Lords Chamber
Friday 3rd July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 days, 3 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:06
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
could I not be? Given how much I've done in my time, indeed in the done in my time, indeed in the Lords, I think it's been particularly helpful. We don't have constituents to inform us of what needs doing or not doing by a government. So it's really good that we hear from those with a that we hear from those with a particular interest or knowledge to be able to bring their way to Westminster and bringing to us Westminster and bringing to us their lived experience and the legitimate aims of their needs, of their sector, their company, or indeed their beneficiaries into the public forum to our actual or metaphorical peers lobby.
And we've seen laws change for the better by effective lobbying. The NSPCC and children's charities helped achieve the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The British Lung Foundation's work on banning smoking in cars carrying children led to the Smoke Free Private Vehicles Regulations 2015, and pressure on Ministers by the Samaritans and others helped create the 2023 Online Safety Act. British Heart Foundation and family groups provided the momentum for the Organ Donation Deemed Consent Act. Meanwhile, the Abi and other bodies wisely used their access to help rewrite the National Security Act 2023 to ensure to ensure that the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme was fit for purpose.
The Racs meeting with a Minister about headlight glare resulted in a change of approach to this problem, and the Royal Osteoporosis Society will continue to meet Ministers to ensure they keep their promise to have fracture liaison services available nationwide by the end of the decade. So lobbying is something legitimate, something I support and something which is beneficial to how we make our laws. It's not always successful, of course. My campaign to increase duty on alcohol seems forever doomed.
You win some, you lose some. In a democracy, good governance depends on decision makers hearing from a wide range of voices. But businesses, interest groups, think tanks, trade associations or charities should not depend for their access on who they happen to know, or which conduit they can use to get a hearing. But more than that, we should all know who has the ear of government. Legitimate representations should be open and above board, not hidden below the waves. This bill is about transparency, and that is crucial for public trust.
As we discussed in debate yesterday. There are, of course, two sides to lobbying. There are those who are doing the lobbying, and there are those who are being lobbied. The regime for neither is working properly, though the Ethics and Integrity Commission, tasked by the Prime Minister to improve transparency around lobbying, will consider those being lobbied when it reports next week. My bill is about who's doing the lobbying, seeing Ministers or permanent secretaries to put their quite valid points on legislation, on policy or on procurement, because at the moment, the only organisations which have to register and report are consultant lobbyists, probably covering 5% of this country's lobbying activity.
And the other 95%. This is done directly by companies, trade associations, professional bodies, think tanks or charities using their own personnel rather than outside consultants. Yet these approaches to government from in-house people are excluded from the need to register. Under the 2014 act. They fly under the radar, so perhaps a small pressure group or an SME or consumer representatives wanting to talk to Ministers could be about the safety of a fertiliser. Duty on alcohol, the use of a weapon, online safety, a local planning issue.
Should those small organisations need some outside help to make their case to a Minister? They would then find their advisers and themselves named on the register. By contrast, any organisation that uses its own people, whether its public affairs department or indeed its chief executive or chair, to speak to government. And that could be the big. Pharmaceutical companies, drinks trade associations, defence companies, big tech developers. They can see a Minister with no requirement to register or to report, and no obligation to sign up to a lobbying code of conduct.
That's an inequality of openness between those making their case to government, to themselves, and those who use an outside agency to help. My Lords, the public, either directly or via MPs, via journalists or interested parties, has the right to know who's talking to Ministers about decisions about to be taken. So any organisation seeking to influence government policy or practice, legislation or procurement should have to register and report a bit of sunlight will do no one any harm.
But, my Lords, we have two options. We can wait till we have another scandal and then rush through legislation. Or. The second option is that we grasp the nettle now, which lobbyists, representatives themselves, the Cipr and the PRCA want by bringing the hidden 95% of lobbying into the open and by passing this bill, enabling the existing register of consultant lobbyists to become a register of lobbying, no longer just catching the tiny minority operating as consultants.
This bill would set it therefore, simply extend the existing register from covering only those lobbying firms and put any organisation which puts its view to a Minister or permanent secretary, or indeed to a Spad onto the register. This goes no further than other comparative democracies. It requires openness about normal legal behaviour undertaken by in-house executive. At present, our UK register lists just under 300 entries. Scotland, by contrast, has 1500 and Canada has 8000. Because both cover in-house lobbyists, as do most other countries registers.
So let's do it now. Let's not wait for a scandal. Simply, any organisation which lobbies should register. It's not difficult. It's the right thing to do. I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move you. Question is. If this bill be now read a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If this bill be now read a second time. My Lords, I. Congratulate the noble Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on her Hayter of Kentish Town on her success in the private member's Bill ballot. And while the official opposition cannot support the Bill opposition cannot support the Bill in its current form, it is a very interesting Bill which seeks to address one of the most important issues in any free, direct democratic society, namely transparency and in the interest of transparency.
Eyebrows were raised when peers received an email from Inflect Partners, a strategic communication and public affairs consultancy. The email said I am writing on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, Cipr, to share a short briefing and ask whether you would consider speaking in support of Baroness Hayter Lobbying transparency in-house lobbyist bill at the Second Reading debate on Friday 3rd July. My Lords, there is some irony in the lobbying email being issued to support a bill on lobbying. So does the Chartered Institute of Public Relations stand to gain from this bill? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, can illuminate us, my Lords.
While this bill is very short, its effect is very broad. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is is correct that the current registration rules under the 2014 act cover just a small number of the. Of the activity activities that could be termed lobbying. There are just 240 registered consultant lobbyists in the country, and the office of the registrar employs just three staff members in addition to the registrar. The 2014 act was never meant to be comprehensive. The bill before us, my Lords, though it may be tightly drafted, is not targeted.
It expands the registration rules to encompass a whole range of communications. If this bill becomes law, almost all persons communicating with Ministers or permanent secretaries on behalf of their employer, engage or principal, or with the intent of furthering the interests of their employer, engager or principal will have to register. Yes, many would like to see greater transparency of
And we've seen laws change for the better by effective lobbying. The NSPCC and children's charities helped achieve the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The British Lung Foundation's work on banning smoking in cars carrying children led to the Smoke Free Private Vehicles Regulations 2015, and pressure on Ministers by the Samaritans and others helped create the 2023 Online Safety Act. British Heart Foundation and family groups provided the momentum for the Organ Donation Deemed Consent Act. Meanwhile, the Abi and other bodies wisely used their access to help rewrite the National Security Act 2023 to ensure to ensure that the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme was fit for purpose.
The Racs meeting with a Minister about headlight glare resulted in a change of approach to this problem, and the Royal Osteoporosis Society will continue to meet Ministers to ensure they keep their promise to have fracture liaison services available nationwide by the end of the decade. So lobbying is something legitimate, something I support and something which is beneficial to how we make our laws. It's not always successful, of course. My campaign to increase duty on alcohol seems forever doomed.
You win some, you lose some. In a democracy, good governance depends on decision makers hearing from a wide range of voices. But businesses, interest groups, think tanks, trade associations or charities should not depend for their access on who they happen to know, or which conduit they can use to get a hearing. But more than that, we should all know who has the ear of government. Legitimate representations should be open and above board, not hidden below the waves. This bill is about transparency, and that is crucial for public trust.
As we discussed in debate yesterday. There are, of course, two sides to lobbying. There are those who are doing the lobbying, and there are those who are being lobbied. The regime for neither is working properly, though the Ethics and Integrity Commission, tasked by the Prime Minister to improve transparency around lobbying, will consider those being lobbied when it reports next week. My bill is about who's doing the lobbying, seeing Ministers or permanent secretaries to put their quite valid points on legislation, on policy or on procurement, because at the moment, the only organisations which have to register and report are consultant lobbyists, probably covering 5% of this country's lobbying activity.
And the other 95%. This is done directly by companies, trade associations, professional bodies, think tanks or charities using their own personnel rather than outside consultants. Yet these approaches to government from in-house people are excluded from the need to register. Under the 2014 act. They fly under the radar, so perhaps a small pressure group or an SME or consumer representatives wanting to talk to Ministers could be about the safety of a fertiliser. Duty on alcohol, the use of a weapon, online safety, a local planning issue.
Should those small organisations need some outside help to make their case to a Minister? They would then find their advisers and themselves named on the register. By contrast, any organisation that uses its own people, whether its public affairs department or indeed its chief executive or chair, to speak to government. And that could be the big. Pharmaceutical companies, drinks trade associations, defence companies, big tech developers. They can see a Minister with no requirement to register or to report, and no obligation to sign up to a lobbying code of conduct.
That's an inequality of openness between those making their case to government, to themselves, and those who use an outside agency to help. My Lords, the public, either directly or via MPs, via journalists or interested parties, has the right to know who's talking to Ministers about decisions about to be taken. So any organisation seeking to influence government policy or practice, legislation or procurement should have to register and report a bit of sunlight will do no one any harm.
But, my Lords, we have two options. We can wait till we have another scandal and then rush through legislation. Or. The second option is that we grasp the nettle now, which lobbyists, representatives themselves, the Cipr and the PRCA want by bringing the hidden 95% of lobbying into the open and by passing this bill, enabling the existing register of consultant lobbyists to become a register of lobbying, no longer just catching the tiny minority operating as consultants.
This bill would set it therefore, simply extend the existing register from covering only those lobbying firms and put any organisation which puts its view to a Minister or permanent secretary, or indeed to a Spad onto the register. This goes no further than other comparative democracies. It requires openness about normal legal behaviour undertaken by in-house executive. At present, our UK register lists just under 300 entries. Scotland, by contrast, has 1500 and Canada has 8000. Because both cover in-house lobbyists, as do most other countries registers.
So let's do it now. Let's not wait for a scandal. Simply, any organisation which lobbies should register. It's not difficult. It's the right thing to do. I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move you. Question is. If this bill be now read a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If this bill be now read a second time. My Lords, I. Congratulate the noble Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on her Hayter of Kentish Town on her success in the private member's Bill ballot. And while the official opposition cannot support the Bill opposition cannot support the Bill in its current form, it is a very interesting Bill which seeks to address one of the most important issues in any free, direct democratic society, namely transparency and in the interest of transparency.
Eyebrows were raised when peers received an email from Inflect Partners, a strategic communication and public affairs consultancy. The email said I am writing on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, Cipr, to share a short briefing and ask whether you would consider speaking in support of Baroness Hayter Lobbying transparency in-house lobbyist bill at the Second Reading debate on Friday 3rd July. My Lords, there is some irony in the lobbying email being issued to support a bill on lobbying. So does the Chartered Institute of Public Relations stand to gain from this bill? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, can illuminate us, my Lords.
While this bill is very short, its effect is very broad. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is is correct that the current registration rules under the 2014 act cover just a small number of the. Of the activity activities that could be termed lobbying. There are just 240 registered consultant lobbyists in the country, and the office of the registrar employs just three staff members in addition to the registrar. The 2014 act was never meant to be comprehensive. The bill before us, my Lords, though it may be tightly drafted, is not targeted.
It expands the registration rules to encompass a whole range of communications. If this bill becomes law, almost all persons communicating with Ministers or permanent secretaries on behalf of their employer, engage or principal, or with the intent of furthering the interests of their employer, engager or principal will have to register. Yes, many would like to see greater transparency of
10:16
Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Finn (Conservative)
engagements between stakeholders and Ministers, but that broad and well-intentioned principle would well-intentioned principle would represent a huge administrative burden on business. We are concerned that such a burden would disincentivise businesses, charities and other stakeholders charities and other stakeholders from engaging freely with Ministers. My Lords, I hope we can have a constructive debate today and at constructive debate today and at committee and report stages. The principle of transparency is not contested and it is essential. Ministers and departments are transparent in their own contact with lobbyists.
The previous government committed to develop a single database to collate and publish departments. Transparency returns. This appears to have been scrapped. So I would ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to say why this might be the case. Our foremost concern is to avoid unintended and unexpected negative consequences for small businesses, charities and stakeholders. We are also interested in the risks to well-intentioned individuals who are simply unaware of the new, broader rules. The capacity for the office of the registrar to handle the rise in registrations, and finally, the issue of the annual registration fee on burdens.
The broader application of the lobbying register rules will see many more people subject to the burden of registering with the office of the registrar. In some ways, this is not a cumbersome step. The register is now well established and it should not be difficult for individuals to use the service. But no matter how easy it is to register, this is a new administrative burden. Furthermore, we must not forget that those registered with the UK office for the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists pay annual fees of £1,000.
Nothing in the noble Baroness. Lady Hayter's built a men's section 22 of the 2014 act. That means the £1,000 annual fee will apply to in-house lobbyists, just as it applies to consultant lobbyists. Contrast that with the fact that the average UK small business has a profit margin of £70,000, and we see that two members of staff having to register at a total cost of £2,000 is not an insignificant burden for smaller organisations. As we proceed to committee and report stages, we will seek to establish protections for small and medium businesses and other smaller stakeholders.
My Lords, we want businesses, especially small ones and other stakeholders to have open channels of regular communication with Ministers. So can the noble Baroness say whether she has reflected on the interaction between the £1,000 per annum registration fees and the proposed wider rules on stakeholders willingness to make representations to government? Further to that, I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness could confirm one point. So, for example, should a Minister meet a pub landlord on a visit and that landlord goes on to tell him or her that the government must cut alcohol duty, reform business rates or abandon Ed Miliband's obsessive net zero policy.
Would the landlord have to register and pay his £1,000 fee? And if yes, does she accept that landlords will feel disinclined to give the Minister a piece of their mind? Is that not an obstruction to good government? I accept, my Lords, that this is an unlikely hypothetical scenario. Since the Prime Minister and Chancellor, along with many Ministers and government MPs, are banned from their local pubs in protest at the government's appalling anti-business policies. But it does illustrate the point on unintended harms to individuals.
I would like to consider another example. Under this bill, an in-house lobbyist who fails to register within the three month registration period, whether that be a mistake or not, faces a civil penalty of up to £7,500 or an unlimited fine on conviction. Is it reasonable and proportional for a small business owner who may be unaware of these rules to face that? So what thought has the noble Baroness given to protections for well-intentioned, well-intentioned, upstanding people who fall foul of the rules through ignorance, as they will if we broaden the scope of the law in this way and on the possible backlogs in registration.
What assessment has the noble Baroness made of the capacity of the four people currently in the office of the registrar to cope with the large increases in registrations? As she pointed out, there are just 240 people currently on the register. The EU has over 17,500 organisations on their register and the Scottish Parliament 1642. And finally, can the noble Baroness tell the House what her view is on the £1,000 annual registration on the £1,000 annual registration fees? Does she feel that the fee is reasonable for a small business or charity, simply for allowing the Prime Minister or any other Minister to visit and discuss business? My Lords, I hope we can all have a constructive debate on the principles underpinning this Bill, but there are a number of unanswered questions to consider, and I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and to further debates at later stages.
The previous government committed to develop a single database to collate and publish departments. Transparency returns. This appears to have been scrapped. So I would ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to say why this might be the case. Our foremost concern is to avoid unintended and unexpected negative consequences for small businesses, charities and stakeholders. We are also interested in the risks to well-intentioned individuals who are simply unaware of the new, broader rules. The capacity for the office of the registrar to handle the rise in registrations, and finally, the issue of the annual registration fee on burdens.
The broader application of the lobbying register rules will see many more people subject to the burden of registering with the office of the registrar. In some ways, this is not a cumbersome step. The register is now well established and it should not be difficult for individuals to use the service. But no matter how easy it is to register, this is a new administrative burden. Furthermore, we must not forget that those registered with the UK office for the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists pay annual fees of £1,000.
Nothing in the noble Baroness. Lady Hayter's built a men's section 22 of the 2014 act. That means the £1,000 annual fee will apply to in-house lobbyists, just as it applies to consultant lobbyists. Contrast that with the fact that the average UK small business has a profit margin of £70,000, and we see that two members of staff having to register at a total cost of £2,000 is not an insignificant burden for smaller organisations. As we proceed to committee and report stages, we will seek to establish protections for small and medium businesses and other smaller stakeholders.
My Lords, we want businesses, especially small ones and other stakeholders to have open channels of regular communication with Ministers. So can the noble Baroness say whether she has reflected on the interaction between the £1,000 per annum registration fees and the proposed wider rules on stakeholders willingness to make representations to government? Further to that, I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness could confirm one point. So, for example, should a Minister meet a pub landlord on a visit and that landlord goes on to tell him or her that the government must cut alcohol duty, reform business rates or abandon Ed Miliband's obsessive net zero policy.
Would the landlord have to register and pay his £1,000 fee? And if yes, does she accept that landlords will feel disinclined to give the Minister a piece of their mind? Is that not an obstruction to good government? I accept, my Lords, that this is an unlikely hypothetical scenario. Since the Prime Minister and Chancellor, along with many Ministers and government MPs, are banned from their local pubs in protest at the government's appalling anti-business policies. But it does illustrate the point on unintended harms to individuals.
I would like to consider another example. Under this bill, an in-house lobbyist who fails to register within the three month registration period, whether that be a mistake or not, faces a civil penalty of up to £7,500 or an unlimited fine on conviction. Is it reasonable and proportional for a small business owner who may be unaware of these rules to face that? So what thought has the noble Baroness given to protections for well-intentioned, well-intentioned, upstanding people who fall foul of the rules through ignorance, as they will if we broaden the scope of the law in this way and on the possible backlogs in registration.
What assessment has the noble Baroness made of the capacity of the four people currently in the office of the registrar to cope with the large increases in registrations? As she pointed out, there are just 240 people currently on the register. The EU has over 17,500 organisations on their register and the Scottish Parliament 1642. And finally, can the noble Baroness tell the House what her view is on the £1,000 annual registration on the £1,000 annual registration fees? Does she feel that the fee is reasonable for a small business or charity, simply for allowing the Prime Minister or any other Minister to visit and discuss business? My Lords, I hope we can all have a constructive debate on the principles underpinning this Bill, but there are a number of unanswered questions to consider, and I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and to further debates at later stages.
10:22
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
My Lords, I am very pleased to contribute to today's debate, and it's a pleasure to follow the noble it's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Like many members, I occasionally show visitors around the house, including Americans. I take them to central lobby and I say, here it is. It is a place. It is a noun. And I say, of course it is also a verb. That is the place where people come to meet their members of Parliament as they have every right to do.
And the problem, of course, is when. Well, there's nothing wrong with lobbying. It's an integral part of our system of Parliament and government, and indeed all members of Parliament themselves, including humble backbenchers on the government side in this House, are lobbying and lobbyists. The dangers only begin to emerge when financial benefit arises and when money is involved. I want to concentrate on the benefits of lobbying for influence, which goes on all the time. Now, this is a bill about transparency and accountability, and I'd like to think that there are two principles that commend themselves to all sides of this House.
And as I've mentioned, Americans. Tomorrow is, of course, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the United States. And if I may, I'd like to quote one of the most famous justices of the American Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Brandeis. Sunlight, he said, is the best disinfectant. And I think that this phrase remains very relevant to discussing the subject of this bill. Now, my noble friend has argued that the rules, as they currently are under the 2014 act, leave a large loophole and that this bill provides the remedy, though it does involve some considerable administrative consequences.
Now, previous governments have argued, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will argue the same case today, that there is already a regime in place whereby government Ministers and permanent secretaries of government departments voluntarily disclose information about who they meet on a quarterly basis. But is this enough? My Lords, I do not think so. The Committee on Standards in Public Life produced a report in 2021, not long after I myself arrived here, which specifically argued for the Cabinet Office to collate all departmental transparency information and publish it in an accessible and above all, searchable database.
They also advocated an expansion of the register to include contact between lobbying companies and SPADs and senior directors director level civil servants. Now, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could have something to say on this point, but that committee stopped short of calling for the register to be expanded to include in-house lobbyists. Now, as the House knows, the Post-legislative scrutiny of the act by the Pacac committee in another place also stopped short of recommending the extension to cover in-house lobbyists. However, it did refer to loopholes which should be closed and the March 2026 Rykoff review specifically drew attention to the current VAT exemption under the 2014 act, which in effect now allows foreign lobbying firms of foreign based subsidiaries of the UK lobbying companies not to register.
This is a error, and I hope my noble friend the Minister can address this now. And as has been mentioned already in this debate, outgoing Prime Minister commissioned the new Ethics and Integrity Commission in March to review, among other things, quote, the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying and whether they are sufficient. And if the report is being published next week, then we look forward to what the answer will be. And maybe the Minister can also say something about that. And as for the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, already referred to, their survey, found that two thirds wanted the lobbying register to include both consultants and in-house lobbyists.
Now, if the House wants to know why I take an interest in the this private member's bill, it is this. It is my own experience. Before I was elected to serve in this House, I worked in the science community on behalf and for the science community. As I knew a little bit about how Parliament worked. Indeed, in the family in which I grew up, it was impossible not to know a little. I was called upon to help represent the science community to both Parliament and government, and I did so in various ways, such as organising events and arranging meetings.
And I suppose you could say I did this work in house. I organised on behalf of the science community, year after year, decade after decade, the biggest science events ever held in the house. I hope the House will not mind if I give a couple of examples. Parliamentary links day brought together the whole scientific community on a single day. Each summer comprised a huge standing room only meeting in the House of Commons and another major event here in this House, and you only had to look at the invitation card to see what I mean.
All the major science sectoral societies were represented biology, maths, physics, chemistry, engineering, and as well as many of our national academies such as the Royal Society. But the event was all about educating members on science and technology issues and making the case for science and technology and the resources needed to fund them. We got speakers year after year from the Cabinet, the Foreign Secretary, the Environment secretary, the Health secretary, the International Development secretary, the science Minister, not always in the Cabinet, but crucial as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Indeed, 21 years ago this year, the Prime Minister, the then Prime Minister himself addressed Parliamentary Day. And I can well remember the frisson in the room. And people were astonished to find the Prime Minister walking in to address them. In 2001, I brought together a wide range of scientific organisations to produce the first ever charter for Science and Engineering, which the then Chancellor subsequently responded to point by point when launching the ten year Investment Strategy for science. Voice of the future is another event which is still going, and it brings young scientists and engineers to Parliament to question the Minister, the shadow Minister, the chief scientific adviser, members of both houses, Select Committee on Science and Technology.
They sat at the witness table and the young scientists and engineers sat around the horseshoe questioning them. And it used to be launched by the speaker himself. I also organised parliamentary receptions, not just for the Christmas reception at which we gave awards for outstanding contribution to the cause of science. We had other ones, indeed, my noble friend Lord Anderson over there will remember himself the reception we organised to welcome back Helen Sharman, the first British person in space, and that was quite a long time ago.
About ten years ago, I arranged for Tim Peake, a name you may also remember to give the first ever evidence to a select committee from space that was took place in the Boothroyd Room, and I can tell you that I remember meeting the parliamentary engineers who worked in the basement at Millbank, and they were thrilled when the first signals came through from NASA conveying Tim Peake and the noble Baroness Baroness Blackwood, not sadly, in her place at the moment was the chair of the committee at the time, and if you don't believe me, you can ask her all about it, because it was really quite an event now, and all in parallel with all of this is the work done by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which, as it happens, I am now president, but we organise the annual Stem for Britain event, which takes place in another place, which brings early career scientists and engineers to meet their own local members of Parliament and exhibit their work.
And it's highly competitive now. My purpose in giving these examples is to illustrate that lobbying activity goes of this kind goes on all the time, and it is about seeking influence. Now, my Lords, I've run out of time. Parliament is not a museum. It is a workshop. And this type of activity is to be encouraged and expanding. The 2014 Act register will do no harm and may well increase the sunlight. We can shine on the whole area of lobbying. So when it comes to this bill, I, my Lords, will be voting for sunlight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount Stansgate. I was much entertained by that and much entertained by that and thought he, along with the proposer of the bill, in the way in which of the bill, in the way in which she introduced the Bill, I thought quite rightly said, this is not about trying to restrict lobbying about trying to restrict lobbying activity. It's about trying to introduce transparency in relation to lobbying activity. We want to to lobbying activity.
We want to see lobbying take place. I'm reminded in relation to the to the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War, Benjamin Franklin, of course, his major contribution was as a lobbyist in London and in Paris. So lobbying can play its essential part in creating democracy as well as in sustaining it. I should declare an interest. I am director of a company that is on the register of consultant lobbyists, principally. And I think for recent in recent times, only because they act as a secretariat to development forums and contact planning and housing Ministers in that context.
But I am also an adviser to a company in Brussels that is on the transparency register of the European Union. And I will come back to the comparison between those two registers. I should also declare an interest in that. I was the Minister responsible for the 2014 legislation. Under the coalition government and with the benefit in the other place of being supported in that task by the Deputy Leader of the House, Tom brake, who is now the distinguished director of Unlock Democracy and is, I suspect, a supporter of this bill.
So it will it will make it may surprise the the proposer of a bill that, in principle, I support what she is attempting to do. I'm going to, I'm afraid, irritate her by saying, while I agree in principle, I. I disagree in almost every practicality of how she's doing that. The. And the reason is because I come back to this comparison between the Westminster Register and the Brussels. The EU transparency Register. It is virtually impossible in Westminster.
Register to reconcile the Quarterly information reports that Ministers make about their meetings with the consultant lobbyists who are on the Register to try to see how do they directly relate to one another in terms of meetings, and especially in terms of content? There is nothing about the content. Yeah, I should remind the House that in in 20 1314, when the bill was going through the reason and it's not reflected accurately in the library briefing, unusually, the reason why it was not extended to companies that were not consultant lobbyists is because we had in 2010, in the coalition government, introduced that ministerial reporting requirement.
As far as we were concerned at the time, the ministerial return would make it perfectly transparent if any company on its own behalf met a Minister, because that would appear in the quarterly return for Ministers. The point was a meeting by a public affairs or consultant firm with a minute with a Minister might appear in the minister's return. But you didn't know on whose behalf they were speaking. That was why the register of Consultant lobbying was established, and why it had the parameters that it did.
It was not an intention to restrict transparency. It was an intention to add a transparent register where the quarterly information return would not provide the information. So why do I think we need to go further? Well, there are capacity. There is a capacity within the bill to go further. Which administration since 2014 have not used. And those are twofold. One was mentioned previously to add special advisers to the Ministers and permanent secretaries, because actually consultant lobbyists know perfectly well that special advisers are an extremely effective way of avoiding the transparency that the register is meant to provide that is available under the by secondary legislation under I think it's in section two of the of the of the act.
The other is section 23 gives Ministers the regulatory power to change what information is required to be provided to the register. And there is a very big difference. I won't bore the House by enumerating enumerating the differences between the Westminster Register return and the EU return. But the EU return is far more substantial in terms of what you know about an organisation that is seeking to influence the policy of the European Union, you know, on whose behalf is working, what clients, what funding it receives, what in what band of of financial activity is it devoting to this task and so on and so on and so on.
Why do I think actually the EU register now is a better way of doing things? Because actually you can reconcile the content of lobbying with the organisation that is doing it and who they're doing it on behalf of, and what devote, what resources they are devoting to it. And I think if we're going to be transparent, we might as well go to the EU register, but it is substantially different from the one we have in the 2004 act. The 2004 act is constructed around regulating the person who lobbies, whereas the EU register is about regulating the nature of the activity itself, and it is possible to move the 2014 act in that direction, and I suggest we should.
But this this bill does not sufficiently do that. I'll give you just one example in schedule one, paragraph one, subparagraph one, an exclusion exemption from the requirement to register is if the person conducting the communication with Ministers or permanent secretaries does so in a manner that is an an organisation in a business which for which lobbying is not the main activity. Most organisations will say we're covered by the exemption. Lobbying is incidental to what we do, and so most organisations will say we don't need to register and when they do register, they'll get very confused about who they register.
Should it be the chief executive? Should it be everybody? Well, the EU doesn't have that. The EU register does not have that problem. Everybody the organisation is registered, not the individuals within it. So I do suggest at this stage, given its Second Reading, we say yes to the principle of trying to do something about this, but we may have to come back in committee at looking at how we do it in some detail, because I think it is not simply putting in-house lobbyists alongside consultant lobbyists.
