant question around the changes we have seen this week. We must not see a situation where farmers lose the incentive to look after their land in the most nature-positive way. Clearly, we want them to grow food successfully and effectively. I am a passionate believer in regenerative farming, for example. The Minister’s department needs to take great care that, in dealing with some of the funding challenges that I know it has, it does not disincentivise or halt investments that would otherwise take place.
There are also issues in the planning system that could be smoothed out. For example, at the end of the previous Parliament, we heard a lot from farmers who said, “I’d quite like to address my water issue by building a small reservoir on my farm”, but the planning complexities in doing something like that—even though it could help solve some of the pollution problems in nearby rivers—are enormously difficult.
Finally, I have two quick requests of the Minister. First, the work on deforestation and forest risk products has not yet been completed and finished properly. We very much want to see that happen quickly. Secondly, there is a piece of unfinished work on ensuring that the due diligence principle also applies to financial institutions that invest in forest risk areas. I would be grateful if the Minister and her colleagues in the Government could make sure that that happens as well.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for opening this debate, which I very much welcome. Following on from his many detailed points, I am going to speak more broadly about the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, launched in Rome last week.
I am going to speak broadly because, to me, if we have this strategy, at least we know the direction in which we are going. In any strategy to reverse and halt nature loss, we have to be clear on three things: first, the aspirational outcomes; secondly, the actions that we will take to achieve those outcomes; and thirdly, a way of measuring progress towards achieving them. I believe that, in the UK, we currently have the first and second in place through domestic legislation and international commitments, as well as the policies that they have borne, but we are still a long way off the third—namely, measuring progress towards achieving these outcomes and understanding the most critical question in saving nature: what works?
In the 120 years since the first nature reserves and national parks were created—we have been trying to do this for 120 years, so it is quite easy to look at this as an historical timeline—three different strategic aspirations associated with reversing and halting nature loss have developed, all of which are in use today. The first aspiration, which emerged around 120 years ago, was to save and protect the most rare, vulnerable, threatened and iconic aspects of nature, be they species, habitats or landscapes. Historically, this was done by creating national parks and AONBs; the modern equivalent is absolutely our 30 by 30 commitment. That is what we are trying to do. In the past two years, many statutory instruments have come through under the Environment Act. We know where we are with them. Broadly speaking, we also know how we are doing; in most cases, it is not very well, but at least we can measure how we are doing.
A second framing emerged in the 1990s. This had a strategic aspiration to reverse and halt the loss of nature by conserving and restoring the ecological processes that underpin biodiversity. It was argued that, without these, we would not have thriving, resilient nature. Here, I am talking about rewilding, restoring large herbivores as ecosystem engineers—beavers, even—and creating wildlife corridors. However, as far as I can tell, we still do not have in the UK the metrics for measuring the success of the measures that we have put in place.
I give noble Lords one example: the rewilded Knepp estate. I do not how many noble Lords have been there but, if you visit it, you really understand what a thriving, biodiverse environment looks like, as well as how we have halted nature loss and restored after its decline. However, if the estate’s success is measured using the BNG tool and/or the species abundance list, as we are supposed to do and as people have done, it comes out as a low-quality habitat full of obnoxious weeds. So we do not have a way of measuring it.
The third and final framing came out in the early 2000s, with the strategic ambition to halt the loss of and restore nature that provides important ecosystem services that are essential to human well-being. This includes things such as creating wetlands to clear nitrates from rivers and creating a carbon market. Policies associated with this include ELMS and, in cities, policies focused on restoring green spaces for people’s health and wealth-being. We have signed up to this aspiration. Target 11 of the global biodiversity framework is:
“Restore, maintain and enhance nature’s contributions to people”.
However, as far as I can tell, we are not measuring that either. We have no metrics in place to look at this issue.
We have all of these strategies, ideas and aspirations in our most recent UK national biodiversity strategy and action plan, which is great—it was celebrated in Rome last week—but, at present, we are simply unable to determine how two out of three of these aspirations are working. That is a big problem. I urge the Minister to come up with new ways of measuring progress on those two framings because, anecdotally, two of the ecological processes—ELMS rewilding and corridors—are working a lot better right now than protected areas. So we really need to understand what works and how we should move forward.