It's about shifting from consultant lobbying and in-house lobbying to creating a register, which is about organisations who are seeking to influence the the legislation and policy of the government, and they should be on the register in the same way as is true in the Brussels register. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Hayter in noble friend Baroness Hayter in bringing forward this Bill, and I agree with every single word she put forward in her introduction. Going back to first principles, I agree that lobbying is a useful agree that lobbying is a useful part of democracy, and like many members of this House, I have done my fair share, possibly more than my fair share, possibly more than my fair share of lobbying. Meeting Ministers over many decades to talk about issues that concerned organisations that I represented.
And the problem, of course, is when. Well, there's nothing wrong with lobbying. It's an integral part of our system of Parliament and government, and indeed all members of Parliament themselves, including humble backbenchers on the government side in this House, are lobbying and lobbyists. The dangers only begin to emerge when financial benefit arises and when money is involved. I want to concentrate on the benefits of lobbying for influence, which goes on all the time. Now, this is a bill about transparency and accountability, and I'd like to think that there are two principles that commend themselves to all sides of this House.
And as I've mentioned, Americans. Tomorrow is, of course, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the United States. And if I may, I'd like to quote one of the most famous justices of the American Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Brandeis. Sunlight, he said, is the best disinfectant. And I think that this phrase remains very relevant to discussing the subject of this bill. Now, my noble friend has argued that the rules, as they currently are under the 2014 act, leave a large loophole and that this bill provides the remedy, though it does involve some considerable administrative consequences.
Now, previous governments have argued, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will argue the same case today, that there is already a regime in place whereby government Ministers and permanent secretaries of government departments voluntarily disclose information about who they meet on a quarterly basis. But is this enough? My Lords, I do not think so. The Committee on Standards in Public Life produced a report in 2021, not long after I myself arrived here, which specifically argued for the Cabinet Office to collate all departmental transparency information and publish it in an accessible and above all, searchable database.
They also advocated an expansion of the register to include contact between lobbying companies and SPADs and senior directors director level civil servants. Now, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could have something to say on this point, but that committee stopped short of calling for the register to be expanded to include in-house lobbyists. Now, as the House knows, the Post-legislative scrutiny of the act by the Pacac committee in another place also stopped short of recommending the extension to cover in-house lobbyists. However, it did refer to loopholes which should be closed and the March 2026 Rykoff review specifically drew attention to the current VAT exemption under the 2014 act, which in effect now allows foreign lobbying firms of foreign based subsidiaries of the UK lobbying companies not to register.
This is a error, and I hope my noble friend the Minister can address this now. And as has been mentioned already in this debate, outgoing Prime Minister commissioned the new Ethics and Integrity Commission in March to review, among other things, quote, the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying and whether they are sufficient. And if the report is being published next week, then we look forward to what the answer will be. And maybe the Minister can also say something about that. And as for the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, already referred to, their survey, found that two thirds wanted the lobbying register to include both consultants and in-house lobbyists.
Now, if the House wants to know why I take an interest in the this private member's bill, it is this. It is my own experience. Before I was elected to serve in this House, I worked in the science community on behalf and for the science community. As I knew a little bit about how Parliament worked. Indeed, in the family in which I grew up, it was impossible not to know a little. I was called upon to help represent the science community to both Parliament and government, and I did so in various ways, such as organising events and arranging meetings.
And I suppose you could say I did this work in house. I organised on behalf of the science community, year after year, decade after decade, the biggest science events ever held in the house. I hope the House will not mind if I give a couple of examples. Parliamentary links day brought together the whole scientific community on a single day. Each summer comprised a huge standing room only meeting in the House of Commons and another major event here in this House, and you only had to look at the invitation card to see what I mean.
All the major science sectoral societies were represented biology, maths, physics, chemistry, engineering, and as well as many of our national academies such as the Royal Society. But the event was all about educating members on science and technology issues and making the case for science and technology and the resources needed to fund them. We got speakers year after year from the Cabinet, the Foreign Secretary, the Environment secretary, the Health secretary, the International Development secretary, the science Minister, not always in the Cabinet, but crucial as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Indeed, 21 years ago this year, the Prime Minister, the then Prime Minister himself addressed Parliamentary Day. And I can well remember the frisson in the room. And people were astonished to find the Prime Minister walking in to address them. In 2001, I brought together a wide range of scientific organisations to produce the first ever charter for Science and Engineering, which the then Chancellor subsequently responded to point by point when launching the ten year Investment Strategy for science. Voice of the future is another event which is still going, and it brings young scientists and engineers to Parliament to question the Minister, the shadow Minister, the chief scientific adviser, members of both houses, Select Committee on Science and Technology.
They sat at the witness table and the young scientists and engineers sat around the horseshoe questioning them. And it used to be launched by the speaker himself. I also organised parliamentary receptions, not just for the Christmas reception at which we gave awards for outstanding contribution to the cause of science. We had other ones, indeed, my noble friend Lord Anderson over there will remember himself the reception we organised to welcome back Helen Sharman, the first British person in space, and that was quite a long time ago.
About ten years ago, I arranged for Tim Peake, a name you may also remember to give the first ever evidence to a select committee from space that was took place in the Boothroyd Room, and I can tell you that I remember meeting the parliamentary engineers who worked in the basement at Millbank, and they were thrilled when the first signals came through from NASA conveying Tim Peake and the noble Baroness Baroness Blackwood, not sadly, in her place at the moment was the chair of the committee at the time, and if you don't believe me, you can ask her all about it, because it was really quite an event now, and all in parallel with all of this is the work done by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which, as it happens, I am now president, but we organise the annual Stem for Britain event, which takes place in another place, which brings early career scientists and engineers to meet their own local members of Parliament and exhibit their work.
And it's highly competitive now. My purpose in giving these examples is to illustrate that lobbying activity goes of this kind goes on all the time, and it is about seeking influence. Now, my Lords, I've run out of time. Parliament is not a museum. It is a workshop. And this type of activity is to be encouraged and expanding. The 2014 Act register will do no harm and may well increase the sunlight. We can shine on the whole area of lobbying. So when it comes to this bill, I, my Lords, will be voting for sunlight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount Stansgate. I was much entertained by that and much entertained by that and thought he, along with the proposer of the bill, in the way in which of the bill, in the way in which she introduced the Bill, I thought quite rightly said, this is not about trying to restrict lobbying about trying to restrict lobbying activity. It's about trying to introduce transparency in relation to lobbying activity. We want to to lobbying activity.
We want to see lobbying take place. I'm reminded in relation to the to the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War, Benjamin Franklin, of course, his major contribution was as a lobbyist in London and in Paris. So lobbying can play its essential part in creating democracy as well as in sustaining it. I should declare an interest. I am director of a company that is on the register of consultant lobbyists, principally. And I think for recent in recent times, only because they act as a secretariat to development forums and contact planning and housing Ministers in that context.
But I am also an adviser to a company in Brussels that is on the transparency register of the European Union. And I will come back to the comparison between those two registers. I should also declare an interest in that. I was the Minister responsible for the 2014 legislation. Under the coalition government and with the benefit in the other place of being supported in that task by the Deputy Leader of the House, Tom brake, who is now the distinguished director of Unlock Democracy and is, I suspect, a supporter of this bill.
So it will it will make it may surprise the the proposer of a bill that, in principle, I support what she is attempting to do. I'm going to, I'm afraid, irritate her by saying, while I agree in principle, I. I disagree in almost every practicality of how she's doing that. The. And the reason is because I come back to this comparison between the Westminster Register and the Brussels. The EU transparency Register. It is virtually impossible in Westminster.
Register to reconcile the Quarterly information reports that Ministers make about their meetings with the consultant lobbyists who are on the Register to try to see how do they directly relate to one another in terms of meetings, and especially in terms of content? There is nothing about the content. Yeah, I should remind the House that in in 20 1314, when the bill was going through the reason and it's not reflected accurately in the library briefing, unusually, the reason why it was not extended to companies that were not consultant lobbyists is because we had in 2010, in the coalition government, introduced that ministerial reporting requirement.
As far as we were concerned at the time, the ministerial return would make it perfectly transparent if any company on its own behalf met a Minister, because that would appear in the quarterly return for Ministers. The point was a meeting by a public affairs or consultant firm with a minute with a Minister might appear in the minister's return. But you didn't know on whose behalf they were speaking. That was why the register of Consultant lobbying was established, and why it had the parameters that it did.
It was not an intention to restrict transparency. It was an intention to add a transparent register where the quarterly information return would not provide the information. So why do I think we need to go further? Well, there are capacity. There is a capacity within the bill to go further. Which administration since 2014 have not used. And those are twofold. One was mentioned previously to add special advisers to the Ministers and permanent secretaries, because actually consultant lobbyists know perfectly well that special advisers are an extremely effective way of avoiding the transparency that the register is meant to provide that is available under the by secondary legislation under I think it's in section two of the of the of the act.
The other is section 23 gives Ministers the regulatory power to change what information is required to be provided to the register. And there is a very big difference. I won't bore the House by enumerating enumerating the differences between the Westminster Register return and the EU return. But the EU return is far more substantial in terms of what you know about an organisation that is seeking to influence the policy of the European Union, you know, on whose behalf is working, what clients, what funding it receives, what in what band of of financial activity is it devoting to this task and so on and so on and so on.
Why do I think actually the EU register now is a better way of doing things? Because actually you can reconcile the content of lobbying with the organisation that is doing it and who they're doing it on behalf of, and what devote, what resources they are devoting to it. And I think if we're going to be transparent, we might as well go to the EU register, but it is substantially different from the one we have in the 2004 act. The 2004 act is constructed around regulating the person who lobbies, whereas the EU register is about regulating the nature of the activity itself, and it is possible to move the 2014 act in that direction, and I suggest we should.
But this this bill does not sufficiently do that. I'll give you just one example in schedule one, paragraph one, subparagraph one, an exclusion exemption from the requirement to register is if the person conducting the communication with Ministers or permanent secretaries does so in a manner that is an an organisation in a business which for which lobbying is not the main activity. Most organisations will say we're covered by the exemption. Lobbying is incidental to what we do, and so most organisations will say we don't need to register and when they do register, they'll get very confused about who they register.
Should it be the chief executive? Should it be everybody? Well, the EU doesn't have that. The EU register does not have that problem. Everybody the organisation is registered, not the individuals within it. So I do suggest at this stage, given its Second Reading, we say yes to the principle of trying to do something about this, but we may have to come back in committee at looking at how we do it in some detail, because I think it is not simply putting in-house lobbyists alongside consultant lobbyists.
It's about shifting from consultant lobbying and in-house lobbying to creating a register, which is about organisations who are seeking to influence the the legislation and policy of the government, and they should be on the register in the same way as is true in the Brussels register. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Hayter in noble friend Baroness Hayter in bringing forward this Bill, and I agree with every single word she put forward in her introduction. Going back to first principles, I agree that lobbying is a useful agree that lobbying is a useful part of democracy, and like many members of this House, I have done my fair share, possibly more than my fair share, possibly more than my fair share of lobbying. Meeting Ministers over many decades to talk about issues that concerned organisations that I represented.
10:38
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
And this is a type of democratic participation that is legitimate. And it's a good thing because decision making benefits, when decision making benefits, when decision makers hear from a very wide range of voices. But lobbying wide range of voices. But lobbying is widely regarded as a bit dodgy, a bit grubby and a bit suspicious. And in many cases, people who hold those views are right. As some of the well publicised scandals we have seen will testify. And we all
10:38
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
meet people in our daily lives who suspect that a privileged few are suspect that a privileged few are getting an unfair chance to shape government decisions behind closed government decisions behind closed doors. So at the basis of this bill is the contention that too much is is the contention that too much is left hidden from view. And I don't think that it's too lofty to say think that it's too lofty to say that this bill can help build more public confidence in our democratic institutions, because it introduces more transparency over who is trying to influence Ministers and senior decision makers, and on whose behalf greater openness would would strengthen confidence in government.
And our current system just isn't rational. As things stand now, two lobbyists could walk tomorrow into the same ministerial meeting and talk about the same issues, and one might have to register because they're an external consultant acting for a client. The other might represent a major corporation employing its own in-house public affairs team, and they'd avoid the statutory register altogether. Try explaining that distinction to the average concerned member of the public. It makes little sense. The political influence on policy doesn't depend on whether the lobbyist receives a consultancy fee or a salary from the organisation they represent.
So we've got a system now that reflects organisational structure rather than the reality of influence. And I had an example recently from a senior partner in a consultancy, who set out why the current system needs to change. Not long ago, one of their clients, a prominent financial institution, was sending experienced in-house government relations specialists into the Treasury to have material conversations about banking regulations. Those meetings didn't have to be registered, but when a young employee of the consultancy wrote to a Minister simply requesting a meeting that fell under the definition of direct lobbying under the act and needed to be registered.
And I think that that is more than a harmless anomaly because it contributes to public mistrust in government decision making. So it is about time we had the straightforward change that this bill would bring about simply extending transparency to in-house lobbying, and I do hope that the government will give it consideration, as the noble Lord Lord Lansley mentioned, it's relevant in this discussion to talk about the government's own transparency releases. And as my noble friend Lord Stangate said, as it stands, these releases are hard to find and they're hard to search.
They're published in different places, in different formats, with different names. They could be published on a single, accessible, searchable format, and I hope the government will give that consideration. And I'd also invite the government to consider the remit of the office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists. While we're at it, it has admirably performed the role Parliament assigned to it, but I think it's reasonable now to ask whether its scope is still relevant after more than a decade after the original legislation, because since then, the practice of lobbying has evolved.
More large organisations now have invested in sophisticated in-house government relations teams, and there's more digital campaigning. And the boundary between public affairs, strategic communication and direct government engagement has become less distinct. So I think it's therefore legitimate to ask whether the regulator's remit should evolve as well. And in that context, Ministers might also look at the experience elsewhere. The Scottish system, for example, operates under a broader framework. It focuses on recording lobbying activity itself, rather than relying so heavily on distinctions between different categories of lobbyists.
And the noble Lord Lord Lansley has given another example of the EU register. And I'm not suggesting simply copying another model, but maybe there will. There could be lessons worth learning about proportionality, about coverage, and about public accessibility. A review of the registrar's remit could consider questions such as whether the current definitions are still fit for purpose, whether the public can easily understand who needs to register and who doesn't, and whether reporting requirements are proportionate.
The system we should be aiming for needs to be comprehensive enough to command public confidence, and proportionate enough not to discourage legitimate engagement, and recognising the points that the noble Lady Baroness Finn made about businesses proportionate enough not to place disproportionate burdens on business and the system also should be straight forward enough for both organisations and the public to understand. And I think that this the Bill makes important contributions towards that goal. It recognises that transparency should focus on influence, not merely organisational form.
It begins to correct anomalies that have become increasingly difficult to justify, and it offers an opportunity to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
modernise a framework that has not kept pace with changes in the lobbying profession. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Yeah, yeah. My Lords, I congratulate the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Hayter for this excellent bill and enabling us to have a really crucial discussion about transparency. We have a huge about transparency. We have a huge problem with public trust in government. Just 27% of the population trust the national government. There's very good evidence to say that transparency is one of the key drivers of trust, and others have already referred to the transparency International research showing the current lobbying register covers at most 4% of those engaged in lobbying activity.
I don't think necessarily, if you went out on the street and surveyed 100 people, many people would know that figure. But there is a very strong and rightful sense that a lot of murky things happen here in Westminster, and that does damage trust. However, as the noble Lady Baroness Hayter said, introducing the bill, a lot of lobbying is positive and we do need to keep that sense when it is
And our current system just isn't rational. As things stand now, two lobbyists could walk tomorrow into the same ministerial meeting and talk about the same issues, and one might have to register because they're an external consultant acting for a client. The other might represent a major corporation employing its own in-house public affairs team, and they'd avoid the statutory register altogether. Try explaining that distinction to the average concerned member of the public. It makes little sense. The political influence on policy doesn't depend on whether the lobbyist receives a consultancy fee or a salary from the organisation they represent.
So we've got a system now that reflects organisational structure rather than the reality of influence. And I had an example recently from a senior partner in a consultancy, who set out why the current system needs to change. Not long ago, one of their clients, a prominent financial institution, was sending experienced in-house government relations specialists into the Treasury to have material conversations about banking regulations. Those meetings didn't have to be registered, but when a young employee of the consultancy wrote to a Minister simply requesting a meeting that fell under the definition of direct lobbying under the act and needed to be registered.
And I think that that is more than a harmless anomaly because it contributes to public mistrust in government decision making. So it is about time we had the straightforward change that this bill would bring about simply extending transparency to in-house lobbying, and I do hope that the government will give it consideration, as the noble Lord Lord Lansley mentioned, it's relevant in this discussion to talk about the government's own transparency releases. And as my noble friend Lord Stangate said, as it stands, these releases are hard to find and they're hard to search.
They're published in different places, in different formats, with different names. They could be published on a single, accessible, searchable format, and I hope the government will give that consideration. And I'd also invite the government to consider the remit of the office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists. While we're at it, it has admirably performed the role Parliament assigned to it, but I think it's reasonable now to ask whether its scope is still relevant after more than a decade after the original legislation, because since then, the practice of lobbying has evolved.
More large organisations now have invested in sophisticated in-house government relations teams, and there's more digital campaigning. And the boundary between public affairs, strategic communication and direct government engagement has become less distinct. So I think it's therefore legitimate to ask whether the regulator's remit should evolve as well. And in that context, Ministers might also look at the experience elsewhere. The Scottish system, for example, operates under a broader framework. It focuses on recording lobbying activity itself, rather than relying so heavily on distinctions between different categories of lobbyists.
And the noble Lord Lord Lansley has given another example of the EU register. And I'm not suggesting simply copying another model, but maybe there will. There could be lessons worth learning about proportionality, about coverage, and about public accessibility. A review of the registrar's remit could consider questions such as whether the current definitions are still fit for purpose, whether the public can easily understand who needs to register and who doesn't, and whether reporting requirements are proportionate.
The system we should be aiming for needs to be comprehensive enough to command public confidence, and proportionate enough not to discourage legitimate engagement, and recognising the points that the noble Lady Baroness Finn made about businesses proportionate enough not to place disproportionate burdens on business and the system also should be straight forward enough for both organisations and the public to understand. And I think that this the Bill makes important contributions towards that goal. It recognises that transparency should focus on influence, not merely organisational form.
It begins to correct anomalies that have become increasingly difficult to justify, and it offers an opportunity to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
modernise a framework that has not kept pace with changes in the lobbying profession. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Yeah, yeah. My Lords, I congratulate the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Hayter for this excellent bill and enabling us to have a really crucial discussion about transparency. We have a huge about transparency. We have a huge problem with public trust in government. Just 27% of the population trust the national government. There's very good evidence to say that transparency is one of the key drivers of trust, and others have already referred to the transparency International research showing the current lobbying register covers at most 4% of those engaged in lobbying activity.
I don't think necessarily, if you went out on the street and surveyed 100 people, many people would know that figure. But there is a very strong and rightful sense that a lot of murky things happen here in Westminster, and that does damage trust. However, as the noble Lady Baroness Hayter said, introducing the bill, a lot of lobbying is positive and we do need to keep that sense when it is
10:46
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
lobbying in the public interest. NGOs and campaign groups, patients and consumer groups, communities and consumer groups, communities affected by proposed developments. But most lobbying is not in the But most lobbying is not in the public interest, but for private interests. Big oil and gas, big tobacco and boy, did we see some shameless examples of big Tobacco shameless examples of big Tobacco lobbying and the recent tobacco and vaping bill. Big supermarket, big developer, big finance, including, of course, the City of London Corporation, whose special access I'm addressing in other other areas.
And it is worth saying, however, that it is up to the government to decide who to meet, who to hear and who to listen to. And successive governments have very much balanced access in favour of these big interests, not in favour of those lobbying for public interests, but. And also, as the noble Lady Baroness Hayter said, the current way the register is arranged actually means a lack of transparency for the big lobbying and creates extra work and barriers for those lobbying in the public interest.
It might seem to be a deliberate weakness in the law, and I commend the noble Lady for seeking to fill it. It's worth noting that we rely very heavily on journalists to dig and burrow to find out links. They make a very expensive investment in finding out what is going on in from companies that are trying to get windfall profits, whilst the public good is ignored. And it's worth noting that, as a number of other noble Lords have said, that we effectively are relying on stronger laws in other jurisdictions.
And of course, we have to note Scotland's much stronger law and the EU to occasionally draw back the veil. And I note a publication this week on the Substack democracy for sale, an article by Adam Baker and Peter Geoghegan, which is a really interesting case study of that. I don't know that this particular bill would solve this problem, but it is a concerning problem. They report that Andy Burnham's incoming Chief of Staff, who until very recently was the chief executive of Flint Global.
This is James Purnell. Now, Flint has said that its British client list is confidential and has declared just two clients in the UK in five years. But on the EU lobbying register, it emerges that Flint works for Uber, Amazon and Diageo. You might say that's big interests very clearly, but I want to. I think just that's one interesting case study. But we've had some horrific case studies, and there's already been some reference made to these. We've got to think of of Greensill of Westferry and the Covid 19 VIP lane.
And I declare, in the interest of transparency, that the rest of what I'm going to say has been informed by lobbying from spotlight on Corruption, Unlocked Democracy and Transparency International UK. They stress those examples that the transparency gap we have now, that this bill could partially fill. But I understand the noble Lady kept this bill narrow and focussed. In my next bill coming up. I've gone very much in the other direction of having a very broad private members bill, but I think it is important to raise some of the issues, some of the gaps that the government, I hope, will say it tends to act on some of the other things.
This bill doesn't cover that. We do need to see action on the VAT. Registration requirements represent a problematic loophole, and other similar registers of consultant lobbyists do not present these exemptions. There's a real problem with timeliness. It hasn't got better. But knowing what's happened before a government make a decision is really important. And too often we only find out months and months after the fact. And that's something the government itself should be promising, I hope to solve, and I think a number of noble Lords have already referred to this noble Lord Lord Lansley.
In particular, we've got descriptions of meetings from governments that don't really tell us anything meaningful about what was being discussed, what the subject of the meeting was. We have registrations of lobbyists saying they're working for a particular company, but how do all these pieces match up? And that is something that's got to be solved so that the public can see who indeed have Ministers is there's also got to be out of those those meetings. What was the actual purpose of this meeting? Meeting to discuss trade issues.
What does that mean precisely? Are you meeting to discuss Australian beef imports or meeting to discuss sanitary and phytosanitary standards? Knowing those details is absolutely crucial to really understand what's going on. So I finish by again commending the noble Lady. I think this is a really interesting, important discussion, and I hope the the government, whatever the government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
means, is listening. My Lords, I, I start by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I, I start by congratulating Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on bringing forward this bill and I understand why she this bill and I understand why she has done so, but I want I want to make a more general point about make a more general point about what I think, what effect the bill might have. One of the big problems
And it is worth saying, however, that it is up to the government to decide who to meet, who to hear and who to listen to. And successive governments have very much balanced access in favour of these big interests, not in favour of those lobbying for public interests, but. And also, as the noble Lady Baroness Hayter said, the current way the register is arranged actually means a lack of transparency for the big lobbying and creates extra work and barriers for those lobbying in the public interest.
It might seem to be a deliberate weakness in the law, and I commend the noble Lady for seeking to fill it. It's worth noting that we rely very heavily on journalists to dig and burrow to find out links. They make a very expensive investment in finding out what is going on in from companies that are trying to get windfall profits, whilst the public good is ignored. And it's worth noting that, as a number of other noble Lords have said, that we effectively are relying on stronger laws in other jurisdictions.
And of course, we have to note Scotland's much stronger law and the EU to occasionally draw back the veil. And I note a publication this week on the Substack democracy for sale, an article by Adam Baker and Peter Geoghegan, which is a really interesting case study of that. I don't know that this particular bill would solve this problem, but it is a concerning problem. They report that Andy Burnham's incoming Chief of Staff, who until very recently was the chief executive of Flint Global.
This is James Purnell. Now, Flint has said that its British client list is confidential and has declared just two clients in the UK in five years. But on the EU lobbying register, it emerges that Flint works for Uber, Amazon and Diageo. You might say that's big interests very clearly, but I want to. I think just that's one interesting case study. But we've had some horrific case studies, and there's already been some reference made to these. We've got to think of of Greensill of Westferry and the Covid 19 VIP lane.
And I declare, in the interest of transparency, that the rest of what I'm going to say has been informed by lobbying from spotlight on Corruption, Unlocked Democracy and Transparency International UK. They stress those examples that the transparency gap we have now, that this bill could partially fill. But I understand the noble Lady kept this bill narrow and focussed. In my next bill coming up. I've gone very much in the other direction of having a very broad private members bill, but I think it is important to raise some of the issues, some of the gaps that the government, I hope, will say it tends to act on some of the other things.
This bill doesn't cover that. We do need to see action on the VAT. Registration requirements represent a problematic loophole, and other similar registers of consultant lobbyists do not present these exemptions. There's a real problem with timeliness. It hasn't got better. But knowing what's happened before a government make a decision is really important. And too often we only find out months and months after the fact. And that's something the government itself should be promising, I hope to solve, and I think a number of noble Lords have already referred to this noble Lord Lord Lansley.
In particular, we've got descriptions of meetings from governments that don't really tell us anything meaningful about what was being discussed, what the subject of the meeting was. We have registrations of lobbyists saying they're working for a particular company, but how do all these pieces match up? And that is something that's got to be solved so that the public can see who indeed have Ministers is there's also got to be out of those those meetings. What was the actual purpose of this meeting? Meeting to discuss trade issues.
What does that mean precisely? Are you meeting to discuss Australian beef imports or meeting to discuss sanitary and phytosanitary standards? Knowing those details is absolutely crucial to really understand what's going on. So I finish by again commending the noble Lady. I think this is a really interesting, important discussion, and I hope the the government, whatever the government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
means, is listening. My Lords, I, I start by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I, I start by congratulating Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on bringing forward this bill and I understand why she this bill and I understand why she has done so, but I want I want to make a more general point about make a more general point about what I think, what effect the bill might have. One of the big problems
10:52
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Conservative)
might have. One of the big problems we've had over many years has been the growing gap between government and business. And we we we need to make sure that there's a greater understanding of people who are making economic decisions in government about what the business community needs in order to advance the economy and achieve what governments talk about all the time, which is economic growth. And I'm therefore asking myself, how would this bill work in practice and what what effect it might have on the relationships between government and business? So I have in mind a very pro-business, very proactive government that wants to break down the barriers between business and government, wants Ministers to be out there understanding what motivates businesses, what they what they need to be able to get on with their job of growing businesses, creating jobs and so on.
So I imagine a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a business Minister at a conference, and he or she is working the room and, and talking to different business leaders. And there's a chief executive of a, a housebuilding company who explains that he's sitting on various pockets of land and would like to develop them. But the planning regulations, the tax system and so on and so forth need to be changed. Does that person become an in-house consultant when he has that conversation with the Minister? Imagine the chief executive of a international bank is worried about what the the government might be doing in terms of banking regulations or other aspects of banking and.
He, he or she, the chief executive of the of the bank speaks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and wants to make it clear that if these changes in banking rules, regulations or whatever, or tax go on, the Bank may have to consider relisting somewhere else at that point. Is the chief executive of the bank, an in-house consultant. And then I look at the bill before us today, and I see in, I think it's clause one, subclause eight, sub sub clause four, which talks about regulations which would require the in-house consultant or or regulations to be disclosed about the topics of discussion.
So would this have an inhibiting effect on the communication between business leaders and and government? What. I don't think that the the Baroness would want to see is that the bill would have that sort of inhibiting effect on on relations. It would be very helpful, both in her wind up and perhaps no doubt, when we come to the details of the bill at Committee stage for the noble Baroness to explain how we can avoid what I think are. If we're not careful, unintended consequences.
So I imagine a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a business Minister at a conference, and he or she is working the room and, and talking to different business leaders. And there's a chief executive of a, a housebuilding company who explains that he's sitting on various pockets of land and would like to develop them. But the planning regulations, the tax system and so on and so forth need to be changed. Does that person become an in-house consultant when he has that conversation with the Minister? Imagine the chief executive of a international bank is worried about what the the government might be doing in terms of banking regulations or other aspects of banking and.
He, he or she, the chief executive of the of the bank speaks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and wants to make it clear that if these changes in banking rules, regulations or whatever, or tax go on, the Bank may have to consider relisting somewhere else at that point. Is the chief executive of the bank, an in-house consultant. And then I look at the bill before us today, and I see in, I think it's clause one, subclause eight, sub sub clause four, which talks about regulations which would require the in-house consultant or or regulations to be disclosed about the topics of discussion.
So would this have an inhibiting effect on the communication between business leaders and and government? What. I don't think that the the Baroness would want to see is that the bill would have that sort of inhibiting effect on on relations. It would be very helpful, both in her wind up and perhaps no doubt, when we come to the details of the bill at Committee stage for the noble Baroness to explain how we can avoid what I think are. If we're not careful, unintended consequences.
10:56
Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
My Lord, I. what's been said by a number of speakers, which also has the advantage that I'll be able to shorten my contribution to today's shorten my contribution to today's debate. My Lords, this is a modest Bill which seeks to improve an act that is not up to the task of enhancing the transparency of lobbying. The 2014 act was fundamentally flawed. Its name bore no relation to the contents. I moved an amendment to change the long title, replacing transparency of lobbying with registration of lobbyists.
The measure did not enhance transparency of the substance of lobbying. It required the registration of lobbyists or rather, as we've heard, certain lobbyists, it was notable as much for who was not required to register. As for who was. If we're going to stick with the 2014 act, then it makes sense to extend the scope so that the Register lives up to its name. Baroness Hayter moved an amendment then to include in-house lobbyists, and was supported by many other noble Lords.
For her, it's unfinished business. I would urge the Minister to go further. The 2014 act was a missed opportunity. There was no statutory code of conduct, no stipulation of the principles that should govern that conduct. We could have put ourselves on a par with other nations in embracing best practice, ensuring that representations made to government Ministers, to civil servants to advisers were put in the public domain. I moved an amendment when the bill was being considered in 2013 to provide for that, stipulating that representations made to government should be published when a policy was announced.
So it goes way beyond goes extends what my noble friend Lord Lansley was referring to in terms of the quarterly return, it would be far more targeted to the actual policy that was being announced. Now, such a reform is essential to tackle declining trust in politics. Again, this has already been referred to. The 2014 act was, as I argued, an output of the something must be done mentality scandal surrounding lobbying are nothing new. They undermine, as we've heard, public trust simply requiring lobbyists, or rather some lobbyists to be on a register has not really tackled the problem.
As we've heard, the objection to extending the register to cover in-house lobbyists is one of cost. Yet what we have is a limited register that requires a bureaucracy, not a large one, as we've heard, but a bureaucracy that puts a burden on the public purse. And as it stands, I'm not sure it justifies the expense. We expend the money for no clear benefit in terms of public trust. I know, my Lords, we need a radical reset if we are to ensure that lobbying operates in a fully transparent manner.
The problem is not so much one of resources, but of political will. The answer is to ensure that there is transparency at the point that a policy is announced. If the representations of the media reveal, then one has openness that produces discipline. Ministers knowing that what's been put to them is know that should help bolster support for their policies. If they can show the persuasive arguments that have been placed before them, the focus shifts from the status of those lobbying to the content of the lobby in.
In essence, it removes the need for a register, as I said in 2013, any representations made to anyone in the department will be shown. It would not matter who the lobbyists were full time independent lobbyists, in-house lobbyists, part time lobbyists or individuals making representations, representations on that particular issue. All would be caught. We would thus have true, comprehensive transparency. That is the key point, and it's important that we establish that principle. The Minister responding to the debate as Lord Wallace of Saltaire and he said of my amendment, I took him down as saying that the government believe in transparency, but not too far.
I would say that the government believe in transparency but want to be proportionate in our approach. That was an interesting concept. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the threshold for determining disproportionate transparency. My Lords, the public money used to maintain the register could be deployed instead to facilitate the release of representations made to government. Such transparency was achievable when we debated the Bill back in 2013. Given the strides made in technology since then, this can now be achieved far more efficiently than was the case then.
This is to take us beyond the content of the bill before us, but it helps make the case for the bill. The argument that I've deployed emphasises that what is before us is a modest but necessary measure to address a deficiency in the 2014 act. I hope the Minister will give it a fair wind. Even better, of course, if the noble Lady announces that the government are prepared to go further and ensure that we do have full transparency, let us pass this bill and then get on and be a leader internationally in ensuring
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the transparency of lobbying. Congratulate my friend Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on her success in the private member's ballot. I've asked her to advise me ballot. I've asked her to advise me on my future selection of lottery numbers and on her compelling numbers and on her compelling introduction to this important and overdue bill. Like my noble friend and other speakers, I believe that and other speakers, I believe that lobbying is an essential, an essential and potentially productive component in the communication between government and business, consumer groups and
The measure did not enhance transparency of the substance of lobbying. It required the registration of lobbyists or rather, as we've heard, certain lobbyists, it was notable as much for who was not required to register. As for who was. If we're going to stick with the 2014 act, then it makes sense to extend the scope so that the Register lives up to its name. Baroness Hayter moved an amendment then to include in-house lobbyists, and was supported by many other noble Lords.
For her, it's unfinished business. I would urge the Minister to go further. The 2014 act was a missed opportunity. There was no statutory code of conduct, no stipulation of the principles that should govern that conduct. We could have put ourselves on a par with other nations in embracing best practice, ensuring that representations made to government Ministers, to civil servants to advisers were put in the public domain. I moved an amendment when the bill was being considered in 2013 to provide for that, stipulating that representations made to government should be published when a policy was announced.
So it goes way beyond goes extends what my noble friend Lord Lansley was referring to in terms of the quarterly return, it would be far more targeted to the actual policy that was being announced. Now, such a reform is essential to tackle declining trust in politics. Again, this has already been referred to. The 2014 act was, as I argued, an output of the something must be done mentality scandal surrounding lobbying are nothing new. They undermine, as we've heard, public trust simply requiring lobbyists, or rather some lobbyists to be on a register has not really tackled the problem.
As we've heard, the objection to extending the register to cover in-house lobbyists is one of cost. Yet what we have is a limited register that requires a bureaucracy, not a large one, as we've heard, but a bureaucracy that puts a burden on the public purse. And as it stands, I'm not sure it justifies the expense. We expend the money for no clear benefit in terms of public trust. I know, my Lords, we need a radical reset if we are to ensure that lobbying operates in a fully transparent manner.
The problem is not so much one of resources, but of political will. The answer is to ensure that there is transparency at the point that a policy is announced. If the representations of the media reveal, then one has openness that produces discipline. Ministers knowing that what's been put to them is know that should help bolster support for their policies. If they can show the persuasive arguments that have been placed before them, the focus shifts from the status of those lobbying to the content of the lobby in.
In essence, it removes the need for a register, as I said in 2013, any representations made to anyone in the department will be shown. It would not matter who the lobbyists were full time independent lobbyists, in-house lobbyists, part time lobbyists or individuals making representations, representations on that particular issue. All would be caught. We would thus have true, comprehensive transparency. That is the key point, and it's important that we establish that principle. The Minister responding to the debate as Lord Wallace of Saltaire and he said of my amendment, I took him down as saying that the government believe in transparency, but not too far.
I would say that the government believe in transparency but want to be proportionate in our approach. That was an interesting concept. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the threshold for determining disproportionate transparency. My Lords, the public money used to maintain the register could be deployed instead to facilitate the release of representations made to government. Such transparency was achievable when we debated the Bill back in 2013. Given the strides made in technology since then, this can now be achieved far more efficiently than was the case then.
This is to take us beyond the content of the bill before us, but it helps make the case for the bill. The argument that I've deployed emphasises that what is before us is a modest but necessary measure to address a deficiency in the 2014 act. I hope the Minister will give it a fair wind. Even better, of course, if the noble Lady announces that the government are prepared to go further and ensure that we do have full transparency, let us pass this bill and then get on and be a leader internationally in ensuring
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the transparency of lobbying. Congratulate my friend Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on her success in the private member's ballot. I've asked her to advise me ballot. I've asked her to advise me on my future selection of lottery numbers and on her compelling numbers and on her compelling introduction to this important and overdue bill. Like my noble friend and other speakers, I believe that and other speakers, I believe that lobbying is an essential, an essential and potentially productive component in the communication between government and business, consumer groups and
11:02
Viscount Chandos (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Chandos (Labour)
other constituencies. Government should not determine policy or propose legislation in a vacuum, propose legislation in a vacuum, but rather do as far. Do so as far but rather do as far. Do so as far as possible. After considered and thoughtful interaction with all interested parties, the quality of that interaction is directly related to the transparency of the related to the transparency of the conversations that government has to enable everyone, from legislators to the public, to form a view as to how the balance has been struck between the arguments and interests of different parties.
The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, and its many other, more overtly partisan measures, attempted to increase the transparency with which lobbying was conducted. But this start was fundamentally flawed, with the statutory register set up, as we've heard, only in respect of external consultants and not in-house lobbyists. Without disrespect to the noble Lord Lord Lansley, this was demonstrably a wrong call by the then coalition government, even though arguments were made at the time that another that other initiatives were supposedly in train and made it inappropriate to cast the net wider, to include in-house lobbying.
The past 12 years have laid bare the failure of those other initiatives and processes which were meant to create the level playing field and the necessary level of transparency for all lobbying. That is why I welcome and support This feel so strongly and wish to see it in the statute book, or in the light of the Prime Minister's commissioning in March of this year of the Ethics and Integrity Commission to review the issue of lobbying, disclosure and access to.
Possibly instead its measures incorporated into wider government legislation. My support for the Bill is informed by two past roles I've held and by one current one, which I will formally declare as an interest. Some time ago, I was the chair of the public relations and public affairs consultancy, albeit as a corporate suit rather than as a lobbying practitioner, and more recently, until last February, I was chair of a trade association. In both cases, one already required to register and one which would be required to register.
Under the terms of this bill, I believe these organisations would see this as desirable and positive change. My current role, as included in my entry on the register, is a director of Digbeth Loc Studios Limited, a company now operating the first phase of a film and television studio in Digbeth, Birmingham, and planning further phases as part of the overall regeneration of Digbeth. One of my co-directors is the distinguished screenwriter Steven Knight, who has been the driving force for over ten years to rectify the historical under-representation of the West Midlands in film and television production, and hence employment in the skilled sectors needed for that activity.
Steven Knight is a passionate and not surprisingly articulate advocate for his vision, with Ministers, regional and local government leaders. Indeed, if he grows tired of screenwriting, he would be an outstanding professional lobbyist. How much that would disappoint the fans of Peaky Blinders and James Bond, whose next film he is writing. For many years he operated essentially on a solo basis. Even now, with a very small corporate infrastructure in place. There is not a public affairs department of the sort that large companies and organisations will have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, has flagged her concern for the implications of the Bill on small businesses and organisations, and I offer Digbeth Loc Studios as a vivid case of what may not represent a large proportion of lobbying activity, but can be vitally important for innovation and social and economic change. I do not believe that there should be any exemption for small companies and organisations. The ludicrousness of the VAT threshold exemption for consultancies should be a warning against that.
I do not believe either that the registration fee is a meaningful issue. Even small companies have to incur similar or greater costs in the ordinary course of their business. What I think is crucial, though, is ensuring that the registration process, both initial and continuing, is a streamlined as possible for organisations that do not have the established public affairs department of, say, a big pharma or energy company. That said, I strongly support my noble Friends Bill and look forward to the later stages when we can address the details and issues which I and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
other noble Lords have raised. I. I warmly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I warmly. Welcome the bill introduced by the noble Baroness Brady Hayter, and I congratulate him on bringing this important measure before the House and on seeking to bring the United Kingdom more closely into line with jurisdictions including line with jurisdictions including Scotland, Canada and others, all of which have adopted broader approaches to lobbying transparency.
The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, and its many other, more overtly partisan measures, attempted to increase the transparency with which lobbying was conducted. But this start was fundamentally flawed, with the statutory register set up, as we've heard, only in respect of external consultants and not in-house lobbyists. Without disrespect to the noble Lord Lord Lansley, this was demonstrably a wrong call by the then coalition government, even though arguments were made at the time that another that other initiatives were supposedly in train and made it inappropriate to cast the net wider, to include in-house lobbying.
The past 12 years have laid bare the failure of those other initiatives and processes which were meant to create the level playing field and the necessary level of transparency for all lobbying. That is why I welcome and support This feel so strongly and wish to see it in the statute book, or in the light of the Prime Minister's commissioning in March of this year of the Ethics and Integrity Commission to review the issue of lobbying, disclosure and access to.
Possibly instead its measures incorporated into wider government legislation. My support for the Bill is informed by two past roles I've held and by one current one, which I will formally declare as an interest. Some time ago, I was the chair of the public relations and public affairs consultancy, albeit as a corporate suit rather than as a lobbying practitioner, and more recently, until last February, I was chair of a trade association. In both cases, one already required to register and one which would be required to register.
Under the terms of this bill, I believe these organisations would see this as desirable and positive change. My current role, as included in my entry on the register, is a director of Digbeth Loc Studios Limited, a company now operating the first phase of a film and television studio in Digbeth, Birmingham, and planning further phases as part of the overall regeneration of Digbeth. One of my co-directors is the distinguished screenwriter Steven Knight, who has been the driving force for over ten years to rectify the historical under-representation of the West Midlands in film and television production, and hence employment in the skilled sectors needed for that activity.
Steven Knight is a passionate and not surprisingly articulate advocate for his vision, with Ministers, regional and local government leaders. Indeed, if he grows tired of screenwriting, he would be an outstanding professional lobbyist. How much that would disappoint the fans of Peaky Blinders and James Bond, whose next film he is writing. For many years he operated essentially on a solo basis. Even now, with a very small corporate infrastructure in place. There is not a public affairs department of the sort that large companies and organisations will have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, has flagged her concern for the implications of the Bill on small businesses and organisations, and I offer Digbeth Loc Studios as a vivid case of what may not represent a large proportion of lobbying activity, but can be vitally important for innovation and social and economic change. I do not believe that there should be any exemption for small companies and organisations. The ludicrousness of the VAT threshold exemption for consultancies should be a warning against that.
I do not believe either that the registration fee is a meaningful issue. Even small companies have to incur similar or greater costs in the ordinary course of their business. What I think is crucial, though, is ensuring that the registration process, both initial and continuing, is a streamlined as possible for organisations that do not have the established public affairs department of, say, a big pharma or energy company. That said, I strongly support my noble Friends Bill and look forward to the later stages when we can address the details and issues which I and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
other noble Lords have raised. I. I warmly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I warmly. Welcome the bill introduced by the noble Baroness Brady Hayter, and I congratulate him on bringing this important measure before the House and on seeking to bring the United Kingdom more closely into line with jurisdictions including line with jurisdictions including Scotland, Canada and others, all of which have adopted broader approaches to lobbying transparency.
11:09
Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Helic (Conservative)
approaches to lobbying transparency. I also welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I support his proposals. The principle behind this bill is straightforward if consultant lobbyists are required to disclose their activities, there is no convincing reason why large organisations with substantial in-house lobbying operations should not be subject to comprehensive comparable transparency requirement. Greater transparency strengthens public confidence, improves accountability and increasingly serves our national security interests. I therefore strongly support both the purpose and direction of this bill.
However, registration is only the beginning. Transparency has real value only if the information disclosed and examined, understood and, where appropriate, acted upon. A register should not simply be a repository of information. It should be a tool that enables government and Parliament to identify patterns of influence, assess potential risks, and ensure that lobbying is conducted openly and responsibly. The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme provides a useful illustration. Although it serves a different purpose from lobbying regime before us today, it demonstrates that disclosure alone cannot answer the more difficult policy questions.
Political influence, political influence, activity may lawfully and currently there is at least one example be registered under fears on behalf of overseas public authorities or bodies connected with individuals or entities that are that are under United Kingdom sanctions, all based on the fact that the influence and engages UK defence and security policy. Registration provides transparency, but it does not resolve the question of whether such activity is compatible with the public interest or whether it warrants closer scrutiny.
Disclosure is therefore the beginning of effective oversight, not its conclusion. The same principle applies to this bill extending the register of consultant lobbyists to encompass significant in-house lobbying operates will undoubtedly improve transparency. Yet the success of the measure will depend not simply upon the volume of information that we have collected, but upon whether that information is systemic, systematically analysed, whether emerging risks are identified with the appropriate action follows. Otherwise, we risk creating an appearance of accountability without fully achieving it.
Other jurisdictions have recognised this. Germany's lobbying register requires lobbyists to identify the legislation and policy proposal they seek to influence, while the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act requires considerably more detailed reporting of clients activities and expenditure, these approaches demonstrate that the transparency is most effective when it generates information that enables meaningful scrutiny, rather than merely satisfying reporting requirement. This is particularly relevant at a time when democratic institutions face increased, sophisticated attempts to shape public policy or political debate by external factors.
Most lobbying is entirely legitimate and makes a valuable contribution to better policy making. But the challenge the government is, is to distinguish legitimate engagement from activity that may undermine the public interest or present wider risks. That requires not only transparency, but effective analysis, proportionate oversight and informed judgement. Against this background, I have three questions for noble Lady the Minister. First, how will the government ensure that additional information generated by this Bill is systematically analysed so that it strengthens accountability and informs policy making, rather than simply increased compliance requirements? Secondly, where lobbying activity raises concerns related to foreign policy, national security or other significant public interest, what mechanisms exist to ensure that transparency is accompanied by appropriate risk assessment and, where necessary, proportionate action.
Thirdly, as the government reviews the operation of both the foreign Influence Foreign Influence Registration Scheme and the Register of Consultant lobbyists, will it consider whether lessons from each regime can be informed, can be used to inform the future development of the other, so that the United Kingdom has a coherent and effective framework for transparency and political influence. My Lord, I welcome this bill because it addresses an important gap in the current framework. It represents a significant step towards greater openness and accountability.
But transparency, as I have already said, should be regarded as the beginning of effective oversight, not its end, unless the information disclosed is systematically analysed or used to inform government's decision making. We risk creating appearance of accountability without fully delivering it, and this bill provides an opportunity not only to expand transparency, but to ensure that transparency serves its proper purpose in strengthening confidence in our democratic institutions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am pleased to add my support to my friend, the northern Baroness to my friend, the northern Baroness O'Neill Kentish Town. We need to get more lobbying transparency in the Lords, the Lords. We've been here before, the noble Baroness and myself. She encouraged me back in 2016 to move a private member's 2016 to move a private member's bill on this topic, and we managed, I remind Lord Lansley we managed to get it through. Lord Lansley contributed significantly, moved many amendments, and I look forward again to seeing him moving amendments, but I look forward to him again giving support to try to
However, registration is only the beginning. Transparency has real value only if the information disclosed and examined, understood and, where appropriate, acted upon. A register should not simply be a repository of information. It should be a tool that enables government and Parliament to identify patterns of influence, assess potential risks, and ensure that lobbying is conducted openly and responsibly. The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme provides a useful illustration. Although it serves a different purpose from lobbying regime before us today, it demonstrates that disclosure alone cannot answer the more difficult policy questions.
Political influence, political influence, activity may lawfully and currently there is at least one example be registered under fears on behalf of overseas public authorities or bodies connected with individuals or entities that are that are under United Kingdom sanctions, all based on the fact that the influence and engages UK defence and security policy. Registration provides transparency, but it does not resolve the question of whether such activity is compatible with the public interest or whether it warrants closer scrutiny.
Disclosure is therefore the beginning of effective oversight, not its conclusion. The same principle applies to this bill extending the register of consultant lobbyists to encompass significant in-house lobbying operates will undoubtedly improve transparency. Yet the success of the measure will depend not simply upon the volume of information that we have collected, but upon whether that information is systemic, systematically analysed, whether emerging risks are identified with the appropriate action follows. Otherwise, we risk creating an appearance of accountability without fully achieving it.
Other jurisdictions have recognised this. Germany's lobbying register requires lobbyists to identify the legislation and policy proposal they seek to influence, while the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act requires considerably more detailed reporting of clients activities and expenditure, these approaches demonstrate that the transparency is most effective when it generates information that enables meaningful scrutiny, rather than merely satisfying reporting requirement. This is particularly relevant at a time when democratic institutions face increased, sophisticated attempts to shape public policy or political debate by external factors.
Most lobbying is entirely legitimate and makes a valuable contribution to better policy making. But the challenge the government is, is to distinguish legitimate engagement from activity that may undermine the public interest or present wider risks. That requires not only transparency, but effective analysis, proportionate oversight and informed judgement. Against this background, I have three questions for noble Lady the Minister. First, how will the government ensure that additional information generated by this Bill is systematically analysed so that it strengthens accountability and informs policy making, rather than simply increased compliance requirements? Secondly, where lobbying activity raises concerns related to foreign policy, national security or other significant public interest, what mechanisms exist to ensure that transparency is accompanied by appropriate risk assessment and, where necessary, proportionate action.
Thirdly, as the government reviews the operation of both the foreign Influence Foreign Influence Registration Scheme and the Register of Consultant lobbyists, will it consider whether lessons from each regime can be informed, can be used to inform the future development of the other, so that the United Kingdom has a coherent and effective framework for transparency and political influence. My Lord, I welcome this bill because it addresses an important gap in the current framework. It represents a significant step towards greater openness and accountability.
But transparency, as I have already said, should be regarded as the beginning of effective oversight, not its end, unless the information disclosed is systematically analysed or used to inform government's decision making. We risk creating appearance of accountability without fully delivering it, and this bill provides an opportunity not only to expand transparency, but to ensure that transparency serves its proper purpose in strengthening confidence in our democratic institutions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am pleased to add my support to my friend, the northern Baroness to my friend, the northern Baroness O'Neill Kentish Town. We need to get more lobbying transparency in the Lords, the Lords. We've been here before, the noble Baroness and myself. She encouraged me back in 2016 to move a private member's 2016 to move a private member's bill on this topic, and we managed, I remind Lord Lansley we managed to get it through. Lord Lansley contributed significantly, moved many amendments, and I look forward again to seeing him moving amendments, but I look forward to him again giving support to try to
11:15
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
-
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
get this onto the statute book. We get this onto the statute book. We have the Second Reading on the 9th of September, 2016, and he of September, 2016, and he endeavoured to build on the 2014 Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act of 2014, which Administration Act of 2014, which had its deficiencies. I think it's very important indeed that in the light of what happened with Covid, that we're back on this topic and I'm not going to speak at great length.
If anybody wants any great justification from me for supporting this, I suggest they look at the Hansard for 2016, which I've recently just gone out and refreshed myself on and read many of the speeches again. But the case is compelling. And as the debate has proceeded today, I believe we've heard a general movement towards support for this, even though Baroness Finn, I thought, was rather more strident than perhaps a counterpart was back in 2016 with her opposition. I hope that she is going to be prepared to move around a little bit, because change is needed.
Transparency is needed. We need to build that trust, and the House of Lords is certainly out of step with the Commons, out of step, with Scotland, out of step with Europe, and certainly well out of step has just been demonstrated by the previous speaker with what happens in the States. So I hope that we can see a coming together and that this time around it will be different because, and I conclude on this, we have a different government in power. So I have a question to my colleague.
I hope my frontbench colleague, I hope she's going to indicate that this government is going to give support to this particular private member's bill, a modest change, which it is seeking. But at a minimum, if she cannot say that she's going to embrace it totally, I hope she will be prepared to give an indication of the way in which we can take the substance and principles of this change and add it to other legislation that may be in prospect to ensure that we're going to have greater transparency and accountability in the Lords
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than we have at the moment. Yeah. Well done. My Lords. Sir, it's a pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Sir, it's a pleasure to be in the chamber this morning to discussing a piece of legislation on a Friday morning. legislation on a Friday morning. It's a bit of a change from the atmosphere of the Colosseum that we're used to having here on a we're used to having here on a Friday mornings this year. But nevertheless, I think the noble
If anybody wants any great justification from me for supporting this, I suggest they look at the Hansard for 2016, which I've recently just gone out and refreshed myself on and read many of the speeches again. But the case is compelling. And as the debate has proceeded today, I believe we've heard a general movement towards support for this, even though Baroness Finn, I thought, was rather more strident than perhaps a counterpart was back in 2016 with her opposition. I hope that she is going to be prepared to move around a little bit, because change is needed.
Transparency is needed. We need to build that trust, and the House of Lords is certainly out of step with the Commons, out of step, with Scotland, out of step with Europe, and certainly well out of step has just been demonstrated by the previous speaker with what happens in the States. So I hope that we can see a coming together and that this time around it will be different because, and I conclude on this, we have a different government in power. So I have a question to my colleague.
I hope my frontbench colleague, I hope she's going to indicate that this government is going to give support to this particular private member's bill, a modest change, which it is seeking. But at a minimum, if she cannot say that she's going to embrace it totally, I hope she will be prepared to give an indication of the way in which we can take the substance and principles of this change and add it to other legislation that may be in prospect to ensure that we're going to have greater transparency and accountability in the Lords
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than we have at the moment. Yeah. Well done. My Lords. Sir, it's a pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Sir, it's a pleasure to be in the chamber this morning to discussing a piece of legislation on a Friday morning. legislation on a Friday morning. It's a bit of a change from the atmosphere of the Colosseum that we're used to having here on a we're used to having here on a Friday mornings this year. But nevertheless, I think the noble
11:18
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
Baroness Hayter has struck a chord. There's clearly a broad consensus. I think the previous speaker perhaps was perhaps a little harsh on the opposition. I think the principle I think is accepted as opposed to the minutiae. And of course, we all look forward to getting to the stage of committee when we can actually get down to the details. But I think the big thing that has happened in the last 12 years, since the current arrangements were introduced, not only as technology changed, but the whole structure of government and access to government has changed.
We've had an exponential growth in spouse. And of course, these are people now who are the recipient of a lot of lobbying. And of course, the government itself, as we all have done in in bringing forward legislation, actively seek consultation as part of the our process. I think Viscount Stansgate and others have pointed to some of the anomalies, and there may be not included in the current legislation, but the VAT is one thing. It. It doesn't make sense.
We do not wish, of course, to get into a hugely bureaucratic process. But what is perfectly obvious is what we have today isn't doing it. We have new need. Look no further than this house itself, where unfortunately, some members have found themselves coming foul of our own procedures and there is a scepticism out in the general public as to whether or not things are open and clear. Now. Baroness Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury did make a very valid point.
We all lobby Ministers. We do so perhaps during a vote we do. This sort of thing happens every day. It's part of the process, but it is a question of getting a balance. And I think the fact of the matter is the balance is wrong at the moment. And we have an opportunity here. And I have to say to the Minister, I suspect that her response will be, well, next week. We're expecting the the reply. It's on page two of our briefing tonight that that we have the EIS reporting next week, and we'll wait and see what that says.
And I understand that and that's fine. But I do think that because there is a broad feeling around the chamber that we need to do something, it would be good if the Minister could either guarantee that the government would provide more time for this bill, or, better still, that it will adopt the principles and actually bring forward its own proposals. And I think that that would be broadly welcomed around the chamber. So for all those reasons, the other anomaly is, of course, the limit to the Minister and the firm.