I have one final point. I know that I am over the time limit, so I will soon be quiet, but I really welcome the Government’s statement this morning on AI. It is a tool that we should be using in nature, such as using datasets to work out what works. We should use this as an opportunity.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on getting this debate. I am sad to say that nature does not seem to play much of a role in Labour’s aspirations for its term of office. The Prime Minister cannot stand tree-huggers like me and Rachel Reeves talks as if she wants to squash frogs and newts under the wheels of progress. It does not look good at the moment. Lots of people enjoy the countryside, litter-pick and clear paths. I do not think that they understand where Labour is going regarding biodiversity and nature; they see this as an issue that Labour cannot connect with.
Only yesterday, riverside campaigners discovered that, under new rules proposed by this Government, the precious waterways that they seek to clean up and protect would be unlikely ever to achieve bathing water status and thereby win the extra testing and safeguards of the Environment Agency. If these rivers are not safe for people, they are definitely not safe for wildlife. They are not great for fish and all the other ecosystems there. This is only a small issue, I guess, but this Government are aiming to undermine attempts by campaigners to use the EU-derived Bathing Water Regulations as a driver to clean up our toxic rivers, which of course suffer from sewage pollution, agricultural run-off and urban run-off.
Another proposed change by the Government is in their Planning and Infrastructure Bill. They want to move away from individual ecological assessments in the planning process and look at big plans, with lots of money being spent on nature somewhere else. This could inflict significant damage on UK biodiversity, as the developer will be allowed to erase biodiversity in one place as long as they do something that looks good in another place. I saw this at work when I was a councillor. It is a scam. Nature always loses out. Labour is moving in absolutely the wrong direction. Of course, this approach would violate international and domestic, legally binding commitments to restore and protect nature.
I want houses built and I want our energy system upgraded to cope with a massive increase in renewable energy. I also want those houses and renewable energy sources to be owned by local communities, not by developers who slow the whole system down. However, this Government appear to want to bypass the communities that protect their local landscapes and their rivers and biodiversity. When we are already one of the most nature-deprived countries in Europe, I am worried that the changes to the planning system in favour of developers—as well as the other backward steps that this Government are planning to take—will make things much worse. This is not what I expected from a Labour Government, and I do not think it is what a lot of Labour voters expected either.
I have two questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the urgency in tackling toxic pollution continues against the ongoing threat to our coastlines from underreported spills from oil and gas developments in the North Sea? We really are not protecting our marine protected areas. As I said earlier this week in the Chamber, only 5% of marine protected areas are actually protected, while the others are vulnerable to bottom trawling.
Secondly, the tanker collision is another shocking reminder of the polluting power of big oil, so I am curious as to why the Government have gone ahead with the last round of offshore oil licences in and around marine protected areas. I am more than happy to help Labour in any way if it would like some of our Green Party policies, which are so superb at protecting nature and biodiversity.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Grayling for enabling us to discuss this important subject. Nature-based solutions and the enhancement of our biodiversity are our greatest ally in tackling climate change and mitigating flood risk, yet we are in the midst of an ecological crisis both in the UK and globally. Over the past 50 years, the UK has lost nearly half of its biodiversity, making it one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. This is not just an environmental issue; it is an economic and social one, where the integrity of our natural environment should be enmeshed with the implementation of policy in order to support our food security, public health and economic stability.
The introduction of biodiversity net gain is a step in the right direction, requiring developers to leave nature in a better state than they found it. Biodiversity net gain is already starting to drive investment in habitat restoration. However, we must ensure that it delivers real, measurable improvements on the ground. That means robust enforcement, clear biodiversity metrics and a genuine focus on local nature recovery. This is not about box-ticking exercises or distant offsetting. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Grayling said about needing clarity on this subject.
Local nature recovery projects are another crucial piece of the puzzle. These projects give communities the tools to restore their own landscapes, whether through tree-planting, wetland creation or species reintroduction. However, ambition needs funding, which is why the Nature Restoration Fund must be expanded and made easier to access. Right now, too many projects are struggling to get off the ground due to bureaucracy or short-term funding cycles. If we are serious about reversing biodiversity loss, we need to match policy ambition with financial backing.