My experience is the Permanent Secretary doesn't, by and large, get involved on the day to day things. It goes much further down, whether it's directors, whether it's people of that calibre. So I think we all know what needs to be done. The bills on the table. Let's do it. I hope the Minister will be able to send us away rejoicing here at the end of this debate, that she has gone to adopt us and is going to be its its champion as we move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forward to the next stage. I also. I welcome the opportunity to be able to speak in the gap. I didn't able to speak in the gap. I didn't put my name in to speak because I was at a Madonna concert last night, was at a Madonna concert last night, and I wasn't absolutely certain that I would be available to speak, that I would be available to speak, but it's relevant. It's relevant in that I was actually a guest of a major company.
That company was major company. That company was grinder, and therefore the question in terms of lobbying is relevant in
We've had an exponential growth in spouse. And of course, these are people now who are the recipient of a lot of lobbying. And of course, the government itself, as we all have done in in bringing forward legislation, actively seek consultation as part of the our process. I think Viscount Stansgate and others have pointed to some of the anomalies, and there may be not included in the current legislation, but the VAT is one thing. It. It doesn't make sense.
We do not wish, of course, to get into a hugely bureaucratic process. But what is perfectly obvious is what we have today isn't doing it. We have new need. Look no further than this house itself, where unfortunately, some members have found themselves coming foul of our own procedures and there is a scepticism out in the general public as to whether or not things are open and clear. Now. Baroness Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury did make a very valid point.
We all lobby Ministers. We do so perhaps during a vote we do. This sort of thing happens every day. It's part of the process, but it is a question of getting a balance. And I think the fact of the matter is the balance is wrong at the moment. And we have an opportunity here. And I have to say to the Minister, I suspect that her response will be, well, next week. We're expecting the the reply. It's on page two of our briefing tonight that that we have the EIS reporting next week, and we'll wait and see what that says.
And I understand that and that's fine. But I do think that because there is a broad feeling around the chamber that we need to do something, it would be good if the Minister could either guarantee that the government would provide more time for this bill, or, better still, that it will adopt the principles and actually bring forward its own proposals. And I think that that would be broadly welcomed around the chamber. So for all those reasons, the other anomaly is, of course, the limit to the Minister and the firm.
My experience is the Permanent Secretary doesn't, by and large, get involved on the day to day things. It goes much further down, whether it's directors, whether it's people of that calibre. So I think we all know what needs to be done. The bills on the table. Let's do it. I hope the Minister will be able to send us away rejoicing here at the end of this debate, that she has gone to adopt us and is going to be its its champion as we move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forward to the next stage. I also. I welcome the opportunity to be able to speak in the gap. I didn't able to speak in the gap. I didn't put my name in to speak because I was at a Madonna concert last night, was at a Madonna concert last night, and I wasn't absolutely certain that I would be available to speak, that I would be available to speak, but it's relevant. It's relevant in that I was actually a guest of a major company.
That company was major company. That company was grinder, and therefore the question in terms of lobbying is relevant in
11:22
Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Hayward (Conservative)
terms of the actions of major companies. I noticed a number of noble Lords response to my presence at the gig last night. It looked like jealousy. The important thing about lobbying and Baroness Hayter welcome, Bill, is that it raises welcome, Bill, is that it raises questions in terms of how people now lobby in terms of this period, and we've actually heard a lot of contributions, making suggestions as to how circumstances have changed, particularly those people who are paid but do not at the moment have to declare the fact that they are actually lobbying.
And one of the groups that comes to my mind is, in fact, lawyers. Lawyers will say that they actually it's client confidentiality or it's a peripheral interest. But if they're paid to represent a particular view to advise in relation to a particular issue, I do think it would be appropriate that major law firms should actually, or small law firms for that matter, should actually be obliged to disclose what they are doing in a way that others who will be affected by Baroness Hayter bill should also be required to disclose their actions.
Can I just say, in conclusion, I. I agree with Baroness Finn comment questions that she raised about the implications of some of the bills, because it's easy to pass a piece of legislation and think, oh, it doesn't affect small businesses. And there's been reference to small businesses. Every bit of regulation that impacts on a small business adds to cost. And therefore, I do think that one of the ways of looking at or exempting certain circumstances or certain occasions which have been cited about private conversations and the like, is either the question of whether they are paid to do so.
And the other aspect is some form of de minimis turnover that might actually apply in relation to small businesses, because it's just too easy to say, oh, well, it's just a little sum of money. Lots of little sums of money can send a lot of small businesses under, and we certainly wouldn't want to that want that to happen. But in broad principle, I welcome the objective of the bill because it brings it brings up to date where we are in terms of lobbying
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in the in 2026. My Lords, Lord Shinkwin is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, Lord Shinkwin is hoping to take part remotely, but he has been having audio problems. I hope that they've been fixed. I I hope that they've been fixed. I invite Lord Shinkwin to speak. It appears that the problems have not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
been resolved. Therefore. Lord Pack. Thank you my Lords, and congratulations to Baroness Hayter for winning the Legislative Lottery. I too am envious of your luck and thank her as well for choosing this important focus but important topic. I used to work for a consultancy firm and some of that work involved lobbying, so I have a personal
And one of the groups that comes to my mind is, in fact, lawyers. Lawyers will say that they actually it's client confidentiality or it's a peripheral interest. But if they're paid to represent a particular view to advise in relation to a particular issue, I do think it would be appropriate that major law firms should actually, or small law firms for that matter, should actually be obliged to disclose what they are doing in a way that others who will be affected by Baroness Hayter bill should also be required to disclose their actions.
Can I just say, in conclusion, I. I agree with Baroness Finn comment questions that she raised about the implications of some of the bills, because it's easy to pass a piece of legislation and think, oh, it doesn't affect small businesses. And there's been reference to small businesses. Every bit of regulation that impacts on a small business adds to cost. And therefore, I do think that one of the ways of looking at or exempting certain circumstances or certain occasions which have been cited about private conversations and the like, is either the question of whether they are paid to do so.
And the other aspect is some form of de minimis turnover that might actually apply in relation to small businesses, because it's just too easy to say, oh, well, it's just a little sum of money. Lots of little sums of money can send a lot of small businesses under, and we certainly wouldn't want to that want that to happen. But in broad principle, I welcome the objective of the bill because it brings it brings up to date where we are in terms of lobbying
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in the in 2026. My Lords, Lord Shinkwin is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, Lord Shinkwin is hoping to take part remotely, but he has been having audio problems. I hope that they've been fixed. I I hope that they've been fixed. I invite Lord Shinkwin to speak. It appears that the problems have not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
been resolved. Therefore. Lord Pack. Thank you my Lords, and congratulations to Baroness Hayter for winning the Legislative Lottery. I too am envious of your luck and thank her as well for choosing this important focus but important topic. I used to work for a consultancy firm and some of that work involved lobbying, so I have a personal
11:25
Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
experience of being subject to the regulatory regime that we were talking about today. Of course, it's perhaps no surprise to it's perhaps no surprise to therefore add that I also share the views that others have expressed of the benefits that good, reputable the benefits that good, reputable lobbying can bring in terms of a useful dialogue and a useful useful dialogue and a useful exchange of information and expertise that can inform and therefore improve decision making. therefore improve decision making. But as Viscount Stansgate mentioned earlier, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
There absolutely are aspects of lobbying to be concerned about, to be nervous about, but the best way of protecting the good side and the genuinely beneficial side of lobbying, is a strong dose of sunlight to distinguish that from other activities and behaviour. I'll talk a little bit more about, I think, the light touch nature of the current setup in a moment, as that has obviously come up a little bit in some of the speeches this morning. But first, I think it's worth highlighting just how back to front the situation is that we've ended up in, and we've had a little bit of the history lesson as to how we've ended up where we are, but it is a very odd back to front situation because normally when we talk about regulation, we do it on the basis that the larger, the more powerful the richer you are, the more important it is to be regulated.
But instead we've ended up with a situation that is the opposite. The small outfit that cannot afford an in-house lobbying operation employs consultant lobbyists and therefore is regulated. The large, rich, more powerful organisation that can afford an in-house team therefore escapes. Regulation is the exact opposite of what we have repeatedly legislated for in all sorts of other areas. It's also a back to front situation in that normally when we are discussing regulation in one form or another, one of the elements of the debate is hearing the people who will be most directly affected by the regulation saying, you know, please don't go too far.
What about, you know, we don't want too many burdens placed upon us. And we obviously have to judge that against wider interests. But in this case, it is, again, back to front, as we have heard, you know, through the Cipr and other industry bodies, the view of the lobbying industry overall, collectively very much is that they wish the regulation to change. It is it feels a little Alice in Wonderland, where we are doing the exact opposite, have been doing the exact opposite of what we usually do in other areas.
But as there have been some references to the sort of potential administrative burden of extending the current regime, I think it is worth highlighting a couple of points. One is it is a pretty light touch regime. I certainly didn't feel that I was being unduly burdened. There was certainly a little bit of nervousness, I would say, when each time I would sort of collate the list of things that we needed to make sure that we were, we were declaring because, you know, that's a list.
You really don't want to leave something out from by mistake, but it is a fundamentally a light touch, low cost regime. And I Baroness Finn earlier said that in some ways, this is not a cumbersome step. Well, I would only disagree slightly. I would say in every way it is not a cumbersome step. But also I would say that if you compare the administrative and financial burdens, small though they are, that this bill would extend to some other firms. And if you compare that to the burdens that, for example, any of those firms who export goods or services to the European Union now face following Brexit, this is extremely small compared to those additional burdens that some in this House at least have enthusiastically argued as being a reasonable and acceptable step to take.
There's also been some reference to the government's transparency data. And to what extent does that provide appropriate form of regulation of lobbying, and does that do we therefore really need to extend the current regime? Well, I think there are a couple of points worth reflecting on. One is really since that government transparency data was first introduced, there has been continuing queries, comments, sometimes complaints about the quality and timeliness and format of that data. And I think there's a point at which it's reasonable to say that problem has been going on for so long that simply hoping that that problem in itself will be fixed and therefore everything will therefore be resolved, is maybe not the right step to take.
But also, more fundamentally, I think there are some occasions where double transparency, double regulation, if one wishes to call it, is the right thing to do. It is actually beneficial to not only have the government transparency data, hopefully in an improved, enhanced format and also a requirement on lobbyists. That double procedure acts as a double protection. And indeed, we are quite used to the idea of doing something twice in order to be absolutely sure that we've got it right with, for example, double entry bookkeeping.
Nobody who does double entry bookkeeping thinks this is an awful administrative burden. What a waste having to do everything twice now you absolutely. Double entry bookkeeping has become so widespread because the very act of doing things twice is a cross check to make sure you are getting it right. And in this case, that sunlight is so important that having transparency requirements on both ends of the process is not a duplication or unnecessary. It's an essential part of having a robust system that we can trust in.
Now, I suspect the noble Lady, the Minister in Will, will shortly be telling us about how the Ethics and Integrity Commission report on lobbying is shortly coming, and how, of course, in many ways it makes sense to roll this issue into a wider government response to that. And there are certainly other important issues aspects to this topic that need addressing. As Viscount Stansgate Lord Lansley, Lord Norton, Baroness Helic Lord Empey and others have raised in this debate. But whatever route we choose to take, whether it is through this immediate bill in front of us now or a wider government response in due course, or perhaps even through both routes, it is important that there is change because it is about enhancing and protecting our democracy and also, frankly, our own reputations.
The more controversy, the more doubt, the more conspiracy theories, the more scandals there are around lobbying, the more that damages all of us in this House and in politics in general. And that is an important act of self-interest, one might think, but also an important act of public good to improve and enhance our systems. So, yes, we should do more than what this bill offers, but that isn't a reason not to do the bit that this bill in front of us does give us the opportunity to do so.
Often we hear action is promised when legislative time allows. Well, we have some legislative time. We have a piece of legislation in front of us. So I hope the government and this House will, in due course, support this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK. My Lords, the audio problems have now been fixed and I therefore
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invite Lord Shinkwin to speak now. My Lords, it is a great pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to speak in support of Baroness Hayter twice in the same Baroness Hayter twice in the same week. I do so today because I start week. I do so today because I start from the premise that transparency is inherently a good thing. Transparency in lobbying is not only a good thing, it is crucial because transparency and genders and underpins trust in individuals with decision making system and the policy influencing process informing it.
The noble Baroness Cass bill makes sense because transparency makes sense. The fact that this modest bill addresses an omission from the transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 makes the measures within it both logical and necessary. Necessary because, as we've already heard, while consultant lobbyists comprise around 20% of those who lobby, they are currently the only group the register covers. In other words, the vast majority aren't on the register.
They need to be. My Lords, I speak to someone who is privileged to spend 95% of his career. Before I came to the House as an in-house lobbyist for some of the UK's most household names in the charity sector. In fact, it was through working for charities like our mighty Macmillan Cancer Relief, as it then was. Cancer Research UK and the Royal British Legion that I really came to appreciate the value of your Lordships House among.
They. Next week, the latest Armed Forces Bill, which this time focuses on the Armed Forces Covenant, will receive its Second Reading. But that's only happening because the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant were enshrined in law for the first time in the Armed Forces Bill, 2011, when I led the Public Affairs team at the Royal British Legion. That in turn only came about because Philip Hollobone, formerly of the Other place and then your Lordships' House, took it to the wire and backed the Legion's campaign on the Armed Forces Covenant right through to ping pong.
If my memory serves me correctly, at no point in that campaign did I or any of my team act without transparency. Indeed, the Prime Minister at the time, now Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, might have wished that we had, at least in the directness of our campaigning. We didn't pull our punches and he was very gracious in the way he conceded the need for the covenant principles of no disadvantage due to service and special treatments where injury was sustained on service to be enshrined in law and in nonetheless recommending me for a period.
A few days later, I thanked him on both counts. I would never have had a problem with being required to sign a register of in-house lobbyists and of lobbyists. Overall, and I can't imagine why anyone who has nothing to hide would either. My Lords, I close by returning to the point about importance of trust. It is the glue that binds people and politicians together. Earlier this week, the House recognised the
There absolutely are aspects of lobbying to be concerned about, to be nervous about, but the best way of protecting the good side and the genuinely beneficial side of lobbying, is a strong dose of sunlight to distinguish that from other activities and behaviour. I'll talk a little bit more about, I think, the light touch nature of the current setup in a moment, as that has obviously come up a little bit in some of the speeches this morning. But first, I think it's worth highlighting just how back to front the situation is that we've ended up in, and we've had a little bit of the history lesson as to how we've ended up where we are, but it is a very odd back to front situation because normally when we talk about regulation, we do it on the basis that the larger, the more powerful the richer you are, the more important it is to be regulated.
But instead we've ended up with a situation that is the opposite. The small outfit that cannot afford an in-house lobbying operation employs consultant lobbyists and therefore is regulated. The large, rich, more powerful organisation that can afford an in-house team therefore escapes. Regulation is the exact opposite of what we have repeatedly legislated for in all sorts of other areas. It's also a back to front situation in that normally when we are discussing regulation in one form or another, one of the elements of the debate is hearing the people who will be most directly affected by the regulation saying, you know, please don't go too far.
What about, you know, we don't want too many burdens placed upon us. And we obviously have to judge that against wider interests. But in this case, it is, again, back to front, as we have heard, you know, through the Cipr and other industry bodies, the view of the lobbying industry overall, collectively very much is that they wish the regulation to change. It is it feels a little Alice in Wonderland, where we are doing the exact opposite, have been doing the exact opposite of what we usually do in other areas.
But as there have been some references to the sort of potential administrative burden of extending the current regime, I think it is worth highlighting a couple of points. One is it is a pretty light touch regime. I certainly didn't feel that I was being unduly burdened. There was certainly a little bit of nervousness, I would say, when each time I would sort of collate the list of things that we needed to make sure that we were, we were declaring because, you know, that's a list.
You really don't want to leave something out from by mistake, but it is a fundamentally a light touch, low cost regime. And I Baroness Finn earlier said that in some ways, this is not a cumbersome step. Well, I would only disagree slightly. I would say in every way it is not a cumbersome step. But also I would say that if you compare the administrative and financial burdens, small though they are, that this bill would extend to some other firms. And if you compare that to the burdens that, for example, any of those firms who export goods or services to the European Union now face following Brexit, this is extremely small compared to those additional burdens that some in this House at least have enthusiastically argued as being a reasonable and acceptable step to take.
There's also been some reference to the government's transparency data. And to what extent does that provide appropriate form of regulation of lobbying, and does that do we therefore really need to extend the current regime? Well, I think there are a couple of points worth reflecting on. One is really since that government transparency data was first introduced, there has been continuing queries, comments, sometimes complaints about the quality and timeliness and format of that data. And I think there's a point at which it's reasonable to say that problem has been going on for so long that simply hoping that that problem in itself will be fixed and therefore everything will therefore be resolved, is maybe not the right step to take.
But also, more fundamentally, I think there are some occasions where double transparency, double regulation, if one wishes to call it, is the right thing to do. It is actually beneficial to not only have the government transparency data, hopefully in an improved, enhanced format and also a requirement on lobbyists. That double procedure acts as a double protection. And indeed, we are quite used to the idea of doing something twice in order to be absolutely sure that we've got it right with, for example, double entry bookkeeping.
Nobody who does double entry bookkeeping thinks this is an awful administrative burden. What a waste having to do everything twice now you absolutely. Double entry bookkeeping has become so widespread because the very act of doing things twice is a cross check to make sure you are getting it right. And in this case, that sunlight is so important that having transparency requirements on both ends of the process is not a duplication or unnecessary. It's an essential part of having a robust system that we can trust in.
Now, I suspect the noble Lady, the Minister in Will, will shortly be telling us about how the Ethics and Integrity Commission report on lobbying is shortly coming, and how, of course, in many ways it makes sense to roll this issue into a wider government response to that. And there are certainly other important issues aspects to this topic that need addressing. As Viscount Stansgate Lord Lansley, Lord Norton, Baroness Helic Lord Empey and others have raised in this debate. But whatever route we choose to take, whether it is through this immediate bill in front of us now or a wider government response in due course, or perhaps even through both routes, it is important that there is change because it is about enhancing and protecting our democracy and also, frankly, our own reputations.
The more controversy, the more doubt, the more conspiracy theories, the more scandals there are around lobbying, the more that damages all of us in this House and in politics in general. And that is an important act of self-interest, one might think, but also an important act of public good to improve and enhance our systems. So, yes, we should do more than what this bill offers, but that isn't a reason not to do the bit that this bill in front of us does give us the opportunity to do so.
Often we hear action is promised when legislative time allows. Well, we have some legislative time. We have a piece of legislation in front of us. So I hope the government and this House will, in due course, support this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK. My Lords, the audio problems have now been fixed and I therefore
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invite Lord Shinkwin to speak now. My Lords, it is a great pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to speak in support of Baroness Hayter twice in the same Baroness Hayter twice in the same week. I do so today because I start week. I do so today because I start from the premise that transparency is inherently a good thing. Transparency in lobbying is not only a good thing, it is crucial because transparency and genders and underpins trust in individuals with decision making system and the policy influencing process informing it.
The noble Baroness Cass bill makes sense because transparency makes sense. The fact that this modest bill addresses an omission from the transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 makes the measures within it both logical and necessary. Necessary because, as we've already heard, while consultant lobbyists comprise around 20% of those who lobby, they are currently the only group the register covers. In other words, the vast majority aren't on the register.
They need to be. My Lords, I speak to someone who is privileged to spend 95% of his career. Before I came to the House as an in-house lobbyist for some of the UK's most household names in the charity sector. In fact, it was through working for charities like our mighty Macmillan Cancer Relief, as it then was. Cancer Research UK and the Royal British Legion that I really came to appreciate the value of your Lordships House among.
They. Next week, the latest Armed Forces Bill, which this time focuses on the Armed Forces Covenant, will receive its Second Reading. But that's only happening because the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant were enshrined in law for the first time in the Armed Forces Bill, 2011, when I led the Public Affairs team at the Royal British Legion. That in turn only came about because Philip Hollobone, formerly of the Other place and then your Lordships' House, took it to the wire and backed the Legion's campaign on the Armed Forces Covenant right through to ping pong.
If my memory serves me correctly, at no point in that campaign did I or any of my team act without transparency. Indeed, the Prime Minister at the time, now Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, might have wished that we had, at least in the directness of our campaigning. We didn't pull our punches and he was very gracious in the way he conceded the need for the covenant principles of no disadvantage due to service and special treatments where injury was sustained on service to be enshrined in law and in nonetheless recommending me for a period.
A few days later, I thanked him on both counts. I would never have had a problem with being required to sign a register of in-house lobbyists and of lobbyists. Overall, and I can't imagine why anyone who has nothing to hide would either. My Lords, I close by returning to the point about importance of trust. It is the glue that binds people and politicians together. Earlier this week, the House recognised the
11:37
Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
urgency of getting the National Security State Threats Bill onto Security State Threats Bill onto the statute book as soon as possible. It did so because possible. It did so because democracy is under attack by both hostile state and non-state actors hostile state and non-state actors as never before. This bill is the as never before. This bill is the other side of the same coin because it recognises that enhancing faith in our democratic parliamentary system is crucial to taking the fight to those who would seek to undermine our democratic principles.
Now is the time to enhance trust through transparency. This bill A A debate A debate on A debate on a A debate on a topic A debate on a topic that A debate on a topic that otherwise would not be discussed in so much detail. And I think the noble Baroness, the Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, has certainly achieved that with this bill. This bill has particularly provoked a particularly interesting debate on the important balance between transparency, which we all we strongly support.
Like other noble Lords across the chamber today. But the balance between that and the administrative burdens on particularly small businesses. Ministers rely on open and frank conversations with stakeholders, whether they be businesses or charities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has been very clear that she is not opposed to that. Our concern is that this bill, by placing an administrative and financial burden, as my noble friend Lord Hayward also highlighted on organisations that engage with Ministers, could disincentivise those open and frank channels of discussions that Ministers rely on.
Furthermore, my Lords, we are concerned about the unintended consequences. My noble friend Lady Finn gave the example of a pub landlord who might have to register following a conversation
Now is the time to enhance trust through transparency. This bill A A debate A debate on A debate on a A debate on a topic A debate on a topic that A debate on a topic that otherwise would not be discussed in so much detail. And I think the noble Baroness, the Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, has certainly achieved that with this bill. This bill has particularly provoked a particularly interesting debate on the important balance between transparency, which we all we strongly support.
Like other noble Lords across the chamber today. But the balance between that and the administrative burdens on particularly small businesses. Ministers rely on open and frank conversations with stakeholders, whether they be businesses or charities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has been very clear that she is not opposed to that. Our concern is that this bill, by placing an administrative and financial burden, as my noble friend Lord Hayward also highlighted on organisations that engage with Ministers, could disincentivise those open and frank channels of discussions that Ministers rely on.
Furthermore, my Lords, we are concerned about the unintended consequences. My noble friend Lady Finn gave the example of a pub landlord who might have to register following a conversation
11:40
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
with a visiting Minister. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne spoke friend Lord Sherbourne spoke eloquently about the impact of the bill on the relationship between government and the business government and the business community, and gave a number of examples where the right. There examples where the right. There could rightly be some confusion, and I would like to give two further scenarios for the noble further scenarios for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to consider as she prepares to take a bill forward to Committee stage.
Firstly, her bill made me think of the much loved British cabby. All of us, my Lords, will have got into a taxi and immediately found ourselves in conversation with the taxi driver on the issues of the day. Cabbies talk to their customers about their day, about their work, about the businesses they run and the challenges that they are facing in those businesses. If a cab driver were to say to a customer who happened to be a Minister that the government ought to change policy to make it more, make it easier for him to do business, would he have to register as an in-house lobbyist? It is these brush by conversations and social interactions that risk confusion, registration and attendant costs.
My Lords, the second scenario I would like to put to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that of the Minister meeting a local business at a constituency surgery where a local businessman, employee or charity goes to a constituency surgery with their local member of Parliament to inform them of a particular challenge they are facing. Is this not deemed to be lobbying? It is merely, and I quote now from Edmund Burke, an MP, doing their duty to be in the closest and I quote the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.
But under this bill, if the local member of Parliament is a Minister, it seems the local business could be deemed to be an in-house lobbyist. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, comment on that discussion discrepancy? My Lords, it is clear from these examples that the definition of an in-house lobbyist in this bill is far too broad. Where is the line, my Lords? We would be happy, though, to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to seek to improve on this, both as we go into Committee stage and then into report stages.
My Lord. OK.
Firstly, her bill made me think of the much loved British cabby. All of us, my Lords, will have got into a taxi and immediately found ourselves in conversation with the taxi driver on the issues of the day. Cabbies talk to their customers about their day, about their work, about the businesses they run and the challenges that they are facing in those businesses. If a cab driver were to say to a customer who happened to be a Minister that the government ought to change policy to make it more, make it easier for him to do business, would he have to register as an in-house lobbyist? It is these brush by conversations and social interactions that risk confusion, registration and attendant costs.
My Lords, the second scenario I would like to put to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that of the Minister meeting a local business at a constituency surgery where a local businessman, employee or charity goes to a constituency surgery with their local member of Parliament to inform them of a particular challenge they are facing. Is this not deemed to be lobbying? It is merely, and I quote now from Edmund Burke, an MP, doing their duty to be in the closest and I quote the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.
But under this bill, if the local member of Parliament is a Minister, it seems the local business could be deemed to be an in-house lobbyist. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, comment on that discussion discrepancy? My Lords, it is clear from these examples that the definition of an in-house lobbyist in this bill is far too broad. Where is the line, my Lords? We would be happy, though, to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to seek to improve on this, both as we go into Committee stage and then into report stages.
My Lord. OK.
11:43
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
My Lords. Firstly, I'd like to thank my noble friend Baroness Hayter for bringing forward this Hayter for bringing forward this bill and facilitating such a thought provoking debate on such an important topic. I find myself in important topic. I find myself in the very unusual position of a Lords Minister of actually speaking from the despatch box on a policy from the despatch box on a policy area I am in theory responsible for. So we'll see how well this goes. My noble friend has campaigned with admirable vigour on this issue over many years.
Indeed, many of the issues raised across your Lordships' House today were highlighted with foresight by name, by my noble friend in opposition during the passage of the Lobbying act 12 years ago, along with the. The active campaigning of the noble Lord Lord Norton of Louth and my noble friend Lord Brooke. I think it's fair to say that there is definitely considered to be unfinished business in this area. As we have heard, this bill would transform the Register of consultant lobbyists into a broader register of all lobbyists, including in-house lobbyists working on behalf of their employer, Engager or principal.
In doing so, it significantly expands the 2014 bill's prohibition on consultant lobbying, unless registered, and the Associated Civil and Criminal Penalties Scheme. When considering the question of transparency around lobbying, we should note that it is the government's own publication of Minister and senior officials meetings that has carried the weight of our transparency obligations on lobbying over many years. This data set is published to reflect those lobbying engagements which have received sufficiently serious consideration by government that the issue has warranted a meeting with the relevant Minister or official.
The 2014 act was designed to complement this data set, as the noble Lord Lord Lansley rightly highlighted, where a Minister or senior official is meeting with a consultant lobbying company and making a declaration. As such, it would not be immediately clear whose interests were being advocated for. The 2014 act was designed to remedy that flaw, requiring all consultant lobbyists to publish a list of their clients. However, the government recognises the view of a number of members of your Lordships House and across the wider public relations sector, that this system of transparency around lobbying does not have widespread support and is widely viewed as insufficient.
I repeat, my Lords, it is unfinished business. The Prime Minister recognised that there is more to be done on transparency around lobbying to further strengthen standards in public life. High standards of integrity in public life create stability and certainty. In turn, this builds trust in the consistency of public authorities and the conduct of their officials. Trust creates confidence, particularly for members of the public and businesses who want to make decisions that are positive for economic growth in the knowledge that they may face less risk.