Of course, public funds alone cannot deliver the scale of restoration needed. The private sector must play a bigger role. For that to happen, though, we need the right financial incentives. One of the most effective ways to unlock private investment is to integrate the UK Woodland Carbon Code and the peatland code into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. This would give businesses a clear, regulated pathway to invest in nature-based carbon sequestration, ensuring that woodland creation and peatland restoration received long-term financial support. At a time when public funding is tight, this is a market-driven solution that could deliver major environmental and economic benefits.
Beyond our borders, the UK must continue to play a leadership role in global nature finance. At the Cali COP, we made real progress by securing a deal on resource mobilisation and launching the Cali Fund for nature. This new funding mechanism is designed to direct financial resources into biodiversity projects worldwide, particularly in countries on the front line of ecological collapse.
Here at home, there are further steps that we can take to drive nature recovery. Much of the debate is at the broader scale of biodiversity environment level but within our natural world are populations and individual sentient animals. We must develop and manage our natural world. Here I acknowledge the important Bill that my noble friend Lady Helic will bring forward in due course on a close season for hares. I urge action as soon as possible to resolve the long-standing inconsistency in our laws for animals. A close season for hares is long overdue: the shocking screams of hares as they are shot during driven shoots in February, at a time when does are pregnant and lactating, is an anathema to an animal-loving country.
I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds to this debate.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow and hear from my noble friend. I declare that I am a long-time supporter of and campaigner for the Conservative Environment Network. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on securing this debate and giving his cracking rallying cry at the start; it has been a fantastic debate thus far.
I want to start on a positive, as I always try to do when it is this Minister. I congratulate her because, finally, someone has delivered beavers. They have been released and, what is more, they were released on my birthday. I am very grateful for that present.
In a Question the other day, another of our furry friends was referred to. It is a heartfelt joy to see my noble friend Lady Helic speaking in this debate. I do not wish to steal her thunder—I could not do so even if I tried—but, as has been noted, she has a Private Member’s Bill on a close season for hares. Having suffered significant population decline where their wider habitats are threatened, they are a crucial part of the ecosystem. As has been said, the period is to reflect the breeding season when leverets—the baby hares—are dependent on their mothers and will not survive if the mother is killed for fun. Other parts of the country have this measure in place, as do vast swathes of the EU. I appreciate that it is for the Whips to decide when that Bill will appear for Second Reading but I would like—as we heard in the Chamber the other day, I am not alone in wanting to see something happen—to put in a plug: for those who have concerns, let us have that debate.
As has already been said, there is, as ever, concern about the future of British farming, not least with the recent announcements on SFI. I want to sense check something, because the Government, when they announced the ending of the scheme, said that it was successful—more so than ever before, they said—yet it appears to be too successful and was immediately scrapped. I do not quite understand that and I want to just check if the Government still believe in nature, not to mention farmers who are already feeling immense pressure.
Another issue, which has already been covered by other speakers, is bottom trawling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, I find it bizarre that we allow this practice in marine protected areas and still call them that. We seem to be in a position in which we say these areas are protected because we are able to monitor their activity, even when the majority of the MPAs see the activity take place. If the notion of bulldozing does not make Governments move—and I use the word “Governments” because it happened under us, I am afraid to say—then what about the economics? One report said there could be a benefit of between £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion over 20 years if the sites were protected from all damaging activity. Can the Minister say whether there has been any assessment of the benefits to sustainable fishers from the UK banning bottom trawling? Can the Minister give reassurances that we will not cave to the ramblings from nos amis français, will not retreat in the so-called EU reset and will learn from the Greeks, who are seen to be much more ahead and stopping it completely?