There are also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, highlighted, national security considerations. Transparency can help protect us from the efforts of bad faith actors to. In the current climate, it is very important element of this discussion. That is why we commissioned the Ethics and Integrity Commission to look into this matter. Just. I have to say, my Lords, that that was .12, not point two. For the purposes of Lord Empey, noble Lords will be aware that the a C is indeed due to report very shortly, and we are grateful for the work that they have completed at significant pace.
While we await the ICC's recommendation, I hope noble Lords will accept that the government must express its reservations about progressing this Bill today on receipt of the Aec's recommendations. We will consider the case for legislative reform very carefully. And while the views of noble Lords expressed in this debate will undoubtedly form an important part of that consideration, we now need to take some time to consider these issues in the round, and undoubtedly, the next Prime Minister will also have strong views with regards to strengthening trust in public life.
So when the government does consider the question of reforming the 2014 Lobbying Act on receipt of the EIC report, we want to look at all aspects of the lobbying scheme privileged access to decision makers, transparency arrangements and business appointment rules, as well as the recommendations of the Ryecroft review, rather than solely the question of whether or not to bring in-house lobbyists into scope. But that does not mean I am not sympathetic to many of the points raised in this debate. With that being said, may I now turn to some of the specific points raised in the debate on the 2014 act.
I believe this debate raises three questions for the government to consider when it receives the Ethics and Integrity Commission's report. The first question at the heart of the debate on transparency around lobbying is this should it be government who carries the transparency obligation or the lobbyist? Our current system places that obligation almost entirely on government, with the register of consultant lobbyists only providing transparency on a very small element of the lobbying conducted. I've heard the arguments from across your Lordships' House and from important stakeholders that the public relations sector who feel that we have got that balance wrong.
I recognise there is a desire from the public relations sector for the lobbyist to carry more of the transparency, obligation and for all lobbyists rather than just consultants, lobbyists, to declare their lobbying activity. This is, of course, the purpose of my noble friend Bill, but it does have the opportunity also to establish a kitemark in lobbying, making it clear both for Ministers and others who is acceptable to engage with. Which brings me to the next point. At the heart of this bill is the question who is a lobbyist? As touched on by the noble Lord Lord Hayward? The bill is drafted, amends the 2014 Lobbying Act to include the term in-house lobbyist throughout, covering those working on behalf of their employer, Engager or principal.
We should be clear that when we think of an in-house lobbyist, we are not just thinking of public affairs managers at large corporations or other private sector bodies. In-House lobbyists may include a wide range of organisations making representations to government, including charities, campaign groups, think tanks and others. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that transparency around lobbying is only required for those advocating on behalf of private or corporate interests. I want to assure your Lordships' House that as we consider reforms to the lobbying transparency Scheme, that we will use a definition of lobbyist that is fair and proportionate across different sectors and types of organisations.
We must also, however, ensure that we do not create unnecessary or disproportionate bureaucratic obstacles to individual citizens. Routine engagement with government as many members of your Lordships' House have stated, and I agree. I do not believe that lobbying is a bad word. Engagement with Ministers is a core British right and value. Listening to our fellow citizens is also a sensible approach for any government which is seeking to make its legislation work. In terms of making our legislation work, good definitions are key.
The 2014 Lobbying Act defines lobbying as oral or written communications made personally to a Minister of the Crown or Permanent Secretary relating to any potential government legislation, policy or functions. Such a definition is broad in scope. I recognise my noble friends view that the definition is sufficient in capturing the range of government engagements that might commonly be seen as lobbying, and while this may be the case when the definition is solely applied to public relations professionals, be that in-house or consultants, we want to think carefully about how such a different definition may work if applied to a much wider range of government organisations and engagements.
Ministers will have all manner of engagements and conversations in the course of their work on matters of government business. Not all of these, however, could reasonably be said to constitute lobbying, and fewer still of these engagements might be said to constitute lobbying, formal enough or taken seriously enough to warrant publication on an external transparency register. A changing approach to the scope of declaration requirements, such as applying the 2014 act definition to a far wider range of lobbyists, would require careful consideration to ensure the right balance is struck between informing the public about meaningful lobbying engagements and not putting too much irrelevant or trivial information into a transparency scheme, which means it is of limited value.
Turning to some of the specific questions I have been asked, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Fynn and by my noble friend Baroness Carberry about the transparency register. I want to reassure your Lordships' House that this was not scrapped by this government. It was not funded by the last government. They announced it without any budget associated to it and therefore has not been progressed. However, this is a matter which the EIC is considering and that we will reflect on after the publication of their report.
Regard to another point raised by the noble Baroness Griffin the flat fee scheme, we are aware of concerns raised about the disproportionate impact of the flat fee scheme on smaller businesses, and any decision on funding will depend on the scope and range of a revised register. If changes were to be made. The noble Lord Lord Lansley touched upon declaring the subject matter of lobbying approaches on the Register. I recognise concerns that the information published on the Register does not always enable the public to understand the subject matter of the lobbying approach, requiring consultant lobbyists to publish the subject matter of their lobbying could be one way to approach the issue, and we will consider this carefully.
Ministers and senior officials already publish the subject matter of their meetings, which does go some way to putting this information in the public domain, although I do appreciate there may be further recommendations from the EIC in this space, and we will reflect on them. Several members of your Lordships' House also touched on the issue of the VAT exemption, not least Viscount Stansgate Viscount Stansgate noble Lord, Lord MP and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. The government recognises that the current VAT exemption has had the unintended consequence of exempting foreign based lobbying from the transparency scheme.
We are grateful to Philip Rycroft for his review and will consider this change carefully. This change would require primary legislation and we will consider all recommendations for legislative change together. Noble Baroness, Lady Helic also asked me to consider three points on the strengthening, accountability and how we analyse data transparency and risk assessment and FIRS versus aucl. I think that as we're waiting such a substantial report in this area of recommendations, I will ensure that those issues are included in the round when we're debating what next steps in terms of the E report.
Noble Lord Lord Hayward also rightly focussed on lawyers, but there are other organisations which also campaign in this space or lobby directly in this space under the incidental purpose exemption. We're aware of the concerns that a significant amount of lobbying can and does fall under the incidental purpose exemption. We will want to consider carefully any possible amendments to this exemption, which will be affected by the scope and range of any revisions to the register, but I think it is possible, as I have said, calling yourself a think tank or a lawyer or there are other ways that you can get round to the current process, which is why, as my noble friend Baroness Hayter highlighted, it's less than 5% of people are currently touched by the regime.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank my noble friend Baroness Hayter for raising this important issue and provoking a discussion on reform to the 2014 Lobbying Act. I applaud her consistent campaigning, or should I say, lobbying on this issue and her commitment to improving the transparency and integrity of our democracy, and an aspiration I genuinely do share. We know there is more that can be done on transparency around lobbying, and that is exactly why the Prime Minister has commissioned the Ethics and Integrity Commission to report on this matter, and I look forward to their report.
However, until we have their report, the government is not in a position to make any policy commitments on reform, and therefore I cannot support the Bill. However, I am sure all noble Lords will look forward to seeing the conclusions of the EIC review, and the government will give that report the full and fair consideration it deserves. It deserves in a timely manner. A final point I hope that my response genuinely doesn't disappoint the noble Lord, Lord MP. I would hate to do that, and that he and many members of your Lordships' House have a little hope about our direction of travel.
Indeed, many of the issues raised across your Lordships' House today were highlighted with foresight by name, by my noble friend in opposition during the passage of the Lobbying act 12 years ago, along with the. The active campaigning of the noble Lord Lord Norton of Louth and my noble friend Lord Brooke. I think it's fair to say that there is definitely considered to be unfinished business in this area. As we have heard, this bill would transform the Register of consultant lobbyists into a broader register of all lobbyists, including in-house lobbyists working on behalf of their employer, Engager or principal.
In doing so, it significantly expands the 2014 bill's prohibition on consultant lobbying, unless registered, and the Associated Civil and Criminal Penalties Scheme. When considering the question of transparency around lobbying, we should note that it is the government's own publication of Minister and senior officials meetings that has carried the weight of our transparency obligations on lobbying over many years. This data set is published to reflect those lobbying engagements which have received sufficiently serious consideration by government that the issue has warranted a meeting with the relevant Minister or official.
The 2014 act was designed to complement this data set, as the noble Lord Lord Lansley rightly highlighted, where a Minister or senior official is meeting with a consultant lobbying company and making a declaration. As such, it would not be immediately clear whose interests were being advocated for. The 2014 act was designed to remedy that flaw, requiring all consultant lobbyists to publish a list of their clients. However, the government recognises the view of a number of members of your Lordships House and across the wider public relations sector, that this system of transparency around lobbying does not have widespread support and is widely viewed as insufficient.
I repeat, my Lords, it is unfinished business. The Prime Minister recognised that there is more to be done on transparency around lobbying to further strengthen standards in public life. High standards of integrity in public life create stability and certainty. In turn, this builds trust in the consistency of public authorities and the conduct of their officials. Trust creates confidence, particularly for members of the public and businesses who want to make decisions that are positive for economic growth in the knowledge that they may face less risk.
There are also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, highlighted, national security considerations. Transparency can help protect us from the efforts of bad faith actors to. In the current climate, it is very important element of this discussion. That is why we commissioned the Ethics and Integrity Commission to look into this matter. Just. I have to say, my Lords, that that was .12, not point two. For the purposes of Lord Empey, noble Lords will be aware that the a C is indeed due to report very shortly, and we are grateful for the work that they have completed at significant pace.
While we await the ICC's recommendation, I hope noble Lords will accept that the government must express its reservations about progressing this Bill today on receipt of the Aec's recommendations. We will consider the case for legislative reform very carefully. And while the views of noble Lords expressed in this debate will undoubtedly form an important part of that consideration, we now need to take some time to consider these issues in the round, and undoubtedly, the next Prime Minister will also have strong views with regards to strengthening trust in public life.
So when the government does consider the question of reforming the 2014 Lobbying Act on receipt of the EIC report, we want to look at all aspects of the lobbying scheme privileged access to decision makers, transparency arrangements and business appointment rules, as well as the recommendations of the Ryecroft review, rather than solely the question of whether or not to bring in-house lobbyists into scope. But that does not mean I am not sympathetic to many of the points raised in this debate. With that being said, may I now turn to some of the specific points raised in the debate on the 2014 act.
I believe this debate raises three questions for the government to consider when it receives the Ethics and Integrity Commission's report. The first question at the heart of the debate on transparency around lobbying is this should it be government who carries the transparency obligation or the lobbyist? Our current system places that obligation almost entirely on government, with the register of consultant lobbyists only providing transparency on a very small element of the lobbying conducted. I've heard the arguments from across your Lordships' House and from important stakeholders that the public relations sector who feel that we have got that balance wrong.
I recognise there is a desire from the public relations sector for the lobbyist to carry more of the transparency, obligation and for all lobbyists rather than just consultants, lobbyists, to declare their lobbying activity. This is, of course, the purpose of my noble friend Bill, but it does have the opportunity also to establish a kitemark in lobbying, making it clear both for Ministers and others who is acceptable to engage with. Which brings me to the next point. At the heart of this bill is the question who is a lobbyist? As touched on by the noble Lord Lord Hayward? The bill is drafted, amends the 2014 Lobbying Act to include the term in-house lobbyist throughout, covering those working on behalf of their employer, Engager or principal.
We should be clear that when we think of an in-house lobbyist, we are not just thinking of public affairs managers at large corporations or other private sector bodies. In-House lobbyists may include a wide range of organisations making representations to government, including charities, campaign groups, think tanks and others. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that transparency around lobbying is only required for those advocating on behalf of private or corporate interests. I want to assure your Lordships' House that as we consider reforms to the lobbying transparency Scheme, that we will use a definition of lobbyist that is fair and proportionate across different sectors and types of organisations.
We must also, however, ensure that we do not create unnecessary or disproportionate bureaucratic obstacles to individual citizens. Routine engagement with government as many members of your Lordships' House have stated, and I agree. I do not believe that lobbying is a bad word. Engagement with Ministers is a core British right and value. Listening to our fellow citizens is also a sensible approach for any government which is seeking to make its legislation work. In terms of making our legislation work, good definitions are key.
The 2014 Lobbying Act defines lobbying as oral or written communications made personally to a Minister of the Crown or Permanent Secretary relating to any potential government legislation, policy or functions. Such a definition is broad in scope. I recognise my noble friends view that the definition is sufficient in capturing the range of government engagements that might commonly be seen as lobbying, and while this may be the case when the definition is solely applied to public relations professionals, be that in-house or consultants, we want to think carefully about how such a different definition may work if applied to a much wider range of government organisations and engagements.
Ministers will have all manner of engagements and conversations in the course of their work on matters of government business. Not all of these, however, could reasonably be said to constitute lobbying, and fewer still of these engagements might be said to constitute lobbying, formal enough or taken seriously enough to warrant publication on an external transparency register. A changing approach to the scope of declaration requirements, such as applying the 2014 act definition to a far wider range of lobbyists, would require careful consideration to ensure the right balance is struck between informing the public about meaningful lobbying engagements and not putting too much irrelevant or trivial information into a transparency scheme, which means it is of limited value.
Turning to some of the specific questions I have been asked, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Fynn and by my noble friend Baroness Carberry about the transparency register. I want to reassure your Lordships' House that this was not scrapped by this government. It was not funded by the last government. They announced it without any budget associated to it and therefore has not been progressed. However, this is a matter which the EIC is considering and that we will reflect on after the publication of their report.
Regard to another point raised by the noble Baroness Griffin the flat fee scheme, we are aware of concerns raised about the disproportionate impact of the flat fee scheme on smaller businesses, and any decision on funding will depend on the scope and range of a revised register. If changes were to be made. The noble Lord Lord Lansley touched upon declaring the subject matter of lobbying approaches on the Register. I recognise concerns that the information published on the Register does not always enable the public to understand the subject matter of the lobbying approach, requiring consultant lobbyists to publish the subject matter of their lobbying could be one way to approach the issue, and we will consider this carefully.
Ministers and senior officials already publish the subject matter of their meetings, which does go some way to putting this information in the public domain, although I do appreciate there may be further recommendations from the EIC in this space, and we will reflect on them. Several members of your Lordships' House also touched on the issue of the VAT exemption, not least Viscount Stansgate Viscount Stansgate noble Lord, Lord MP and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. The government recognises that the current VAT exemption has had the unintended consequence of exempting foreign based lobbying from the transparency scheme.
We are grateful to Philip Rycroft for his review and will consider this change carefully. This change would require primary legislation and we will consider all recommendations for legislative change together. Noble Baroness, Lady Helic also asked me to consider three points on the strengthening, accountability and how we analyse data transparency and risk assessment and FIRS versus aucl. I think that as we're waiting such a substantial report in this area of recommendations, I will ensure that those issues are included in the round when we're debating what next steps in terms of the E report.
Noble Lord Lord Hayward also rightly focussed on lawyers, but there are other organisations which also campaign in this space or lobby directly in this space under the incidental purpose exemption. We're aware of the concerns that a significant amount of lobbying can and does fall under the incidental purpose exemption. We will want to consider carefully any possible amendments to this exemption, which will be affected by the scope and range of any revisions to the register, but I think it is possible, as I have said, calling yourself a think tank or a lawyer or there are other ways that you can get round to the current process, which is why, as my noble friend Baroness Hayter highlighted, it's less than 5% of people are currently touched by the regime.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank my noble friend Baroness Hayter for raising this important issue and provoking a discussion on reform to the 2014 Lobbying Act. I applaud her consistent campaigning, or should I say, lobbying on this issue and her commitment to improving the transparency and integrity of our democracy, and an aspiration I genuinely do share. We know there is more that can be done on transparency around lobbying, and that is exactly why the Prime Minister has commissioned the Ethics and Integrity Commission to report on this matter, and I look forward to their report.
However, until we have their report, the government is not in a position to make any policy commitments on reform, and therefore I cannot support the Bill. However, I am sure all noble Lords will look forward to seeing the conclusions of the EIC review, and the government will give that report the full and fair consideration it deserves. It deserves in a timely manner. A final point I hope that my response genuinely doesn't disappoint the noble Lord, Lord MP. I would hate to do that, and that he and many members of your Lordships' House have a little hope about our direction of travel.
11:56
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
My Lords, I don't know what >> My Lords, I don't know what flatters me most. I think it's noble Lord Hayward moving from noble Lord Hayward moving from Madonna to myself, I think that's the biggest vote of confidence I've the biggest vote of confidence I've ever had from anyone, but I am delighted by the people coming today. I, I don't know what I call the noble Lord Lord Lansley, one of the guilty men, from having put through a bill that I think we now agree was perhaps a little too, too modest.
In fact, even this bill today is being called too modest. I think Lord Norton, my noble friend Lord Brooke, and the noble Lord Lord Pack, all called it modest, and I think that is a a good start from where we go. I really would like to thank my noble friend the Minister, Lady Anderson. She said, it's unfinished business. I'm going to take that as a very positive state, that she's promising that the government will do a little more, because I think that what we all know is that it is time for change.
I'm not going to try and answer all the points that she has so nicely dealt with, but I do think it is important to note the breadth of support we've we've had. And Baroness Helic also pointed not just to transparency, but for the responsible, the responsibility of lobbying, that it should be in the public interest and the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin also expressed how transparency itself can enhance trust, which I think my noble friend Baroness Carberry also said, I think also we all agree that lobbying was good and we didn't want in any way it to be a sort of diminished by this, however, the issue of sunlight, I think, which I mentioned, but also, Lord, my noble friend Viscount Stansgate did remind us it was Lord Mr.
Brandeis, I think, who first used that phrase. What's important is that. And I think it was the noble Lord, Lord MP said that this is. It is timely, but I think he also said, we know what needs to be done. And I think my plea to the Minister is not to delay. My noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned the Covid inquiry. Lady, I think mentioned Greensill. We cannot wait for another scandal. Let's get this right and let's do it quickly.
There are issues raised about cost. I, I think I have to say that is a bit of a red herring. I mean, I'm very sympathetic having run very small charities. But if actually, if you go to a consultant lobbyist, it costs you much more than £1,000 to get their advice. And if you happen to be based in Manchester, don't know why I mentioned Manchester. And you bring three of your people down to meet a Minister, that's going to cost you more than £1,000. So, you know, let let's not use this as an excuse for not bringing a bit more sunlight into this.
There are then some other issues about administration and what is a private conversation. I have to say, I think the cabbie was a bit o.t.t. But what is a private conversation? Is it, you know, meeting at a meeting? But that's all in the case of the act now, because if a consultant lobbyists has a brush pie or meets and happens to meet at a school or in a pub or anywhere, you know, anywhere else, that issue of what counts as a Minister is there in the current law.
So maybe Lord Lansley ought to be saying, what did exactly did it mean by a meeting? Because that's the current law. All we're saying is that maybe in a formal conversation with the Minister is is relevant, whether it's a consultant lobbying, having that, or the chair of a PLC. And I think what's really important is, yes, to the law. Sherman, we don't want this to be chilling, but we do need to know who's talking to Ministers about what.
And the problem we've got at the moment is the ministerial declarations are nothing near detailed enough. So they may mean meet a publican, but they don't know whether that is about alcohol pricing or about the general age at which you can drink, or indeed, about whether pubs should stay open until 5:00 in the morning for a football match that's taking place. Those are general policy issues, but if it's from a publican saying I need something for my particular pub or brewery, Ministers need to know whether that is something on which they are being lobbied and which case they should have a civil servant there and they know what they should do.
So let's not pretend this is a new issue. We. There is a difference between general discussion and the public bill office. When they help me with the writing of this. Talk me through this. A headmaster, a head teacher, meets a Minister, talks about general education. Is that an issue? No. They talk about, you know, how they're finding young people today. Is that an issue? No. If they ask for planning permission so they can extend their particular playground somewhere else, that's lobbying.
Ministers know it and actually, lobbyists know I've left till last. The noble Lady, Lady Finn. I have to say, I was very disappointed. I was disappointed yesterday when we had a general discussion about political funding of political parties, but it all seemed to be don't interfere with the size of donations given to political parties. This does not seem to me very good approach to these issues, and I think the idea that one of her big things was, well, is £1,000 too much for an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
organisation? I thank the Member for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Member for giving way. I, I find it rather disappointing to be conflating a debate we had yesterday on political party funding, where I raised some serious concerns about the asymmetry of the government's approach, and I didn't necessarily want to go any further on the size want to go any further on the size of dose, size or otherwise of donations. But but I don't think it's relevant for the conversation today and why that was a disappointment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Issue is whether we are wanting greater trust in democracy, because that's what this lot this bill is that's what this lot this bill is about today. And the the idea that we start putting technical difficulties, administrative difficulties,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difficulties, Baroness Garden if we're talking about trusts and democracy, the point I was making yesterday was point I was making yesterday was that if the government of the day inflicts substantial damage on opposition parties in political party funding, then then that is actually that that is questioning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trust in democracy. Disagree with what you were saying yesterday. We don't need to saying yesterday. We don't need to go in that in the detail of that. The point I'm trying to make is that if we want to enhance trust in issues are how we're getting there or the cost of it or the administration instead of the absolute core issue, which is what absolute core issue, which is what this bill is about, it may be too modest to bill. It may be not the right bill, but actually we're right bill, but actually we're talking about enhancing democracy, entrusting democracy.
Then I think it is a shame if the the you know, the official opposition, which is what the noble Lady Baroness Finn is speaking on behalf of that. The attitude is all about the problems and not about the great steps forward that we could make. I think most people who spoke today were in favour of the the direction of travel of this bill, which is that we don't just regulate or register the 5% of lobbying that takes place at the moment, but we move towards the 95% of lobbying that takes place.
I think that's what we all want to achieve. I hope my noble friend the Minister, is going to move more speedily, perhaps, than sometimes happens within government, for understandable reasons, and we will soon move forward on this. In the moment, I beg to move. Question is that this bill be now read a second time. As many as that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Lords, I beg to move that this Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The question is that this bill is committed to the Committee of the whole House. As many as that opinion will say content contrary, not contents. The contents have it. I'll just get a minute for people to change over Second Second Reading Second Reading of Second Reading of the Second Reading of the Nature's Second Reading of the Nature's Rights Bill Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.
In fact, even this bill today is being called too modest. I think Lord Norton, my noble friend Lord Brooke, and the noble Lord Lord Pack, all called it modest, and I think that is a a good start from where we go. I really would like to thank my noble friend the Minister, Lady Anderson. She said, it's unfinished business. I'm going to take that as a very positive state, that she's promising that the government will do a little more, because I think that what we all know is that it is time for change.
I'm not going to try and answer all the points that she has so nicely dealt with, but I do think it is important to note the breadth of support we've we've had. And Baroness Helic also pointed not just to transparency, but for the responsible, the responsibility of lobbying, that it should be in the public interest and the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin also expressed how transparency itself can enhance trust, which I think my noble friend Baroness Carberry also said, I think also we all agree that lobbying was good and we didn't want in any way it to be a sort of diminished by this, however, the issue of sunlight, I think, which I mentioned, but also, Lord, my noble friend Viscount Stansgate did remind us it was Lord Mr.
Brandeis, I think, who first used that phrase. What's important is that. And I think it was the noble Lord, Lord MP said that this is. It is timely, but I think he also said, we know what needs to be done. And I think my plea to the Minister is not to delay. My noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned the Covid inquiry. Lady, I think mentioned Greensill. We cannot wait for another scandal. Let's get this right and let's do it quickly.
There are issues raised about cost. I, I think I have to say that is a bit of a red herring. I mean, I'm very sympathetic having run very small charities. But if actually, if you go to a consultant lobbyist, it costs you much more than £1,000 to get their advice. And if you happen to be based in Manchester, don't know why I mentioned Manchester. And you bring three of your people down to meet a Minister, that's going to cost you more than £1,000. So, you know, let let's not use this as an excuse for not bringing a bit more sunlight into this.
There are then some other issues about administration and what is a private conversation. I have to say, I think the cabbie was a bit o.t.t. But what is a private conversation? Is it, you know, meeting at a meeting? But that's all in the case of the act now, because if a consultant lobbyists has a brush pie or meets and happens to meet at a school or in a pub or anywhere, you know, anywhere else, that issue of what counts as a Minister is there in the current law.
So maybe Lord Lansley ought to be saying, what did exactly did it mean by a meeting? Because that's the current law. All we're saying is that maybe in a formal conversation with the Minister is is relevant, whether it's a consultant lobbying, having that, or the chair of a PLC. And I think what's really important is, yes, to the law. Sherman, we don't want this to be chilling, but we do need to know who's talking to Ministers about what.
And the problem we've got at the moment is the ministerial declarations are nothing near detailed enough. So they may mean meet a publican, but they don't know whether that is about alcohol pricing or about the general age at which you can drink, or indeed, about whether pubs should stay open until 5:00 in the morning for a football match that's taking place. Those are general policy issues, but if it's from a publican saying I need something for my particular pub or brewery, Ministers need to know whether that is something on which they are being lobbied and which case they should have a civil servant there and they know what they should do.
So let's not pretend this is a new issue. We. There is a difference between general discussion and the public bill office. When they help me with the writing of this. Talk me through this. A headmaster, a head teacher, meets a Minister, talks about general education. Is that an issue? No. They talk about, you know, how they're finding young people today. Is that an issue? No. If they ask for planning permission so they can extend their particular playground somewhere else, that's lobbying.
Ministers know it and actually, lobbyists know I've left till last. The noble Lady, Lady Finn. I have to say, I was very disappointed. I was disappointed yesterday when we had a general discussion about political funding of political parties, but it all seemed to be don't interfere with the size of donations given to political parties. This does not seem to me very good approach to these issues, and I think the idea that one of her big things was, well, is £1,000 too much for an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
organisation? I thank the Member for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Member for giving way. I, I find it rather disappointing to be conflating a debate we had yesterday on political party funding, where I raised some serious concerns about the asymmetry of the government's approach, and I didn't necessarily want to go any further on the size want to go any further on the size of dose, size or otherwise of donations. But but I don't think it's relevant for the conversation today and why that was a disappointment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Issue is whether we are wanting greater trust in democracy, because that's what this lot this bill is that's what this lot this bill is about today. And the the idea that we start putting technical difficulties, administrative difficulties,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difficulties, Baroness Garden if we're talking about trusts and democracy, the point I was making yesterday was point I was making yesterday was that if the government of the day inflicts substantial damage on opposition parties in political party funding, then then that is actually that that is questioning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trust in democracy. Disagree with what you were saying yesterday. We don't need to saying yesterday. We don't need to go in that in the detail of that. The point I'm trying to make is that if we want to enhance trust in issues are how we're getting there or the cost of it or the administration instead of the absolute core issue, which is what absolute core issue, which is what this bill is about, it may be too modest to bill. It may be not the right bill, but actually we're right bill, but actually we're talking about enhancing democracy, entrusting democracy.
Then I think it is a shame if the the you know, the official opposition, which is what the noble Lady Baroness Finn is speaking on behalf of that. The attitude is all about the problems and not about the great steps forward that we could make. I think most people who spoke today were in favour of the the direction of travel of this bill, which is that we don't just regulate or register the 5% of lobbying that takes place at the moment, but we move towards the 95% of lobbying that takes place.
I think that's what we all want to achieve. I hope my noble friend the Minister, is going to move more speedily, perhaps, than sometimes happens within government, for understandable reasons, and we will soon move forward on this. In the moment, I beg to move. Question is that this bill be now read a second time. As many as that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Lords, I beg to move that this Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The question is that this bill is committed to the Committee of the whole House. As many as that opinion will say content contrary, not contents. The contents have it. I'll just get a minute for people to change over Second Second Reading Second Reading of Second Reading of the Second Reading of the Nature's Second Reading of the Nature's Rights Bill Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.
12:06
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Nature's Rights Bill now be read a second time. I begin by quoting to the House the government's own words from a biodiversity strategy published jointly with the devolved governments in February 2025. Biodiversity is key to all the processes that support life on earth. We rely on it for our essential needs like food, shelter, energy and medicine, as well as for the ecosystem services it provides, such as climate regulation, flood management, water purification, disease and pest control, and pollination.