I will make a broader final point about nature and, crucially, rewilding. In a few days, it will be World Rewilding Day. We can make a difference on nature and biodiversity, but it is not only because we should feel better about ourselves—it is real. It is jobs and growth, health and food, it can educate and inform, and everyone can play their part, because nature is our ally. It is why beavers, rewiggling rivers and putting in nature help tackle the effects of weather, but also what we do to our country. It is about finding a way for man and nature to work together. I know we will study this when the planning Bill is discussed, but I am frustrated to hear endlessly some Ministers say that nature is blocking the building of homes—that, in effect, we cannot have both. The two are totally compatible and can prosper together.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on introducing this debate and I thank my noble friends for supporting my Private Member’s Bill, but above all for supporting hares. I recognise the Minister’s personal commitment to biodiversity and conservation, and I really welcome it. I thank her for all our conversations; I have walked away positive, but I do not know whether we are going to get anywhere. However, I thank her very much.
Global biodiversity is in freefall, driven by habitat destruction, intensive agriculture and unsustainable land management. The State of Nature report has, sadly, identified Britain as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. This is a matter of national heritage, ecological stability, and rural sustainability.
I commend the previous Government for pioneering the global biodiversity framework and embedding legally binding targets through the Environment Act 2021. I also welcome the current Government’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, but if we are serious about halting biodiversity loss we must focus on specific, meaningful actions. That is why I too urge the Government to address the plight of one of our most iconic yet vulnerable species: the hare.
Hare populations have declined by over 85% since the late 19th century, decimated by modern farming, habitat loss and unsustainable shooting practices. Despite this alarming decline, this is the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory close season, meaning that they can be shot legally throughout the year. This is both an animal welfare and a biodiversity issue. Hares are not just part of our national heritage; they play a crucial role in biodiversity. Their grazing habits promote plant diversity and their foraging improves soil health.
The Born Free Foundation has highlighted the suffering inflicted on hares, which others have already mentioned, particularly when they are killed during the breeding seasons. Leverets, which are entirely dependent on their mothers for survival, are left to slowly starve to death or fall victim to predators. Current protections are fragmented and ineffective, and voluntary codes, although welcome, have failed to prevent the indiscriminate killing of hares.
Like many others, I believe that a statutory close season would bring England and Wales into line with the best practices elsewhere, ensuring that biodiversity commitments are not undermined by avoidable cruelty. Furthermore, studies show that introducing a close season, as elsewhere in Europe or in Scotland, has already had an impact on improving hare numbers. A close season would not hinder farmers but enhance clarity and consistency, licences could still be granted to prevent crop damage, and the legal framework would provide better enforcement against the brutal and illegal practice of hare coursing, which farmers have long endured.
With that in mind, will the Government introduce a statutory closed season for hares? Will they commit to a review of the current regulatory framework to ensure consistency across all game species? If we are serious about restoring biodiversity, we cannot allow inconsistency to undermine our ambitions. A close season for hares would be a small but vital step—practical, proportionate and long overdue.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, bracken is a plant that deserves admiration. It is thought to be largely unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs and it has been found on every continent except, to date, Antarctica. It is found across the UK, from a garden to an almost inaccessible hillside.
Bracken supports specialist flora and fauna and is welcome as part of a mosaic of vegetation types. However, it can out-compete other vegetation due to several biological adaptations. If there is no effective management, this can result in dense monoculture stands with the loss of sensitive and diverse species—which, in comparison to the mosaic, are biological deserts. The Lake District is an example of an area which is suffering from this, but it is far from alone.
Currently, there is no reliable estimate of the area of bracken in the UK and of whether, and by how much, it is increasing. Farmers and land managers were able to use Asulox, which was an effective control method, especially as it was possible to apply it from a helicopter. With its withdrawal from the UK market, they believe the plant is spreading at a rate of up to 5% each year, and the many problems associated with bracken are mounting.
Bracken can block access for walkers. It reduces the amount of land available for livestock grazing and nature, especially for red-listed species such as curlew, lapwing and raptors. It provides a habitat for sheep ticks and tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease, which are increasingly impacting on people, livestock and wildlife. Bracken is highly toxic and there are strong links to certain types of human and mammalian cancers. The toxic exudates from bracken risk polluting water and drinking water supplies. Bracken is a source of fuel for damaging wildfires, and in the right conditions burns at a high temperature with a long flame length, producing a highly irritating deep yellow smoke with carcinogenic and cyanide properties. Limestone pavements, a priority habitat, can be damaged, as can any underground archaeology or structure, as Historic England warns us.
Successive Governments failed to grasp the problems of this pernicious weed because Asulox was available. Now an opportunity presents itself to assess all the problems scientifically and holistically. Farmers and land managers will be only too willing to help with the delivery of an approach that keeps bracken in check, and this will help achieve the Government’s goal in the 25-year environment plan of
“creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside the protected site network”.
However, farmers and land managers need to be given the necessary information, tools and support.
The proposed UK strategic bracken framework is welcome so far as it goes, but it risks looking at the problem only from the nature conservation angle, which is not good enough. As bracken is a hugely and surprisingly complicated subject, a cross-sector approach to its future management is essential. Only the Government will enable that. Therefore, will the Minister convene a conference of all interested groups so that the many issues can be addressed and placed in context, and an effective way forward identified?
I thank my noble friend for arranging this debate: it is hugely important. We will lose a lot of expertise on this particular subject when the hereditary Peers go, but I just ask the Government, when they consider anything to do with the environment, to please base it on sound science rather than emotion.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, what an interesting debate, from beavers to bracken. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for bringing this essential debate and for raising the important issues of bottom trawling, biodiversity net gain and forest risk products.
Biodiversity is the heartbeat of the planet, and famously we are one of the most nature-deprived nations in the world, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned. One in six of our species is indeed threatened with extinction. Five years on from our 30 by 2030 commitments, we have not really made progress, as just 2.93% of land and 9.92% of our oceans is protected.
My worry is, despite the strong words in Labour’s manifesto of a “nature emergency”—I welcome progress on some issues—whether we are really seeing the robust action, the legislative requirements and the funds to meet the monumental scale of the challenge. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to raise the issue of the mixed messages from Labour on growth.
We welcome the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, but how does it fit with the overall government strategy? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is absolutely right to raise the issue of strategy in this debate and ask what works. I understand Labour’s need for a short, sharp review, but this is separate from the environmental improvement plan, and, outside that framework, it is largely powerless and will soon be outdated. Will it be incorporated into the EIP? The Wildlife and Countryside Link says it is not clear whether the actions in this plan will add up to achieving the UK’s global nature commitments. The Office for Environmental Protection is clear that we are largely off-track, and the scale and the pace of the effort is not sufficient. The OEP’s recently published progress report is also very damaging. When will the Government respond to the OEP’s annual report?
We call on the Government to commit to incorporating all international biodiversity targets in the revised environmental improvement plan. This should include allocation of responsibility for delivery, along with evidence-based policies needed to achieve that delivery.
We need rapidly co-ordinated, properly funded, large-scale action. The polluter must pay. The Government must bring stronger legal protections and must provide the resources required for the Environment Agency to do the work it needs to do. We are running out of time. Fly-tipping, plastic pollution, sewage, forever chemicals, habitat loss and overfishing—the list goes on. The rapidly changing climate is compounding these problems. The window is closing fast, and we must do more to meet our biodiversity targets and commitments.
I conclude with some key points. Budgets are essential. I am particularly worried about growing pressures on the Defra budget, particularly for nature-based solutions. We must get nature-friendly farming right. We need our farmers; we must support them. They need certainty and reliability from this Government. The cut to the SFI budget, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, does not improve these relations.
When will we get a chemicals convention? We also need to stand up for climate science. The UK Government need to lead the world on this and stand up to Trump: stand up for truth.
Fly-tipping is an issue I have raised before, but when can we expect some legislation on this issue? It is blighting our countryside and is out of control. We need more on plastic pollution to encourage the circular economy. I welcome Labour’s commitment on woodlands and tree planting, but that has to happen.
I come to my final two points. Access to nature is vital, particularly in our cities. I call on the Government to include people, work with civil society and bring in citizen science; not only is it cost effective, it just makes sense.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a farmer, forestry developer, landowner, owner of fishing rights and investor in Circular FX, Cecil and Agricarbon, which provide services to the natural capital industry. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Grayling for securing this timely and important debate on the Government’s strategy for biodiversity and conservation. As Conservatives, we hold a deep-seated belief in our responsibility to preserve and enhance the natural heritage entrusted to us; that is why we brought forward the Environment Act 2021.