Additionally, more than half of the world's gross domestic product is highly or moderately dependent on nature. End quote. You'd think, then, that IT and governments around the world would be would have established legal systems and forms that would effectively protect and enhance nature. But that is not what is happening, particularly in the UK. One of the most nature depleted countries on earth. As the State of Nature Report of 2023 concluded, that report was arguably still only very soon after the 2021 Environment Act, which set the very modest target of halting the decline in species abundance by 2030.
But half a decade after the act, there's still scant signs of progress. For evidence, I go to a peer reviewed study by the UK centre for Ecology and Hydrology, out this year, which found little sign to the end of the spiralling decline which lead author pointing to the grave risk of loss of the Merlin, the mountain ringlet, the large heath butterflies and plants such as burnt orchid, grass of Parnassus and Alpine gentine and many other species. The lead author said this will negatively affect local habitats and a range of ecological functions, from soil health and nutrient cycling to pollination and food production, with knock on effects for wildlife and people.
That reflects what is happening around the world. The UN Environment Programme in 2019 found that 150 countries have enshrined environmental protection, or the right to a healthy environment in their constitutions. 176 countries have environmental framework laws, and 164 countries have created Cabinet level bodies for environmental protection. But the laws for environmental protection have not worked. And that's not surprising. For as Mari Margol from the US centre for Democratic and Environmental Rights explains, environmental laws are put in place to determine how much we can harm or exploit nature.
Environmental laws and regulations have not fundamentally changed the rate of environmental destruction, despite 60 years or more of awareness of environmental issues and half a century of environmental law. Short term economic interests, particularly of powerful countries. Now with the companies, now with the resources and power rivalling those of all but the largest states nations determination to exploit and extract from states unable or unwilling to resist them, through mining, through logging, through polluting, have overwhelmed what are essentially ineffective legal provisions that has potentially existential consequences for humans, for our nation, for as the long delayed and still not fully released joint intelligence chief report that finally emerged in January identified six ecosystem regions that it called critical for UK security that were on a reasonable worst case scenario on the pathway to collapse.
So the search has begun for an alternative approach to secure the future of our biospheres and all of our futures. And the approach that many have settled on, the approach that this bill brings in is that of rights to nature. Now, I thank the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in setting out a clear briefing about the ethical framework of rights to nature. It notes there are competing views on this, and I expect we will hear some of those today. But I think it's worth going through the origins and the advance of this issue.
The origin of this alternative approach is often traced back to Christopher Stone's Should Trees Have Standing. Published in 1972. He noted that for many centuries, women and slaves were not fully recognised as legal subjects, and he saw how there had been a progressive widening of the laws circle of concern. Stone proposed that we give legal rights to forests, ocean rivers and other so-called natural objects in the environment, indeed to the natural environment as a whole. And that's what this bill does.
The Rights to nature approach offers a reset in our relationship, an ending of the disastrous 17th century paradigm, a mechanistic worldview that falsely separates people, nature and the economy as though they can operate independently. A global application of that paradigm has led, as the Stockholm Resilience Centre charts literally, in the case of one diagram that shows the current state of human impacts on nine planetary boundaries, seven of them have not just been exceeded, but smashed. As the European Economic and Social Committee spokesman said, it is irrational to have societal systems that undermine nature.
As one of the many who've mustered on Instagram to support this bill, very beautifully put it, we need a green Magna Carta and that is what the bill I present before you today is. The bill was written by Lawyer Monckton of the Nature's Rights charity, drawing on experience working with the UN. Harmony with nature programme and more. For more of its foundations, you can go to a study conducted for the European Economic and Social Committee towards an EU Fundamental Charter for the Rights of Nature.
What I present here today is a new legal framework that recognised nature's rights as the foundation of human rights, social and economic activity. It aligns law with modern scientific understanding. Now it is a long bill for a particularly for a private member's bill, 57 pages. And it doesn't only set down a major change in legal principle. It also establishes a legal duty of care for public bodies, businesses and individuals, establishes an Integrated Rights Framework, introduces mechanisms for dispute resolution and legal enforcement, establishes a Nature Guardianship Council via regional councils and a Nature's Rights Tribunal, and creates a government governance structure for implementation and integration.
As usual, our excellent library briefing sets out the impact of the Bill clause by clause, and the bill itself is written in clear and accessible language, with a particular focus on ensuring democracy and local democratic voices are at the heart of decision making across its proposals. If we are going to change everything and yes, I do have a book out with that title, we have to set out a plan as well as the paradigm shift. But in this introductory speech, I'm going to consecrate chiefly on the major change in legal principle and approach nature's rights, because making the case is the first step to delivering it.
I will focus on making the case for rights of nature as the foundation of a healthy society, a foundation for all of our futures to genuinely at scale, not just protect the fragments of poison, degrade limited nature that we have left, but to regenerate. To do that, I'm going to briefly outline the international picture for while this bill is, I believe, the most comprehensive to be considered by any global legislature, the concept of rights of nature and its application has been spreading like a rich and diverse mycorrhizal fungal network, nourishing a flourishing tree of legal change.
To quote the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Environmental Politics, published in 2021, rights of nature has gone from being a radical idea espoused only by a handful of marginalised actors to a legal strategy seriously considered by in a wide variety of domestic and international policy areas. Its authors count 185 legal provisions recognising rights of nature in 17 countries across five continents, and 50 more pending in 2021. Across a dozen other countries. Rights of nature are now also recognised in many international policy documents.
Two exemplars are found in New Zealand, centred on the Whanganui River. A very famous example, and Ecuador in both cases inspired as the whole nature's rights movement is by indigenous thinking, the foundations of cultures that have existed for many thousands and in some cases tens of thousands of years, that allowed human societies to live and flourish without trashing their local environments or the planet. Perhaps the most globally comprehensive is article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, written in 2008.
Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes. Now, it's important to say that this bill does not represent an alternative to the very strong local action, such as by the friends of the Thames and the West Sussex Rivers Trusts working on rights to river and declarations of the rights to rivers in which the House of Commons Library recently wrote an excellent report, but rather is.
This bill is complementary to those efforts. Defending the rights of one river can only have limited impacts on the microplastic and nanoplastic pollution that now covers the planet. The explosion of novel entity pollution that has far exceeded the planet's limits. And, of course, the climate emergency. With every ton tonne of carbon dioxide emitted having global impacts and every tonne present prevented from being emitted being a global positive. All of that demands far broader action than just a focus on one river.
As important as that is, it is also complementary with the campaign, of which I declare I'm a member, to create an international offence of ecocide, and also with calls on which I'm also working to strengthen the rights of Antarctica, to continue to exist as a healthy part of the cryosphere. And it fits very well with the one health approach that acknowledges that human, animal and environmental health are all interdependent. I very much look forward to our debate today, and I thank the wide range of peers who've signed up to participate.
And particularly, I look forward to the noble Lady. The minister's response for the world is watching. I can say from the social media interest that this debate has already generated, the current UK government has no stance on the rights of nature, on the formal record that the House of Lords library could find. Two years ago at the United Nations, the former Tory government caused international. Upset by opposing a motion for Bolivia on living well in balance and harmony with Mother Nature and Mother Earth with centric actions.
This included a passage on the rights to nature. But we now have a Labour government and I hope. I trust that we will hear for the first time, whether it has moved on from that disastrous anthropocentric perspective of 2020. For Labour's 2024 manifesto acknowledged that we are in a nature emergency and said that it would tackle the unforgivable pollution of our rivers and seas, promote biodiversity and protect our landscapes and wildlife. In the nature's rights debate, it has a chance to acknowledge that demands acknowledging a place for nature, not as a source of extraction, but a place for the human and the more than human to flourish.
To conclude, any noble Lord participating today might like to check out Instagram to see a positive use of social media, offering broad support for this bill from around the UK and beyond. And I'm going to finish with one the words from one of those posts from 12 year old artist and naturalist Benjamin Fallow, who made a video supporting this bill. Benjamin said, listen to the children. We need nature and wildlife to survive. I beg to move.
Additionally, more than half of the world's gross domestic product is highly or moderately dependent on nature. End quote. You'd think, then, that IT and governments around the world would be would have established legal systems and forms that would effectively protect and enhance nature. But that is not what is happening, particularly in the UK. One of the most nature depleted countries on earth. As the State of Nature Report of 2023 concluded, that report was arguably still only very soon after the 2021 Environment Act, which set the very modest target of halting the decline in species abundance by 2030.
But half a decade after the act, there's still scant signs of progress. For evidence, I go to a peer reviewed study by the UK centre for Ecology and Hydrology, out this year, which found little sign to the end of the spiralling decline which lead author pointing to the grave risk of loss of the Merlin, the mountain ringlet, the large heath butterflies and plants such as burnt orchid, grass of Parnassus and Alpine gentine and many other species. The lead author said this will negatively affect local habitats and a range of ecological functions, from soil health and nutrient cycling to pollination and food production, with knock on effects for wildlife and people.
That reflects what is happening around the world. The UN Environment Programme in 2019 found that 150 countries have enshrined environmental protection, or the right to a healthy environment in their constitutions. 176 countries have environmental framework laws, and 164 countries have created Cabinet level bodies for environmental protection. But the laws for environmental protection have not worked. And that's not surprising. For as Mari Margol from the US centre for Democratic and Environmental Rights explains, environmental laws are put in place to determine how much we can harm or exploit nature.
Environmental laws and regulations have not fundamentally changed the rate of environmental destruction, despite 60 years or more of awareness of environmental issues and half a century of environmental law. Short term economic interests, particularly of powerful countries. Now with the companies, now with the resources and power rivalling those of all but the largest states nations determination to exploit and extract from states unable or unwilling to resist them, through mining, through logging, through polluting, have overwhelmed what are essentially ineffective legal provisions that has potentially existential consequences for humans, for our nation, for as the long delayed and still not fully released joint intelligence chief report that finally emerged in January identified six ecosystem regions that it called critical for UK security that were on a reasonable worst case scenario on the pathway to collapse.
So the search has begun for an alternative approach to secure the future of our biospheres and all of our futures. And the approach that many have settled on, the approach that this bill brings in is that of rights to nature. Now, I thank the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in setting out a clear briefing about the ethical framework of rights to nature. It notes there are competing views on this, and I expect we will hear some of those today. But I think it's worth going through the origins and the advance of this issue.
The origin of this alternative approach is often traced back to Christopher Stone's Should Trees Have Standing. Published in 1972. He noted that for many centuries, women and slaves were not fully recognised as legal subjects, and he saw how there had been a progressive widening of the laws circle of concern. Stone proposed that we give legal rights to forests, ocean rivers and other so-called natural objects in the environment, indeed to the natural environment as a whole. And that's what this bill does.
The Rights to nature approach offers a reset in our relationship, an ending of the disastrous 17th century paradigm, a mechanistic worldview that falsely separates people, nature and the economy as though they can operate independently. A global application of that paradigm has led, as the Stockholm Resilience Centre charts literally, in the case of one diagram that shows the current state of human impacts on nine planetary boundaries, seven of them have not just been exceeded, but smashed. As the European Economic and Social Committee spokesman said, it is irrational to have societal systems that undermine nature.
As one of the many who've mustered on Instagram to support this bill, very beautifully put it, we need a green Magna Carta and that is what the bill I present before you today is. The bill was written by Lawyer Monckton of the Nature's Rights charity, drawing on experience working with the UN. Harmony with nature programme and more. For more of its foundations, you can go to a study conducted for the European Economic and Social Committee towards an EU Fundamental Charter for the Rights of Nature.
What I present here today is a new legal framework that recognised nature's rights as the foundation of human rights, social and economic activity. It aligns law with modern scientific understanding. Now it is a long bill for a particularly for a private member's bill, 57 pages. And it doesn't only set down a major change in legal principle. It also establishes a legal duty of care for public bodies, businesses and individuals, establishes an Integrated Rights Framework, introduces mechanisms for dispute resolution and legal enforcement, establishes a Nature Guardianship Council via regional councils and a Nature's Rights Tribunal, and creates a government governance structure for implementation and integration.
As usual, our excellent library briefing sets out the impact of the Bill clause by clause, and the bill itself is written in clear and accessible language, with a particular focus on ensuring democracy and local democratic voices are at the heart of decision making across its proposals. If we are going to change everything and yes, I do have a book out with that title, we have to set out a plan as well as the paradigm shift. But in this introductory speech, I'm going to consecrate chiefly on the major change in legal principle and approach nature's rights, because making the case is the first step to delivering it.
I will focus on making the case for rights of nature as the foundation of a healthy society, a foundation for all of our futures to genuinely at scale, not just protect the fragments of poison, degrade limited nature that we have left, but to regenerate. To do that, I'm going to briefly outline the international picture for while this bill is, I believe, the most comprehensive to be considered by any global legislature, the concept of rights of nature and its application has been spreading like a rich and diverse mycorrhizal fungal network, nourishing a flourishing tree of legal change.
To quote the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Environmental Politics, published in 2021, rights of nature has gone from being a radical idea espoused only by a handful of marginalised actors to a legal strategy seriously considered by in a wide variety of domestic and international policy areas. Its authors count 185 legal provisions recognising rights of nature in 17 countries across five continents, and 50 more pending in 2021. Across a dozen other countries. Rights of nature are now also recognised in many international policy documents.
Two exemplars are found in New Zealand, centred on the Whanganui River. A very famous example, and Ecuador in both cases inspired as the whole nature's rights movement is by indigenous thinking, the foundations of cultures that have existed for many thousands and in some cases tens of thousands of years, that allowed human societies to live and flourish without trashing their local environments or the planet. Perhaps the most globally comprehensive is article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, written in 2008.
Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes. Now, it's important to say that this bill does not represent an alternative to the very strong local action, such as by the friends of the Thames and the West Sussex Rivers Trusts working on rights to river and declarations of the rights to rivers in which the House of Commons Library recently wrote an excellent report, but rather is.
This bill is complementary to those efforts. Defending the rights of one river can only have limited impacts on the microplastic and nanoplastic pollution that now covers the planet. The explosion of novel entity pollution that has far exceeded the planet's limits. And, of course, the climate emergency. With every ton tonne of carbon dioxide emitted having global impacts and every tonne present prevented from being emitted being a global positive. All of that demands far broader action than just a focus on one river.
As important as that is, it is also complementary with the campaign, of which I declare I'm a member, to create an international offence of ecocide, and also with calls on which I'm also working to strengthen the rights of Antarctica, to continue to exist as a healthy part of the cryosphere. And it fits very well with the one health approach that acknowledges that human, animal and environmental health are all interdependent. I very much look forward to our debate today, and I thank the wide range of peers who've signed up to participate.
And particularly, I look forward to the noble Lady. The minister's response for the world is watching. I can say from the social media interest that this debate has already generated, the current UK government has no stance on the rights of nature, on the formal record that the House of Lords library could find. Two years ago at the United Nations, the former Tory government caused international. Upset by opposing a motion for Bolivia on living well in balance and harmony with Mother Nature and Mother Earth with centric actions.
This included a passage on the rights to nature. But we now have a Labour government and I hope. I trust that we will hear for the first time, whether it has moved on from that disastrous anthropocentric perspective of 2020. For Labour's 2024 manifesto acknowledged that we are in a nature emergency and said that it would tackle the unforgivable pollution of our rivers and seas, promote biodiversity and protect our landscapes and wildlife. In the nature's rights debate, it has a chance to acknowledge that demands acknowledging a place for nature, not as a source of extraction, but a place for the human and the more than human to flourish.
To conclude, any noble Lord participating today might like to check out Instagram to see a positive use of social media, offering broad support for this bill from around the UK and beyond. And I'm going to finish with one the words from one of those posts from 12 year old artist and naturalist Benjamin Fallow, who made a video supporting this bill. Benjamin said, listen to the children. We need nature and wildlife to survive. I beg to move.
12:19
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. >> My Lords, I. >> Congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. >> On introducing this Bill. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On introducing this Bill. I comprehensive. Bill, given the number of clauses that is there, and I do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sentiment. In which she wants to bring this forward. She's right to point out forward. She's right to point out that the Environment Act was actually a very important piece of legislation, still only a certain legislation, still only a certain element along the way of aspects being commenced and the like. But I being commenced and the like. But I do also understand her huge concern, recognising that this government is recognising that this government is actually rowing back on a lot of the measures that were put in that bill deliberately to try and improve the standing of nature.
Now, the Natural History Museum's index is that the UK stands as 189th out of 240 countries. When it comes to considering the completeness of its original nature, with the UK only having 53%. And that is what gives the. The phrase that often comes out is that the UK is one of the most nature depleted places in the world, but of course that doesn't recognise the amount of change that's happened. The growth in population, industrialisation and the like. But what I think is fair to say is that it was recognised that we needed to get nature back into balance, which is what brought about the Environment Act and indeed through the Environmental Performance Index run by Yale and Columbia universities.
The UK in 2024 was actually the fifth best in the world at trying to improve the environment. The countries, the only countries ahead of it were Estonia, Luxembourg, Germany and Finland. And in particular, I know that the noble Baroness will be interested in ecosystem vitality and on that the UK was 11th best in the world. And that's because there has been a real focus on trying to restore habitats. And it's why I am worried about other aspects of consultations already underway, changes that have happened in the Planning infrastructure bill that seems to put habitat aside.
If actually a building can be placed there instead, I'm conscious that there has to be an ongoing balance between nature and the development of humanity and develop into housing. But I understand her sentiments and why that she thinks this bill may be necessary. But what I do want to try and get a sense of, because I feel that the existing legislation we have today already has a lot of what she wants, and that some of the extra points may well be superfluous.
It's also a very ambitious bill. It's UK wide, with only a duty to consult the devolved administrations. The government already has statutory advisers. It has Natural England as its principal statutory adviser on nature, but also the EP in terms of aspects of legislation, but also in the Bill. Nature itself isn't defined. Will it cover all flora and fauna? But is it about landscapes? Is it about ecosystems? Is it about systems that isn't defined in this bill? If it is to include fauna, will that exclude the kept and farmed animals away from this definition? Is it supposed to be what is in a natural environment? So that is something that I think at Committee stage, we need to probe further in terms of trust.
I agree with, as I've already started to set out, that I agree somewhat with the noble Baroness on Her concerns about this, and this is why I will continue to press on other aspects of legislation already coming through. But just to encourage the DEFRA family to think a bit more carefully about that development of trust. It's when people have seen it elsewhere in climate, when people just think the world's going to end tomorrow, why are we going to be the ones to save it? Those sorts of things start to start to people start to become rather sceptical when they hear about the actions they're undertaking.
And then in other parts of the world, nothing is happening. It's then becomes very difficult. A recent example, for example, in March, there was huge publicity about the coastal path being fully open around the country. Actually, as the parliamentary answer given by the Minister showed. That was not the case. And it's this sort of deception being done in the sense of publicity is not helpful. Now, I don't know the 2024 motion to which the noble Baroness referred. I wasn't in office then, but I was proud to be leading the delegation to the Convention on Biodiversity held in Montreal.
The second meeting where, frankly, we listened to the EU's concerns about our ambitions. But we put them aside and reopen negotiations and made it completely comprehensive. Of course, we need to keep going to try and make sure that's a reality. But that's I think that does reflect actually the ambition of the conservative government. And indeed, my noble friend Lord Gove was the leading force in driving the Environment Act. I want to turn a little bit more to particularly the scrutiny of the legislation.
And one of the things in clause 45, it largely sets out these to be negative resolutions, which surprised me in the operation of this. Apart from the establishing of the bodies in sections 15, 17 and 28 in terms of criminal offences, I think that makes sense. But I am nervous about the huge Henry the Eighth powers set out in section 46 and also section 45 F, and I will also gently say in clause section 45, three is one of the few places where affirmative resolutions are referred to, but it does refer to section 436, which is not actually in the bill.
So it may be something got deleted by accident. So it would be interesting to hear what further parts of the bill that was intended to apply to. Now, one of the things that I will consider bringing forward as a amendments will be about how is this going to. Oh, sorry. My other question is how both the noble Baroness and the Minister might think this is going to work with the EU reset? I think that's going to be an important part of this, recognising that if we're in a EU reset very soon, this Parliament will have no say.
You'll have no vote on any regulation that will then be applied in this country. When it comes to a lot of the factors affecting this particular area, to which the noble Baroness is rightly concerned. So I would I also be interested to see what the new Prime Minister will have to say on some of the powers already put in place, which are depleting nature. Some of those starting today and or started yesterday. Sorry. And we'll see if we have a Manchester reset on that particular aspect.
There's also an amendment that I am minded to table, and it does relate to the Environment Act. And it's section 23. And this is about when a Minister makes a declaration at Second Reading only in each House. And I did ask the Procedures and Privileges Committee how this could. The accuracy of those comments could be challenged. And the answer was, you just ask a parliamentary question or ask the Minister. And the Minister kindly said that the votes. Ministers were bound by the ministerial code.
However, due to an action, a legal action undertaken by Wild Justice, it was determined that actually these are parliamentary proceedings. It's got nothing to do with ministerial code or any other aspect of law, but so far the. The government would not release the legal opinion presented by First Treasury counsel or indeed Parliament would not release speakers, councils provisions. So maybe that I tabled some amendments at that point. But with that, while I wish generally the Baroness. Well, I'm afraid I won't be supporting her Bill through its full passage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On introducing this Bill. I comprehensive. Bill, given the number of clauses that is there, and I do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sentiment. In which she wants to bring this forward. She's right to point out forward. She's right to point out that the Environment Act was actually a very important piece of legislation, still only a certain legislation, still only a certain element along the way of aspects being commenced and the like. But I being commenced and the like. But I do also understand her huge concern, recognising that this government is recognising that this government is actually rowing back on a lot of the measures that were put in that bill deliberately to try and improve the standing of nature.
Now, the Natural History Museum's index is that the UK stands as 189th out of 240 countries. When it comes to considering the completeness of its original nature, with the UK only having 53%. And that is what gives the. The phrase that often comes out is that the UK is one of the most nature depleted places in the world, but of course that doesn't recognise the amount of change that's happened. The growth in population, industrialisation and the like. But what I think is fair to say is that it was recognised that we needed to get nature back into balance, which is what brought about the Environment Act and indeed through the Environmental Performance Index run by Yale and Columbia universities.
The UK in 2024 was actually the fifth best in the world at trying to improve the environment. The countries, the only countries ahead of it were Estonia, Luxembourg, Germany and Finland. And in particular, I know that the noble Baroness will be interested in ecosystem vitality and on that the UK was 11th best in the world. And that's because there has been a real focus on trying to restore habitats. And it's why I am worried about other aspects of consultations already underway, changes that have happened in the Planning infrastructure bill that seems to put habitat aside.
If actually a building can be placed there instead, I'm conscious that there has to be an ongoing balance between nature and the development of humanity and develop into housing. But I understand her sentiments and why that she thinks this bill may be necessary. But what I do want to try and get a sense of, because I feel that the existing legislation we have today already has a lot of what she wants, and that some of the extra points may well be superfluous.
It's also a very ambitious bill. It's UK wide, with only a duty to consult the devolved administrations. The government already has statutory advisers. It has Natural England as its principal statutory adviser on nature, but also the EP in terms of aspects of legislation, but also in the Bill. Nature itself isn't defined. Will it cover all flora and fauna? But is it about landscapes? Is it about ecosystems? Is it about systems that isn't defined in this bill? If it is to include fauna, will that exclude the kept and farmed animals away from this definition? Is it supposed to be what is in a natural environment? So that is something that I think at Committee stage, we need to probe further in terms of trust.
I agree with, as I've already started to set out, that I agree somewhat with the noble Baroness on Her concerns about this, and this is why I will continue to press on other aspects of legislation already coming through. But just to encourage the DEFRA family to think a bit more carefully about that development of trust. It's when people have seen it elsewhere in climate, when people just think the world's going to end tomorrow, why are we going to be the ones to save it? Those sorts of things start to start to people start to become rather sceptical when they hear about the actions they're undertaking.
And then in other parts of the world, nothing is happening. It's then becomes very difficult. A recent example, for example, in March, there was huge publicity about the coastal path being fully open around the country. Actually, as the parliamentary answer given by the Minister showed. That was not the case. And it's this sort of deception being done in the sense of publicity is not helpful. Now, I don't know the 2024 motion to which the noble Baroness referred. I wasn't in office then, but I was proud to be leading the delegation to the Convention on Biodiversity held in Montreal.
The second meeting where, frankly, we listened to the EU's concerns about our ambitions. But we put them aside and reopen negotiations and made it completely comprehensive. Of course, we need to keep going to try and make sure that's a reality. But that's I think that does reflect actually the ambition of the conservative government. And indeed, my noble friend Lord Gove was the leading force in driving the Environment Act. I want to turn a little bit more to particularly the scrutiny of the legislation.
And one of the things in clause 45, it largely sets out these to be negative resolutions, which surprised me in the operation of this. Apart from the establishing of the bodies in sections 15, 17 and 28 in terms of criminal offences, I think that makes sense. But I am nervous about the huge Henry the Eighth powers set out in section 46 and also section 45 F, and I will also gently say in clause section 45, three is one of the few places where affirmative resolutions are referred to, but it does refer to section 436, which is not actually in the bill.
So it may be something got deleted by accident. So it would be interesting to hear what further parts of the bill that was intended to apply to. Now, one of the things that I will consider bringing forward as a amendments will be about how is this going to. Oh, sorry. My other question is how both the noble Baroness and the Minister might think this is going to work with the EU reset? I think that's going to be an important part of this, recognising that if we're in a EU reset very soon, this Parliament will have no say.
You'll have no vote on any regulation that will then be applied in this country. When it comes to a lot of the factors affecting this particular area, to which the noble Baroness is rightly concerned. So I would I also be interested to see what the new Prime Minister will have to say on some of the powers already put in place, which are depleting nature. Some of those starting today and or started yesterday. Sorry. And we'll see if we have a Manchester reset on that particular aspect.
There's also an amendment that I am minded to table, and it does relate to the Environment Act. And it's section 23. And this is about when a Minister makes a declaration at Second Reading only in each House. And I did ask the Procedures and Privileges Committee how this could. The accuracy of those comments could be challenged. And the answer was, you just ask a parliamentary question or ask the Minister. And the Minister kindly said that the votes. Ministers were bound by the ministerial code.
However, due to an action, a legal action undertaken by Wild Justice, it was determined that actually these are parliamentary proceedings. It's got nothing to do with ministerial code or any other aspect of law, but so far the. The government would not release the legal opinion presented by First Treasury counsel or indeed Parliament would not release speakers, councils provisions. So maybe that I tabled some amendments at that point. But with that, while I wish generally the Baroness. Well, I'm afraid I won't be supporting her Bill through its full passage.
12:28
Lord Lebedev (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Lebedev (Crossbench)
Thank you. My Lords, this bill >> Thank you. My Lords, this bill addresses one of the greatest crisis of our times the ravaging of nature, the destruction of the nature, the destruction of the environment of which we depend and of which we are an inseparable part. I congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Bennett on her good fortune, and coming second in the private members ballot, and using this opportunity to bring forward this bill. I would like to lend my voice of support of her.
The noble Lady has made the case for the Bill with admirable clarity and passion. She is absolutely right to remind us in this House of the scale and speed with which the natural world is being destroyed deforestation, loss of habitats, the hunting of endangered species for gain, unsustainable farming practices, the ruthless race for rare earths, the rapacious approach so many nations take to mineral extraction, the accumulation of plastics and other waste in our rivers and seas. Mankind, in so many ways, is laying waste to the planet, which is our only home, and demonstrating a reckless disregard for the creation of which we are not only one part.
And this global phenomenon is sadly all too apparent in our own poor stewardship, our own disdainful lack of care for nature in these islands. The UK is one of the most depleted nations in the world. Valuable habitats have been lost to unsustainable development. Our rivers continue to be polluted by poorly regulated water companies and inadequately supported farmers. The sanctity, the preservation of nature is a deeply personal cause for me. My grandfather, Professor Vladimir Sokolov, was a pioneering zoologist and ecologist and a member of the Brooklyn Commission, which helped to define our modern understanding of sustainable development.
As a boy, I travelled with him to Africa and across old Soviet Union, inspired by his tireless work to protect nature. I have tried, in my own small way to carry on that work campaigning against legal illegal wildlife trade, supporting indigenous communities to protect their way of life and precious environments they and the species they live alongside, depend on. I am particularly moved by the efforts I have been proud to support to safeguard African elephants and other megafauna.
But as Baroness Bennett reminds us, all nature demands our care and and requires our protection. I know that some aspects of the bill and the expansive nature of legal and regulatory protection it envisages will not be to the taste of many of your Lordships. But no one has been clear about their wish that this Bill be improved through debate and dialogue, and Baroness Bennett herself working with civil society, she has made clear we need broader conservation conversation about precisely the measures we need to implement to recognise the interdependence between our species, fate and others.
We cannot be in doubt, though. What cannot be in doubt, though, is the need for greater urgency and action. The government and its predecessor has taken some important steps, moving away from the wasteful system of subsidy we had in the Common Agricultural Policy to providing public money for public goods such as carbon sinks and enhanced habitats. The 25 year Environment Plan, with its targets for habitat reclamation, the creation of marine protected areas and the establishment of office for environmental protections are all welcome moves forward.
But the public expect us to go further. I'm sure your Lordships are familiar with the work of the gifted nature writer Robert MacFarlane. His latest book, is A River alive is a runaway Sunday Times best seller. Its popularity. Speaking to the new clamour for us to all recognise what we owe nature, we need to recast the language of rights and duties to arrest and transcend the destruction of the natural world. This bill helps us to do just that, and I'm pleased to be able to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support it in its Second Reading. And, my Lords, I thank the noble Lady Baroness Bennett for bringing Lady Baroness Bennett for bringing forward this bill. It's extremely interesting, Bill, well worthy of interesting, Bill, well worthy of debate, and indeed, it's good to have a bill that raises properly philosophical issues. Apart from the recent assisted dying bill, we don't often get them. Now, the don't often get them. Now, the question of what nature is has, of course, preoccupied philosophers and theologians since the ancient
The noble Lady has made the case for the Bill with admirable clarity and passion. She is absolutely right to remind us in this House of the scale and speed with which the natural world is being destroyed deforestation, loss of habitats, the hunting of endangered species for gain, unsustainable farming practices, the ruthless race for rare earths, the rapacious approach so many nations take to mineral extraction, the accumulation of plastics and other waste in our rivers and seas. Mankind, in so many ways, is laying waste to the planet, which is our only home, and demonstrating a reckless disregard for the creation of which we are not only one part.
And this global phenomenon is sadly all too apparent in our own poor stewardship, our own disdainful lack of care for nature in these islands. The UK is one of the most depleted nations in the world. Valuable habitats have been lost to unsustainable development. Our rivers continue to be polluted by poorly regulated water companies and inadequately supported farmers. The sanctity, the preservation of nature is a deeply personal cause for me. My grandfather, Professor Vladimir Sokolov, was a pioneering zoologist and ecologist and a member of the Brooklyn Commission, which helped to define our modern understanding of sustainable development.
As a boy, I travelled with him to Africa and across old Soviet Union, inspired by his tireless work to protect nature. I have tried, in my own small way to carry on that work campaigning against legal illegal wildlife trade, supporting indigenous communities to protect their way of life and precious environments they and the species they live alongside, depend on. I am particularly moved by the efforts I have been proud to support to safeguard African elephants and other megafauna.
But as Baroness Bennett reminds us, all nature demands our care and and requires our protection. I know that some aspects of the bill and the expansive nature of legal and regulatory protection it envisages will not be to the taste of many of your Lordships. But no one has been clear about their wish that this Bill be improved through debate and dialogue, and Baroness Bennett herself working with civil society, she has made clear we need broader conservation conversation about precisely the measures we need to implement to recognise the interdependence between our species, fate and others.
We cannot be in doubt, though. What cannot be in doubt, though, is the need for greater urgency and action. The government and its predecessor has taken some important steps, moving away from the wasteful system of subsidy we had in the Common Agricultural Policy to providing public money for public goods such as carbon sinks and enhanced habitats. The 25 year Environment Plan, with its targets for habitat reclamation, the creation of marine protected areas and the establishment of office for environmental protections are all welcome moves forward.
But the public expect us to go further. I'm sure your Lordships are familiar with the work of the gifted nature writer Robert MacFarlane. His latest book, is A River alive is a runaway Sunday Times best seller. Its popularity. Speaking to the new clamour for us to all recognise what we owe nature, we need to recast the language of rights and duties to arrest and transcend the destruction of the natural world. This bill helps us to do just that, and I'm pleased to be able to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support it in its Second Reading. And, my Lords, I thank the noble Lady Baroness Bennett for bringing Lady Baroness Bennett for bringing forward this bill. It's extremely interesting, Bill, well worthy of interesting, Bill, well worthy of debate, and indeed, it's good to have a bill that raises properly philosophical issues. Apart from the recent assisted dying bill, we don't often get them. Now, the don't often get them. Now, the question of what nature is has, of course, preoccupied philosophers and theologians since the ancient
12:33
Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
Greeks, and, they ask, is the natural order itself divine, merely God's handiwork? Something in between? Or more recently, of course, neither or none of those course, neither or none of those things. And in examining this question, one issue very relevant question, one issue very relevant to this bill recurs, which is whether and if so, why it is reasonable to personalise the reasonable to personalise the concept of nature for theological, philosophical, or indeed political purposes. And this bill seems to do just that.
And one is led to speculate, indeed, whether we're seeing not just the embodiment of the modern Gaia concept, but also a return to the lady nature of the early medieval charter school of Bernard Sylvestris and Alain de Lille. Now, these are not, I think, irrelevant or purely intellectual questions. The Bill asks us to believe that nature exists as a specific, recognisable, even self-evident concept and builds an entire political structure around that. Yet intellectual history tells us things are a bit more complicated than that.
Get the concept wrong, and the politics and the legislation will be wrong too. And I fear that's what's happening now. Despite what I've just said, I actually have more sympathy with the bill's proponents, with the noble Lady Baroness Bennett in this area than she might perhaps imagine, even if she doesn't necessarily agree with the route by which I get there. The bill itself, of course, is is very problematic, of course, but we will come on to that. But I do think it's trying to recognise something important with which I actually sympathise.
I'm personally I'm rather with Thomas Aquinas in thinking that nature is something distinct from the divine creator, but also some way special. The natural world is not God, but nor is it just sort of stuff. It is special and should be treated accordingly. It bears witness to God in a sacramental way. We shouldn't be casual, therefore we shouldn't be casually mistreating of our natural environment. Now, it's one thing to say that, and another to turn it into meaningful and practical legislation.
And in fact, I worry. I think it isn't actually possible to do this in a secular democracy. And the reason I've begun with this theological excursus is precisely because I think the bill is trying to bring in a kind of confessionalism by the back door. If we were to take it seriously, it would require every one of us and every organisation to pay obeisance to nature and its rights as if it were some kind of goddess, someone or something with super personal rights, with superior status, reducing us as humans to beings subordinate to her.
And indeed, that's exactly what we find in clause four two, in which humans and human rights are explicitly made secondary to the rights of nature with a capital N, I contend that this is a sort of religious approach, but not, of course, a Christian one. It's more a pagan vision, and one which I would say is fundamentally anti-human and antithetical to human flourishing and should therefore be resisted. And, my Lords, the Bill raises not just such philosophical issues, but also practical and important public policy issues.
One of them is, is the way that this approach treats nature with a capital N again, as a single unified, rights based bearing subject. But nature is not a single. It. Indeed, clause 42 of the Bill itself defines nature at some length, as I quote, the interconnected, interconnected community of living organisms, ecosystems, habitats, species, landscapes, etc. etc. collapsing in almost limited heterogeneity of entities into one legal person in what I would contend is a rather meaningless fashion.
Indeed, the bill's proponent has summarised this, I think by saying that nature is everything there is, and the economy is a complete subset of that. Well, I would agree on that, but that's precisely the problem. How can nature be a right bearing entity, as clause two describes it, if it's everything there is, how are we supposed to address all the trade offs and conflicts that arise within that? The only way of doing it is to do what we already do to establish various rights human, corporate property, whatever, and adjudicate between them on the basis of the Greek criteria.
You can't adjudicate between those rights and the whole system. They're on different levels. They're different kinds of things. It simply doesn't make sense to try and do it. And in that sense, I think the whole bill just is not workable. But let's suppose we tried it anyway. The problem then is that nature is full of competing interests predator versus prey, native versus colonising species worn by a region's water needs versus another. You could go on endlessly. So any coherent rights of nature framework means you need some sort of metric to compare harms and benefits across radically different kinds of entities.
Now, the bill's own definition of concepts like ecological integrity, safe limits, planetary boundaries as set out in clause 42, all gesture at scientific provision, but actually they just relabel these same incommensurable variables as things that purport to be legally operative thresholds. Actually, they're just bringing scientific contestability directly into the binding law. And in these circumstances, I contend that the judges, the tribunals, or the members of the sinister sounding Nature Guardianship Council will simply be making their own value judgements dressed up as adjudication, and that risk becoming arbitrary government in the purest form, must conclude there are many other problems with the bill, and I'll just mention a few.
Clause 33 creates a sweeping new criminal offence. Incredibly, with up to 20 years imprisonment as the maximum sentence for recklessly causing serious harm to nature, entirely disproportionate. Clause 30 allows proceedings to be brought in the name of nature. I quote by charities, community bodies, public interest organisations, long, long lists combined with the state funded Environmental Justice Fund. All this is yet further subsidy to campaign groups to litigate against infrastructure, housing, farming, real activity in the real world. As if that wasn't problematic enough, already, we're seeing the enshrining of the precautionary principle in a very broad form.
In clause 34 clauses, 1011 directs the entire financial and banking sector to re-orient lending, investment and pension decisions around ecological criteria. We've seen the creation of huge regulation making powers for Secretaries of State with very few limitations, and of course, the creation of a vast additional bureaucracy to support this new activity will also conclude, I think, in short, I say with a degree of sadness, for the reasons I set out for the start. I'm afraid the bill is not just philosophically incoherent, but probably unworkable.
In saying all this, I'm doing the bill, the courtesy of taking it seriously, and I wonder whether one really should, given that it involves a complete upending of our economic, environmental and legal systems, and it's difficult to imagine it could really make progress given that. But I do think to conclude, it's worth identifying and dismantling its ideas now while they're marginal and merely prankish, rather than risking them acquiring momentum and becoming actively dangerous. We've had enough bad ideas in politics in the last few years.
Let's not import
**** Possible New Speaker ****
another one in this bill now. My Lords. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this Bill and for her long standing commitment to environmental protection and climate justice. Firstly, I draw the House's attention to an early the House's attention to an early day motion tabled in the other place this May, entitled National Emergency, sponsored by members from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and My own party primary.
It highlighted the escalating risks posed by climate change and nature loss. It noted that 1 in 4 properties could be at risk of flooding by 2050, that heat waves and wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe, and that the UK ranks among the
And one is led to speculate, indeed, whether we're seeing not just the embodiment of the modern Gaia concept, but also a return to the lady nature of the early medieval charter school of Bernard Sylvestris and Alain de Lille. Now, these are not, I think, irrelevant or purely intellectual questions. The Bill asks us to believe that nature exists as a specific, recognisable, even self-evident concept and builds an entire political structure around that. Yet intellectual history tells us things are a bit more complicated than that.
Get the concept wrong, and the politics and the legislation will be wrong too. And I fear that's what's happening now. Despite what I've just said, I actually have more sympathy with the bill's proponents, with the noble Lady Baroness Bennett in this area than she might perhaps imagine, even if she doesn't necessarily agree with the route by which I get there. The bill itself, of course, is is very problematic, of course, but we will come on to that. But I do think it's trying to recognise something important with which I actually sympathise.
I'm personally I'm rather with Thomas Aquinas in thinking that nature is something distinct from the divine creator, but also some way special. The natural world is not God, but nor is it just sort of stuff. It is special and should be treated accordingly. It bears witness to God in a sacramental way. We shouldn't be casual, therefore we shouldn't be casually mistreating of our natural environment. Now, it's one thing to say that, and another to turn it into meaningful and practical legislation.
And in fact, I worry. I think it isn't actually possible to do this in a secular democracy. And the reason I've begun with this theological excursus is precisely because I think the bill is trying to bring in a kind of confessionalism by the back door. If we were to take it seriously, it would require every one of us and every organisation to pay obeisance to nature and its rights as if it were some kind of goddess, someone or something with super personal rights, with superior status, reducing us as humans to beings subordinate to her.
And indeed, that's exactly what we find in clause four two, in which humans and human rights are explicitly made secondary to the rights of nature with a capital N, I contend that this is a sort of religious approach, but not, of course, a Christian one. It's more a pagan vision, and one which I would say is fundamentally anti-human and antithetical to human flourishing and should therefore be resisted. And, my Lords, the Bill raises not just such philosophical issues, but also practical and important public policy issues.
One of them is, is the way that this approach treats nature with a capital N again, as a single unified, rights based bearing subject. But nature is not a single. It. Indeed, clause 42 of the Bill itself defines nature at some length, as I quote, the interconnected, interconnected community of living organisms, ecosystems, habitats, species, landscapes, etc. etc. collapsing in almost limited heterogeneity of entities into one legal person in what I would contend is a rather meaningless fashion.
Indeed, the bill's proponent has summarised this, I think by saying that nature is everything there is, and the economy is a complete subset of that. Well, I would agree on that, but that's precisely the problem. How can nature be a right bearing entity, as clause two describes it, if it's everything there is, how are we supposed to address all the trade offs and conflicts that arise within that? The only way of doing it is to do what we already do to establish various rights human, corporate property, whatever, and adjudicate between them on the basis of the Greek criteria.
You can't adjudicate between those rights and the whole system. They're on different levels. They're different kinds of things. It simply doesn't make sense to try and do it. And in that sense, I think the whole bill just is not workable. But let's suppose we tried it anyway. The problem then is that nature is full of competing interests predator versus prey, native versus colonising species worn by a region's water needs versus another. You could go on endlessly. So any coherent rights of nature framework means you need some sort of metric to compare harms and benefits across radically different kinds of entities.
Now, the bill's own definition of concepts like ecological integrity, safe limits, planetary boundaries as set out in clause 42, all gesture at scientific provision, but actually they just relabel these same incommensurable variables as things that purport to be legally operative thresholds. Actually, they're just bringing scientific contestability directly into the binding law. And in these circumstances, I contend that the judges, the tribunals, or the members of the sinister sounding Nature Guardianship Council will simply be making their own value judgements dressed up as adjudication, and that risk becoming arbitrary government in the purest form, must conclude there are many other problems with the bill, and I'll just mention a few.
Clause 33 creates a sweeping new criminal offence. Incredibly, with up to 20 years imprisonment as the maximum sentence for recklessly causing serious harm to nature, entirely disproportionate. Clause 30 allows proceedings to be brought in the name of nature. I quote by charities, community bodies, public interest organisations, long, long lists combined with the state funded Environmental Justice Fund. All this is yet further subsidy to campaign groups to litigate against infrastructure, housing, farming, real activity in the real world. As if that wasn't problematic enough, already, we're seeing the enshrining of the precautionary principle in a very broad form.
In clause 34 clauses, 1011 directs the entire financial and banking sector to re-orient lending, investment and pension decisions around ecological criteria. We've seen the creation of huge regulation making powers for Secretaries of State with very few limitations, and of course, the creation of a vast additional bureaucracy to support this new activity will also conclude, I think, in short, I say with a degree of sadness, for the reasons I set out for the start. I'm afraid the bill is not just philosophically incoherent, but probably unworkable.
In saying all this, I'm doing the bill, the courtesy of taking it seriously, and I wonder whether one really should, given that it involves a complete upending of our economic, environmental and legal systems, and it's difficult to imagine it could really make progress given that. But I do think to conclude, it's worth identifying and dismantling its ideas now while they're marginal and merely prankish, rather than risking them acquiring momentum and becoming actively dangerous. We've had enough bad ideas in politics in the last few years.
Let's not import
**** Possible New Speaker ****
another one in this bill now. My Lords. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this Bill and for her long standing commitment to environmental protection and climate justice. Firstly, I draw the House's attention to an early the House's attention to an early day motion tabled in the other place this May, entitled National Emergency, sponsored by members from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and My own party primary.
It highlighted the escalating risks posed by climate change and nature loss. It noted that 1 in 4 properties could be at risk of flooding by 2050, that heat waves and wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe, and that the UK ranks among the
12:42
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
lowest globally for biodiversity. It further recognised that food security, public health and national security are increasingly threatened by climate related threatened by climate related impacts. The motion called for emergency legislation to address emergency legislation to address the scale and urgency of these challenges. That is why I believe this bill comes before us at a this bill comes before us at a particularly important time, and we must consider it seriously. We often speak of a climate emergency and a nature emergency, yet emergencies require more than declaration.
They demand that we seriously consider new approaches and, where necessary, new legal frameworks. Time is not on our side. The systems upon which our society depends are under growing pressure, and the consequences of inaction are becoming increasingly clear. The central principle of this bill is both simple and profound. Should nature, nature itself be recognised in law as a subject, possessing rights rather than be regarded as property or a resource to be managed? In considering that question, we must be honest about the scale of the crisis the Bill seeks to address and ask ourselves whether the status quo is delivering the protection that nature, and indeed future generations require.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burnet, had already referred to examples internationally, including in Ecuador, where recognition of the rights of nature has provided a new legal mechanism for environmental protection, including the successful defence of the Los Cedros forest against mining activity. Whether or not we conclude that that model is directly transferable to these islands, it demonstrates that alternative approaches are possible and worthy of serious consideration. I believe our legal frameworks must continue to evolve if they are to respond effectively to ecological decline.
As legislators, we have a responsibility to engage constructively with ideas that seek to protect the natural world, which we all depend on, and which future generations have every right to inherit in a healthy condition. For me, this bill poses a fundamental question if the wellbeing of future generations depends upon clean water, healthy soils, thriving biodiversity, resilient ecosystems, pollinators and a stable climate, should the law continue to treat nature principally as a possession and a resource, or should it begin to recognise nature as the living foundation upon which long term societal resistance resilience ultimately rests? From a Welsh perspective, this question is particularly relevant.
Wales has already sought to place future generations at the heart of public policy through the wellbeing of future generations. Wales Act 2015. The legislation was pioneering in requiring public bodies to consider the long term consequences of their decisions and the world they leave behind. For those who come after us, it reflects a growing recognition that prosperity, wellbeing and environmental stewardship cannot be separated from one another. And in many respects, this bill can be seen as part of the broader evolution in governance.
The Future Generations Act asks us to think about the wellbeing of future generations. This bill invites us to consider more explicitly the ecological foundations upon which that wellbeing depends. As this legislation progresses, there will undoubtedly be important questions about how such an approach would interact with existing Welsh legislation and devolve responsibilities, but I do not think that should be considered a blocker. Those are precisely the kinds of issues that can and should be explored in committee. Ultimately, the key question at Second Reading is not whether every clause is perfect.
Rather, it is whether the principle underpinning the Bill is worthy of further examination. And in my view, the rights of nature are not in competition with human rights or economic prosperity. Rather, nature is the foundation upon which they depend. A degraded natural world cannot support flourishing communities or resilient economies, and there is work still to do, and legitimate questions remain. Those questions should not prevent us from examining this bill further. They should encourage us to do so. Supporting its passage today will be a sign of the recognition that the challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss require us to examine new ideas with an open mind and, where necessary, improve them through the scrutiny of committee.
And this is what the public are asking for and many young people. For that reason, I believe this bill merits further consideration by this House, and I'm pleased to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support its progression today. My Lord, may I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this bill. It's a pleasure to follow noble It's a pleasure to follow noble Ladies speech today. I agree with much of what she has said. As someone who has recently retabled my own private member's bill to introduce a closed season for hares introduce a closed season for hares in England and Wales, I appreciate how much determination and luck it requires to bring issues such as these before Parliament.
I welcome the spirit of this Bill. It invites us to consider our relationship with the natural world and to reflect whether our laws adequately recognise our responsibilities towards the species, habitats and ecosystems upon which we all depend. In particular, I welcome its emphasis on the duties of public bodies, businesses and individuals to act as responsible stewards of nature. The noble Baroness is right to argue that there remains a gap in our legal framework. Too often, nature is viewed primarily as something from which we derive benefit, rather than something for which we owe a duty of care.
The result is that species and habitats that are widely admired and often deeply valued, nevertheless remain inadequately protected. The case of the wild hares illustrates this point particularly well. At present, hares are the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory closed season. They may be shot throughout the year, including during the breeding months between February and September. Other game species where the deer, pheasants and partridges receive seasonal protection during these sensitive periods, hares alone remain exempt.
The consequences are significant. Pregnant hares and nursing mothers may legally be killed, leaving dependent liberate orphaned. A 2017 peer reviewed study published by the UK Health Security Agency found between February and August that majority of female hares are either pregnant, suckling young or both, and that if a nursing female is killed, her leverets are unlikely to survive. This creates both an animal welfare problem and conservation challenge, and is inconsistent with Natural England's own guidance to control of species during peak breeding seasons should be avoided.
This also broader ecological concern. Evidence suggests that large, organised hedge shoots can remove substantial proportion of local populations, while the peak period for shooting coincides with the start of breeding season. This undermines population recovery and increases the risk of localised decline. The wider picture is equally concerning. In 1880, 1880, there were an estimated 4 million brown hairs in England and Wales. Today, there are fewer than 600,000 remaining. Agricultural change has undoubtedly been the principal driver of this decline.
But unsustainable exploitation through shooting, poaching and coursing has also played a part. My Lords, the United Kingdom has often been a leader in advancing animal welfare standards. Yet in this instance we have fallen behind. Scotland introduced a statutory closed season more than a decade ago, and a comparable protections already exist across much of Europe. England and Wales remain an exception. For many years, campaigners have sought to address this anomaly. However, they have failed. I therefore welcome the government's animal welfare Strategy, published last December, which committed to introducing a closed season between the 1st February and the 30th of September.
I was also grateful to hear the Minister reaffirm her commitment to animal welfare reform when we discuss this issue in the House last week. I have no doubt about either her personal commitment or her determination to secure legislative time. It was therefore deeply disappointing that despite reports earlier this year suggesting that a closed season would be included in His Majesty's gracious speech, the proposal did not ultimately appear. That experience reflects one of the central themes of this bill. Responsibilities towards nature cannot always be postponed until a more convenient political moment.
If we recognise that we have duties towards a natural world, then even relatively modest reforms should not repeatedly fall victim to competing legislative priorities. A closed season for hares is one of such reforms. It is modest in legislative terms, but significant in its practical, practical effect. It would prevent an unnecessary killing of pregnant and nursing has reduced the number of orphaned leverages, bring England and Wales into line with protections already established elsewhere, and contribute to the government's wider commitment under the Environment Act 2021 to halt species decline by 2030.
It would also command considerable public support. Polling by more in common found that 66% of the public support a closed season, only 6% oppose it. Whether or not noble Lords agree with every mechanism proposed in this bill, it raises an important question are we content with the legal framework that too often recognises the value of nature only after damage has occurred? Or should our laws be better reflected our responsibility to prevent that damage in the first place? The story of the brown head demonstrates how easily necessary and widely supported protections can be
They demand that we seriously consider new approaches and, where necessary, new legal frameworks. Time is not on our side. The systems upon which our society depends are under growing pressure, and the consequences of inaction are becoming increasingly clear. The central principle of this bill is both simple and profound. Should nature, nature itself be recognised in law as a subject, possessing rights rather than be regarded as property or a resource to be managed? In considering that question, we must be honest about the scale of the crisis the Bill seeks to address and ask ourselves whether the status quo is delivering the protection that nature, and indeed future generations require.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burnet, had already referred to examples internationally, including in Ecuador, where recognition of the rights of nature has provided a new legal mechanism for environmental protection, including the successful defence of the Los Cedros forest against mining activity. Whether or not we conclude that that model is directly transferable to these islands, it demonstrates that alternative approaches are possible and worthy of serious consideration. I believe our legal frameworks must continue to evolve if they are to respond effectively to ecological decline.
As legislators, we have a responsibility to engage constructively with ideas that seek to protect the natural world, which we all depend on, and which future generations have every right to inherit in a healthy condition. For me, this bill poses a fundamental question if the wellbeing of future generations depends upon clean water, healthy soils, thriving biodiversity, resilient ecosystems, pollinators and a stable climate, should the law continue to treat nature principally as a possession and a resource, or should it begin to recognise nature as the living foundation upon which long term societal resistance resilience ultimately rests? From a Welsh perspective, this question is particularly relevant.
Wales has already sought to place future generations at the heart of public policy through the wellbeing of future generations. Wales Act 2015. The legislation was pioneering in requiring public bodies to consider the long term consequences of their decisions and the world they leave behind. For those who come after us, it reflects a growing recognition that prosperity, wellbeing and environmental stewardship cannot be separated from one another. And in many respects, this bill can be seen as part of the broader evolution in governance.
The Future Generations Act asks us to think about the wellbeing of future generations. This bill invites us to consider more explicitly the ecological foundations upon which that wellbeing depends. As this legislation progresses, there will undoubtedly be important questions about how such an approach would interact with existing Welsh legislation and devolve responsibilities, but I do not think that should be considered a blocker. Those are precisely the kinds of issues that can and should be explored in committee. Ultimately, the key question at Second Reading is not whether every clause is perfect.
Rather, it is whether the principle underpinning the Bill is worthy of further examination. And in my view, the rights of nature are not in competition with human rights or economic prosperity. Rather, nature is the foundation upon which they depend. A degraded natural world cannot support flourishing communities or resilient economies, and there is work still to do, and legitimate questions remain. Those questions should not prevent us from examining this bill further. They should encourage us to do so. Supporting its passage today will be a sign of the recognition that the challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss require us to examine new ideas with an open mind and, where necessary, improve them through the scrutiny of committee.
And this is what the public are asking for and many young people. For that reason, I believe this bill merits further consideration by this House, and I'm pleased to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support its progression today. My Lord, may I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this bill. It's a pleasure to follow noble It's a pleasure to follow noble Ladies speech today. I agree with much of what she has said. As someone who has recently retabled my own private member's bill to introduce a closed season for hares introduce a closed season for hares in England and Wales, I appreciate how much determination and luck it requires to bring issues such as these before Parliament.
I welcome the spirit of this Bill. It invites us to consider our relationship with the natural world and to reflect whether our laws adequately recognise our responsibilities towards the species, habitats and ecosystems upon which we all depend. In particular, I welcome its emphasis on the duties of public bodies, businesses and individuals to act as responsible stewards of nature. The noble Baroness is right to argue that there remains a gap in our legal framework. Too often, nature is viewed primarily as something from which we derive benefit, rather than something for which we owe a duty of care.
The result is that species and habitats that are widely admired and often deeply valued, nevertheless remain inadequately protected. The case of the wild hares illustrates this point particularly well. At present, hares are the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory closed season. They may be shot throughout the year, including during the breeding months between February and September. Other game species where the deer, pheasants and partridges receive seasonal protection during these sensitive periods, hares alone remain exempt.
The consequences are significant. Pregnant hares and nursing mothers may legally be killed, leaving dependent liberate orphaned. A 2017 peer reviewed study published by the UK Health Security Agency found between February and August that majority of female hares are either pregnant, suckling young or both, and that if a nursing female is killed, her leverets are unlikely to survive. This creates both an animal welfare problem and conservation challenge, and is inconsistent with Natural England's own guidance to control of species during peak breeding seasons should be avoided.