I must bring up the dreadful news on SFIs from Defra this week, as it impacts directly on the topic of this short debate: we expect farmers to deliver most of these improvements. Many were already facing unexpected financial hardship from the massive reduction in delinked payments, but this latest news adds many more who were expecting to transition to SFIs this year but had not yet applied. I ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of the impact of the SFI announcement on the financial viability of the farming industry? What impact will that have, in turn, on compliance with the legally binding commitment, delivered in our Environment Act, to deliver the 30% improvements in biodiversity and nature recovery? If incentives to benefit nature restoration and biodiversity largely target action by farmers and landowners, how can pausing them help?
The Government have committed to a nature restoration levy, which will possibly—I hope we will hear—replace the current biodiversity net gain system that we created. We on these Benches have grave concerns about its creation, as articulated by my noble friend Lord Grayling, and also about placing its administration with Natural England rather than with local authorities. How can the Minister reassure us that this will deliver better outcomes for nature?
Atlantic salmon populations have collapsed by over 75% in our rivers over the last 50 years, as evidenced by reported rod catches, and despite almost all fish being caught and released over recent years. The Atlantic salmon is a crucial indicator of the health of our river catchments and it is now on the IUCN red list. What specific measures will the Minister take to address water quality, pollution, selective restocking and habitat degradation in our rivers to support its and other species’ recovery? I urge the Minister to identify the salmon as a keystone species for biodiversity and nature restoration efforts. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, might agree with this strategy, given her comments on water quality. I note my noble friend Lady Helic’s comment that the hare is probably also a worthy inclusion as a keystone species to gauge the success of nature restoration.
I fully support the comments of my noble friend Lord Caithness: bracken can be a scourge, and it is depressing that its presence is so widespread in locations where we should really be planting trees in order to fulfil our strategy of restoring our woodland cover. My noble friend Lord Grayling mentioned the renegotiation of our TCA with the EU prior to mid-2026. I agree with his environmental comments and add that we also expect this Government to negotiate a deal that delivers complete zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone for British fishermen.
Given this Government’s disappointing financial decisions, and as my noble friend Lord Courtown rightly highlights, we need more private sector finance to replace the public purse. It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand what role she sees for private sector finance to replace public finance in biodiversity and conservation improvements. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply to this short debate and the many questions posed, in writing if necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, just said, there have been many questions and I have only 12 minutes to respond. I shall do my best but will of course write with any outstanding remarks that I need to make. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for tabling today’s debate. It has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate, with many different contributions, all of which have huge merit as we discuss how we restore biodiversity in our country. We know it will be a challenge—we have very challenging targets—but I want to assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to protecting nature, because we rely on biodiversity for food, for regulating our climate, for pest control and for many more things that support our ecosystems.
In England, as noble Lords will know, we have committed to ambitious targets to halt the decline by 2030, to reverse the decline by 2042, to reduce the risk of species extinction by 2042, and to restore and create over 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats by 2042. We are honouring commitments to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030—the 30 by 30 target; although it will be very challenging, it is extremely important.
The revised environmental improvement plan was mentioned. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the rapid review. In revising the plan, we aim to be clear on the role of the enablers—for example, green finance, which was mentioned by noble Lords. That needs to be implemented across government. We need to look at how enhancing nature supports the wider outcomes that the Government want, including for energy and growth. We will clarify Environment Act target delivery plans and update the interim targets to cover the five-year period from the completion of the review, in line with our statutory requirements. We will also clarify exactly how we intend to deliver the environmental improvement plan.
Local nature recovery strategies were mentioned. Those are being prepared currently and will be published. They will cover England, and the idea is to draw on the same data and principles as the land use framework, providing a key mechanism to enable progress. It is important that we join up all the different strategies and principles that we are taking forward. However, we are not waiting for the revised environmental improvement plan or the finalised land use framework to act. We have challenging targets, and we know that we need to take action on three fronts: to restore and create wildlife-rich habitats; to tackle pressures on biodiversity; and to take targeted action for specific species. Various species have been mentioned in the debate.
We know that our environmental land management schemes are crucial to enabling much of this. A number of noble Lords mentioned farming. An announcement was made this week on the SFI. A lot of questions were asked, but there will be a Statement on this issue on Tuesday and we can explore it in more detail then.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about planning and the Nature Restoration Fund. On Tuesday, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was introduced. The idea is that, through the Nature Restoration Fund, the Bill will provide a more efficient and effective way for obligations related to our most important sites and species to be discharged, at a scale whereby that action has the most impact. This will benefit development and nature recovery, where both are currently stalled.
I turn to fixed tariffs and the importance of developers behaving responsibly towards the environment. Developers must deliver a 10% increase in biodiversity, and the provisions are designed deliberately to discourage certain behaviours. Often with such issues, we need to see what happens in practice, but that is what the provisions are designed to do. I hope that helps reassure noble Lords.
The noble Lord asked about biodiversity net gain and the Nature Restoration Fund and how they will work together. The idea is that BNG and the Nature Restoration Fund will work in a joined-up manner, to maximise outcomes. The development section of the Nature Restoration Fund specifically addresses environmental impact and biodiversity net gain and will continue to apply. This is to ensure that developers are incentivised to reduce their biodiversity impact on site and to secure future residents’ and local people’s access to nature. That is extremely important to ensure that people do not lose that. We want to continue to seek opportunities to grow biodiversity net gain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the planning Bill and the impact it will have on nature. We are absolutely committed, when it comes to that legislation, that steps will be undertaken to deliver positive environmental outcomes. I encourage the noble Baroness to read the National Planning Policy Framework, in which the environment is central.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the metrics around biodiversity. We have 55 individual measures comprising 29 indicators at the UK level. England and the UK biodiversity indicators are accredited official statistics and cover a wide range of species, including birds, butterflies, mammals and plants, in addition to habitats and the extent and condition of protected areas, as well as indicators for the response to pressures such as pollution and climate change. I hope that is helpful.
The water industry was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I assure him that we are doing a lot of work around this. He will be aware of the work that Sir John Cunliffe is doing. We absolutely recognise the importance of salmon and of Scottish businesses in this area. Clearly, we need to work together on this.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned pesticides. We are taking action to ensure that pesticides are used more sustainably—for example, we have committed to ending completely the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides that we know carry substantial risk to pollinators. We published a policy statement last year that sets out the next steps around pesticide commitments.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about bracken—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and others talked about beavers. I am really pleased that we have been able to set out our approach to the wild release and management of beavers in England. Beavers can bring enormous benefits, and I am pleased that we have management tools in place so that they are in the right place and can be managed properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about bottom trawling, and other noble Lords asked about it, too. The noble Lord asked whether we would complete the previous Government’s work on this. At the moment, we are considering our next steps to manage bottom trawling, along with other fishing methods, where it could damage MPA features or benthic habitats, in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations. We are keen to carry on working closely with fisheries and marine stakeholders, as well as environmentalists, as we develop future plans for fisheries and the marine environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about the impact of the EU reset on fisheries and environmental standards. I cannot talk about what we are discussing on the EU reset, but, clearly, all these things are taken into consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked some questions around bottom trawling. The first two stages of the Marine Management Organisation’s offshore by-laws programme introduced by-laws in marine protected areas. Currently, our figures say that this protects 10.87% of English waters from bottom-towed fishing. Clearly, it is something that we need to be working on.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about deforestation. We recognise the urgency of taking action to ensure that UK consumption of forestry commodities is not driving deforestation. I hope we will soon be setting out our approach to this.
A number of Members asked about green finance, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. We recognise the huge importance of mobilising private finance into nature’s recovery. We are doing a lot of work on this and will be grateful to work with noble Lords on suggestions for how we can move forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned the Cali Fund. We are working closely with businesses across a lot of sectors to see how we can take this forward.
There were a number of other questions, but I have only 10 seconds left. I want to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that I absolutely heard what she has been saying about hares. There needs to be consistency—we completely appreciate that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, spoke about rewilding. We have our own rewilding project at home. I personally have seen the benefits that rewilding in the right place can bring. I end by saying that, two weeks ago, we found that we had curlews.