This also broader ecological concern. Evidence suggests that large, organised hedge shoots can remove substantial proportion of local populations, while the peak period for shooting coincides with the start of breeding season. This undermines population recovery and increases the risk of localised decline. The wider picture is equally concerning. In 1880, 1880, there were an estimated 4 million brown hairs in England and Wales. Today, there are fewer than 600,000 remaining. Agricultural change has undoubtedly been the principal driver of this decline.
But unsustainable exploitation through shooting, poaching and coursing has also played a part. My Lords, the United Kingdom has often been a leader in advancing animal welfare standards. Yet in this instance we have fallen behind. Scotland introduced a statutory closed season more than a decade ago, and a comparable protections already exist across much of Europe. England and Wales remain an exception. For many years, campaigners have sought to address this anomaly. However, they have failed. I therefore welcome the government's animal welfare Strategy, published last December, which committed to introducing a closed season between the 1st February and the 30th of September.
I was also grateful to hear the Minister reaffirm her commitment to animal welfare reform when we discuss this issue in the House last week. I have no doubt about either her personal commitment or her determination to secure legislative time. It was therefore deeply disappointing that despite reports earlier this year suggesting that a closed season would be included in His Majesty's gracious speech, the proposal did not ultimately appear. That experience reflects one of the central themes of this bill. Responsibilities towards nature cannot always be postponed until a more convenient political moment.
If we recognise that we have duties towards a natural world, then even relatively modest reforms should not repeatedly fall victim to competing legislative priorities. A closed season for hares is one of such reforms. It is modest in legislative terms, but significant in its practical, practical effect. It would prevent an unnecessary killing of pregnant and nursing has reduced the number of orphaned leverages, bring England and Wales into line with protections already established elsewhere, and contribute to the government's wider commitment under the Environment Act 2021 to halt species decline by 2030.
It would also command considerable public support. Polling by more in common found that 66% of the public support a closed season, only 6% oppose it. Whether or not noble Lords agree with every mechanism proposed in this bill, it raises an important question are we content with the legal framework that too often recognises the value of nature only after damage has occurred? Or should our laws be better reflected our responsibility to prevent that damage in the first place? The story of the brown head demonstrates how easily necessary and widely supported protections can be
12:53
Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Helic (Conservative)
Delayed. I hope this bill will encourage us to translate our responsibilities into practical responsibilities into practical action, not only for hers, but for the wider natural environment upon the wider natural environment upon which future generations will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For the ability to speak very briefly in the gap. I wish to congratulate the noble Lady on her introducing this interesting debate, this, this. And I hope it goes to the committee stages where I think I'm going to have some very serious objections to it, but we'll come to that in due course. I think we have to accept that nature. If it has rights, it's very difficult to see
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For the ability to speak very briefly in the gap. I wish to congratulate the noble Lady on her introducing this interesting debate, this, this. And I hope it goes to the committee stages where I think I'm going to have some very serious objections to it, but we'll come to that in due course. I think we have to accept that nature. If it has rights, it's very difficult to see
12:54
Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
Lord Winston (Labour)
how they can be enforced. And secondly, if nature has rights, how do those rights become protected? do those rights become protected? And if, in fact, there is a conflict, who resolves that, that conflict? Is it merely lawyers? conflict? Is it merely lawyers? Because of course, there will be different issues. And one of the questions I think, really is that we have to understand in this bill the the definition of nature and the definition of those rights is the definition of those rights is extremely difficult.
And I think that would need a great deal of tangling out if we do if we do do that. And when I think about, for example, even in medicine, we go. We. The noble Lord Frost. I kept on thinking of him as Lord tree. But of course Lord tree, who is another natural thing, is also not protected in this in this debate. But I agree completely with what Lord tree, Lord Lord Frost says, which of course actually one of the issues is that these things are so difficult really to disentangle under very, very difficult to define.
So if we come to Aquinas, for example, in the history of the embryo embryo, even he had difficulty. He had to define the notion of life, whether in fact the embryo was alive. And he decided it might be once it had an animal, but not when it's just merely had flesh. That was one of the issues akhara. So I would argue, really, that ultimately, if we really looked at this, we have to recognise that even the conflicts in medicine are massive.
The biggest single cause of death in humans worldwide is due to bacteria to these organisms. How would how at what stage do we deal with this and how can we possibly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do it in terms of natural justice? My Lords, I'm very grateful to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for bringing forward this Castle for bringing forward this very timely opportunity to examine this concept. And as we've heard this concept. And as we've heard today, it does involve practicality and philosophy. As she rightly said,
And I think that would need a great deal of tangling out if we do if we do do that. And when I think about, for example, even in medicine, we go. We. The noble Lord Frost. I kept on thinking of him as Lord tree. But of course Lord tree, who is another natural thing, is also not protected in this in this debate. But I agree completely with what Lord tree, Lord Lord Frost says, which of course actually one of the issues is that these things are so difficult really to disentangle under very, very difficult to define.
So if we come to Aquinas, for example, in the history of the embryo embryo, even he had difficulty. He had to define the notion of life, whether in fact the embryo was alive. And he decided it might be once it had an animal, but not when it's just merely had flesh. That was one of the issues akhara. So I would argue, really, that ultimately, if we really looked at this, we have to recognise that even the conflicts in medicine are massive.
The biggest single cause of death in humans worldwide is due to bacteria to these organisms. How would how at what stage do we deal with this and how can we possibly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do it in terms of natural justice? My Lords, I'm very grateful to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for bringing forward this Castle for bringing forward this very timely opportunity to examine this concept. And as we've heard this concept. And as we've heard today, it does involve practicality and philosophy. As she rightly said,
12:56
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
and philosophy. As she rightly said, nature is critical and we are on the brink of a mass extinction. I should declare an interest, as my daughter in law works as a scientist for friends of the dart, which I will mention later. Now, I've been thinking particularly about these issues around rights of nature. After the conference I went to recently that was organised by the Real Farming Conference and the New York University School of Law's more than Human. That's the Moth Life programme.
That conference was really exciting because we heard from Agroecological farmers, citizen activists, scientists and local authorities who are all taking very effective action and learning from each other how to put nature's wellbeing at the heart of their work. And actually, that's what this bill is about too. It's about a new way of thinking and working. As other noble Lords have mentioned, it's about economy and society, working in harmony with nature. Now, several noble Lords have mentioned Ecuador, and I will spend a little time here because I think there are lessons to be learned.
In 2008, Ecuador introduced the right of nature into its constitution, and of course it has the Galapagos Islands, Amazon rainforests, volcanic landscapes, cloud forests and high elevation moorlands. In short, it's a diversity to protect that internationally recognised as extraordinarily special. Now, obviously, it's a very different country from the UK, with very different strengths and very different problems. But I think there are some lessons that we can learn from Ecuador. First, scientific evidence. The fact that evidence is crucial to argue the case for an ecosystem.
There needs to be a sound scientific basis. Rights of nature working Lord Rose, which is quoted by Robert MacFarlane in his book, is a River of life, referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Lebedev has shown how inadequate the typical environmental impact assessment is for industrial projects in Lord Rose. Scientists and local farmers have found many more endangered species than the environmental impact assessments had reported. Secondly, nature's rights need to go hand in hand with human rights.
There was a journalist who was investigating a lot of these issues in Ecuador, and she, Katie Zimmer wrote in Insideclimate news. An interesting analysis that actually has global application. She said, and I quote, Ecuador's emblematic of a global trend that governments and corporations increasingly rely on criminal charges, retaliatory lawsuits, and other forms of legal harassment to stifle opposition, having rights of nature in their constitution hasn't been a silver bullet. And it's not that the government has always been on board.
Currently, multiple heads and board members of the Amazon Sacred Headwaters Alliance that protects 35 million hectares of the Amazon rainforest, are on the prosecutor's list and face all sorts of things like frozen bank accounts. Now, before noble Lords think, well, that wouldn't happen here, just remember the recent direction from judge to jury to disregard motives for protest. That was about climate change and the arrests of those holding placards reminding juries of their rights. That was shocking abuse of a fundamental right.
So I think human rights and nature's rights are absolutely intertwined. Another lesson from Ecuador is about press freedom. Reporters Without Borders documented four cases of death threats just this year between January and February on journalists in Ecuador reporting on environmental issues. And they also face increasing restrictions imposed on the press by the state. Again, noble Lord shouldn't think that here in the UK, press freedoms are a given. They're compromised at the moment by the slap, the strategic lawsuits against public participation.
And there are plenty of examples of public interest activism that's quelled by a slap on, for example, pollution, environmental reporting and corporate accountability. And I hope all noble Lords will be supporting Baroness Stowell forthcoming very important bill on forthcoming very important bill on Slapps. So I think local activism is incredibly important. And perhaps the one thing that we might thank noble Lord Lord Frost for in encouraging Brexit is that actually it really made people realise the value of their local rivers and what was happening to them.
Once the water framework that had protected the rivers all the time. We were a member of the European Union once that disappeared, because it took rivers to a different place of being used, basically as drains by the water companies. The rights of rivers, charters and declarations have grown as a movement incredibly quickly in these last few years. And around my home town, there's friends of the dart that I mentioned. It's a community interest company based in Totnes that works to protect and restore the River dart through scientific monitoring, advocacy and community action.
And it really brings people together to recognise that river. And then, of course, the more famous example is the River Wye that had such issues with agricultural pollution. And the Hereford County Council and Paris County Council came together to make sure that from source, to see that river is properly protected and that that. That movement is really at an early stage, but it's growing exponentially. And then, of course, we've also got local nature recovery strategies, which local authorities are putting into effect in, again, my home county of Devon, I can see there will be immense effects, beneficial effects as those strategies are beginning to bed down and work.
And I. A whole list of county, county and district councils who are doing all sorts of work and I won't weary the House with them. I'm sure they're aware of them. But my concern is that this bill, which I support wholeheartedly the rights of nature principle, I can see that it is stronger to build it from local actions that are already happening and are effective, and that will give it much stronger foundations. My concern about this bill at the moment is that it's very top down and very prescriptive, and doesn't consider how the current law will mesh with what's in the bill, nor does it address the failure of enforcement and regulation.
Current laws protecting nature are ignored. Just take the flytipping. In Hoads wood, for example, sewage dumping in rivers. But the awareness of this and the anger people feel has really begun to cut through. And local community action. Citizen scientists are actually all nature's guardians. Now, I worry the approach in this bill would mean tying up resources in lengthy legal battles. So on these benches, we're very grateful to Baroness Bennett for introducing her bill, and I do look forward to the Committee stage where we can discuss some of these issues in greater detail.
But in the meantime, I think that really the difference between us is that the Lib Dem approach is one of practical action and localism, and that whilst we may legislate to have rights of nature in principle, action on the ground, fast action rests at a local level.
That conference was really exciting because we heard from Agroecological farmers, citizen activists, scientists and local authorities who are all taking very effective action and learning from each other how to put nature's wellbeing at the heart of their work. And actually, that's what this bill is about too. It's about a new way of thinking and working. As other noble Lords have mentioned, it's about economy and society, working in harmony with nature. Now, several noble Lords have mentioned Ecuador, and I will spend a little time here because I think there are lessons to be learned.
In 2008, Ecuador introduced the right of nature into its constitution, and of course it has the Galapagos Islands, Amazon rainforests, volcanic landscapes, cloud forests and high elevation moorlands. In short, it's a diversity to protect that internationally recognised as extraordinarily special. Now, obviously, it's a very different country from the UK, with very different strengths and very different problems. But I think there are some lessons that we can learn from Ecuador. First, scientific evidence. The fact that evidence is crucial to argue the case for an ecosystem.
There needs to be a sound scientific basis. Rights of nature working Lord Rose, which is quoted by Robert MacFarlane in his book, is a River of life, referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Lebedev has shown how inadequate the typical environmental impact assessment is for industrial projects in Lord Rose. Scientists and local farmers have found many more endangered species than the environmental impact assessments had reported. Secondly, nature's rights need to go hand in hand with human rights.
There was a journalist who was investigating a lot of these issues in Ecuador, and she, Katie Zimmer wrote in Insideclimate news. An interesting analysis that actually has global application. She said, and I quote, Ecuador's emblematic of a global trend that governments and corporations increasingly rely on criminal charges, retaliatory lawsuits, and other forms of legal harassment to stifle opposition, having rights of nature in their constitution hasn't been a silver bullet. And it's not that the government has always been on board.
Currently, multiple heads and board members of the Amazon Sacred Headwaters Alliance that protects 35 million hectares of the Amazon rainforest, are on the prosecutor's list and face all sorts of things like frozen bank accounts. Now, before noble Lords think, well, that wouldn't happen here, just remember the recent direction from judge to jury to disregard motives for protest. That was about climate change and the arrests of those holding placards reminding juries of their rights. That was shocking abuse of a fundamental right.
So I think human rights and nature's rights are absolutely intertwined. Another lesson from Ecuador is about press freedom. Reporters Without Borders documented four cases of death threats just this year between January and February on journalists in Ecuador reporting on environmental issues. And they also face increasing restrictions imposed on the press by the state. Again, noble Lord shouldn't think that here in the UK, press freedoms are a given. They're compromised at the moment by the slap, the strategic lawsuits against public participation.
And there are plenty of examples of public interest activism that's quelled by a slap on, for example, pollution, environmental reporting and corporate accountability. And I hope all noble Lords will be supporting Baroness Stowell forthcoming very important bill on forthcoming very important bill on Slapps. So I think local activism is incredibly important. And perhaps the one thing that we might thank noble Lord Lord Frost for in encouraging Brexit is that actually it really made people realise the value of their local rivers and what was happening to them.
Once the water framework that had protected the rivers all the time. We were a member of the European Union once that disappeared, because it took rivers to a different place of being used, basically as drains by the water companies. The rights of rivers, charters and declarations have grown as a movement incredibly quickly in these last few years. And around my home town, there's friends of the dart that I mentioned. It's a community interest company based in Totnes that works to protect and restore the River dart through scientific monitoring, advocacy and community action.
And it really brings people together to recognise that river. And then, of course, the more famous example is the River Wye that had such issues with agricultural pollution. And the Hereford County Council and Paris County Council came together to make sure that from source, to see that river is properly protected and that that. That movement is really at an early stage, but it's growing exponentially. And then, of course, we've also got local nature recovery strategies, which local authorities are putting into effect in, again, my home county of Devon, I can see there will be immense effects, beneficial effects as those strategies are beginning to bed down and work.
And I. A whole list of county, county and district councils who are doing all sorts of work and I won't weary the House with them. I'm sure they're aware of them. But my concern is that this bill, which I support wholeheartedly the rights of nature principle, I can see that it is stronger to build it from local actions that are already happening and are effective, and that will give it much stronger foundations. My concern about this bill at the moment is that it's very top down and very prescriptive, and doesn't consider how the current law will mesh with what's in the bill, nor does it address the failure of enforcement and regulation.
Current laws protecting nature are ignored. Just take the flytipping. In Hoads wood, for example, sewage dumping in rivers. But the awareness of this and the anger people feel has really begun to cut through. And local community action. Citizen scientists are actually all nature's guardians. Now, I worry the approach in this bill would mean tying up resources in lengthy legal battles. So on these benches, we're very grateful to Baroness Bennett for introducing her bill, and I do look forward to the Committee stage where we can discuss some of these issues in greater detail.
But in the meantime, I think that really the difference between us is that the Lib Dem approach is one of practical action and localism, and that whilst we may legislate to have rights of nature in principle, action on the ground, fast action rests at a local level.
13:05
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
My Lords, please let me thank >> My Lords, please let me thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing this Bill before your Lordships House. Bill before your Lordships House. My Lords, this Bill is clearly driven by good intentions, but it does propose a number of radical shifts which the noble Lord Lord Frost references problematic on several different levels, and which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested he had very serious objections to.
And His Majesty's loyal opposition also has significant concerns about the Bill's practicalities and the implications for individuals, businesses and policy making. Our concerns centre around two main points. Primarily, we do not believe in creating all powerful governance structures which potentially override democratic decision making, nor do we believe in imposing new requirements for nature, which override existing legitimate considerations and interests. I should clarify his Majesty's loyal opposition stands tall on our principles when it comes to nature, and this is not a recent commitment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was crystal clear when she advised that no generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease. We passed the Wildlife and Countryside Act in 1981 and we established the modern framework for sites of Special Scientific Interest and species protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, highlighted the Environment Act 2021 and it was my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park who supported the passage of the Environment Act through your Lordships House, and we championed the Blue Belt programme.
Indeed, in recent months, noble Lords on our benches have consistently advocated for a brownfield first approach to development to protect our land. We have advocated for reforms of arms length bodies such as Natural England, and to better enable private investment in nature restoration. However, I am afraid to say we are now seeing the consequences of a flawed approach to the environment on both our industry and our own cost of living. Instead of drilling our own oil and gas in the North Sea, we are importing it from Norway.
Instead of growing more of our own food, we are covering productive farmland with solar panels, an estimated 68% of which come from China. We are weakening our own energy security and increasing our reliance on imports. The Aberdeen South by election was a referendum on home-grown oil and gas, and the result was overwhelming. The country wants a common sense approach, and our major concern is that this bill risks pitching economic growth against nature and giving the rights of nature.
As currently drafted. Precedents in all instances. But as I flagged earlier, we do not fault the intentions behind the bill. But we do have serious questions as to how it will play out in practice. Nature will inevitably be impacted, perhaps on a site allocated for development, but where biodiversity net gain requirements will compensate for this impact elsewhere. Yet if our interpretation of clause three is correct, the Bill gives nature the right to restoration and regeneration where the impact has occurred, potentially hindering development in that very location.
We have to ask ourselves, do we want to risk slowing or even blocking housing needs, which are significant? Do we want to risk hampering infrastructure or energy investment at a time when delivery is absolutely critical for the country? Please let me now turn to the new governance structures proposed in the bill, which will be tasked with implementing, monitoring and enforcing the bill's provisions. The membership appointment, governance procedure and accountability of both the proposed Nature Guardianship Council and Bioregional councils are left to the Secretary of State to to determine via regulations, the appointment, qualifications and independence of members of a new Nature's Rights Tribunal are again left to the Secretary of State to decide.
Yet these would be immensely powerful bodies. The Nature Guardianship Council would be tasked with interpreting the Integrated Rights Framework, a framework which would apply to all ministerial decisions, whether they are legislative policy, fiscal planning, procurement or investment. The council would issue guidance on new rights impact assessments, which public authorities and UK entities would be required to carry out when any decision, policy plan, programme, project activity, financial decision or regulatory measure. May I quote, materially affect nature? Furthermore, the Bill is explicit that there are no exemptions for any entity, even on the grounds of national security, which we would suggest is the first duty of any government.
Much will depend on what is interpreted as lawful, what constitutes a significant effect on nature, and how risk or harm is measured. Nor are the bill's rights and duties applicable just to national and local government. It would establish a legal duty of care towards nature on all individuals, private businesses and public bodies, trade supply chains and overseas activities would have to comply with the bill's provisions. My Lords. This is a huge, radical and all encompassing change, and His Majesty's loyal opposition believes we should never, on any account, risk sidelining the everyday economic realities for UK citizens or indeed our national security across departmental approach to nature, which is driven by both evidence and data, with advice from experts in their respective fields, is the way forward, and there are undoubtedly significant improvements to be made to the existing status quo.
But in our opinion, this bill is not the way to do it.
And His Majesty's loyal opposition also has significant concerns about the Bill's practicalities and the implications for individuals, businesses and policy making. Our concerns centre around two main points. Primarily, we do not believe in creating all powerful governance structures which potentially override democratic decision making, nor do we believe in imposing new requirements for nature, which override existing legitimate considerations and interests. I should clarify his Majesty's loyal opposition stands tall on our principles when it comes to nature, and this is not a recent commitment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was crystal clear when she advised that no generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease. We passed the Wildlife and Countryside Act in 1981 and we established the modern framework for sites of Special Scientific Interest and species protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, highlighted the Environment Act 2021 and it was my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park who supported the passage of the Environment Act through your Lordships House, and we championed the Blue Belt programme.
Indeed, in recent months, noble Lords on our benches have consistently advocated for a brownfield first approach to development to protect our land. We have advocated for reforms of arms length bodies such as Natural England, and to better enable private investment in nature restoration. However, I am afraid to say we are now seeing the consequences of a flawed approach to the environment on both our industry and our own cost of living. Instead of drilling our own oil and gas in the North Sea, we are importing it from Norway.
Instead of growing more of our own food, we are covering productive farmland with solar panels, an estimated 68% of which come from China. We are weakening our own energy security and increasing our reliance on imports. The Aberdeen South by election was a referendum on home-grown oil and gas, and the result was overwhelming. The country wants a common sense approach, and our major concern is that this bill risks pitching economic growth against nature and giving the rights of nature.
As currently drafted. Precedents in all instances. But as I flagged earlier, we do not fault the intentions behind the bill. But we do have serious questions as to how it will play out in practice. Nature will inevitably be impacted, perhaps on a site allocated for development, but where biodiversity net gain requirements will compensate for this impact elsewhere. Yet if our interpretation of clause three is correct, the Bill gives nature the right to restoration and regeneration where the impact has occurred, potentially hindering development in that very location.
We have to ask ourselves, do we want to risk slowing or even blocking housing needs, which are significant? Do we want to risk hampering infrastructure or energy investment at a time when delivery is absolutely critical for the country? Please let me now turn to the new governance structures proposed in the bill, which will be tasked with implementing, monitoring and enforcing the bill's provisions. The membership appointment, governance procedure and accountability of both the proposed Nature Guardianship Council and Bioregional councils are left to the Secretary of State to to determine via regulations, the appointment, qualifications and independence of members of a new Nature's Rights Tribunal are again left to the Secretary of State to decide.
Yet these would be immensely powerful bodies. The Nature Guardianship Council would be tasked with interpreting the Integrated Rights Framework, a framework which would apply to all ministerial decisions, whether they are legislative policy, fiscal planning, procurement or investment. The council would issue guidance on new rights impact assessments, which public authorities and UK entities would be required to carry out when any decision, policy plan, programme, project activity, financial decision or regulatory measure. May I quote, materially affect nature? Furthermore, the Bill is explicit that there are no exemptions for any entity, even on the grounds of national security, which we would suggest is the first duty of any government.
Much will depend on what is interpreted as lawful, what constitutes a significant effect on nature, and how risk or harm is measured. Nor are the bill's rights and duties applicable just to national and local government. It would establish a legal duty of care towards nature on all individuals, private businesses and public bodies, trade supply chains and overseas activities would have to comply with the bill's provisions. My Lords. This is a huge, radical and all encompassing change, and His Majesty's loyal opposition believes we should never, on any account, risk sidelining the everyday economic realities for UK citizens or indeed our national security across departmental approach to nature, which is driven by both evidence and data, with advice from experts in their respective fields, is the way forward, and there are undoubtedly significant improvements to be made to the existing status quo.
But in our opinion, this bill is not the way to do it.
13:14
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today's debate. contributed to today's debate. We've heard pretty strong strength of feelings here, and I think that reflects a deep and widely shared concern for the state of our natural world. And it also reflects the seriousness with which this House approaches questions of environmental protection, governance and accountability. So I would like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for bringing forward this bill and for her long standing commitment to the protection and the restoration of nature.
Whatever our differences on the legislative legislative route, there is absolutely no doubt about the sincerity and the intellectual rigour and energy that she and those supporting the drafting of the bill have brought to this issue, and to these proposals. As the noble Lord Lord Frost mentioned, we have heard some very thoughtful contributions on the philosophical and ethical foundations of recognising nature's intrinsic worth. And we've heard reflections on international examples, on local initiatives, and on the growing public desire for stronger action to protect the environment.
These are, of course, really important perspectives, and the government recognises the legitimate legitimacy of the concerns that underpin them. And I think the noble Lady Baroness Bennett recognised the government's commitment to this when she referenced our manifesto regarding our environmental commitments specifically. But as many noble Lords have also made clear, the question before us is not whether we value nature or whether we need to act urgently to protect it and to restore it. The question is whether the mechanism that is proposed in this Bill, recognising nature as a legal subject with enforceable rights, is the correct approach within the UK's constitutional and legal framework.
My Lords, the government's position is that it is not. We already have in place a comprehensive, outcomes focussed and legally binding framework for environmental protection through the Environment Act of 2021 and the Environmental Improvement Plan of 2025. And I'd like to assure the noble Lady Baroness Coffey that this government is not rowing back on any of its commitments, and these provide long term statutory targets. They provide strengthened duties on public authorities and independent oversight through the office for Environmental Protection.
And, importantly, they require government to act, to report and to be held to account. Taken together, these measures will help us to restore nature, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people's access to nature. The Environmental Improvement Plan ensures that nature's recovery is a key priority, fundamental to the government's approach to economic growth, and this government is committed to delivering for nature, taking action to meet our environment targets, to restore and to protect our natural world.
And this is not a system that lacks ambition or enforceability. It is one of the most robust environmental governance frameworks in the world and sets out our goals and targets how we will achieve them, and who is responsible for delivery. And it is designed to integrate environmental considerations right across government, through regulators and through the local authorities. But achieving our environmental ambitions requires collective action from individuals, communities and organisations across all sectors, and this was particularly referenced to by the noble Lady Baroness Helic.
So we have sought views and advice from civil society, business landowners and managers, and local government in developing the environmental improvement plan, and we will work in partnership to achieve its goals and targets. And we are also already strengthening nature recovery across government land by publishing a first of its kind government estate nature plan. And that improves coordination, evidence and delivery within our existing legal framework. This demonstrates that we can work together to accelerate nature recovery without creating new legal rights or legal personality for nature.
Introducing a parallel and overlapping rights based system, as the Bill proposes, would create significant risks. It could duplicate or conflict with existing statutory duties. It could generate uncertainty for regulators, land managers, businesses and communities, and it could divert resources away from delivery and into litigation, into procedural complexity and institutional restructuring. The noble Lady Baroness May particularly talked about this impact on Wales and the challenges facing Wales, and I just thought that it was important to stress to noble Lords that the Bill has UK wide ambition, but it still preserves the devolved competence which enables devolved governments to make decisions around implementation.
We've also heard today about the serious legal and constitutional implications of recognising nature as a legal entity. Such a step through the bill's proposed Integrated Rights Framework would require a fundamental reworking of long established principles of administrative, property and planning law. It would introduce new enforcement bodies, including a Nature Guardianship Council and Nature's Rights Tribunal, without clarity on how these would interact with existing regulators and courts, and it could lead to a proliferation of claims brought on behalf of ecosystems or species.
It is important to consider the whole system in the round, as demonstrated through our recently published land use framework, including considering wider, democratically determined priorities such as housing, infrastructure and economic development, and to utilise existing tools to assess their impacts on nature, international examples of nature being recognised as a legal subject were cited in her introduction by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, and they are important to consider. As the noble Lady, Baroness Smith said, we do need to be aware of alternative approaches.
However, evidence and outcomes are mixed and the interaction with relevant domestic legal systems and frameworks is complex. And whilst I acknowledge that rights of nature is a concept that is legally recognised in some countries, the UK's consistent position in international negotiations alongside many other countries has been to focus on environmental outcomes such as halting biodiversity loss, restoring ecosystems and reducing pollution, rather than debating legal constructs whose practical implications remain uncertain. The noble Lady Baroness Miller spent some time talking about this and about the the fact that there's been a marked rise in international and domestic litigation, drawing on existing human rights, such as the right to life, the right to private and family life, and linking these to adverse environmental conditions.
The Council of Europe, of course, has been particularly active on the issue in recent years and has been scoping a possible new instrument on this right, which could create a new right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment alongside other human rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. So I would just like to clarify that the UK is open in principle to exploring a new instrument to enshrine the right. However, there is not yet consensus among member states on the type of instrument.
Should it be binding, for example, or non-binding, or the content, the nature and scope of the right. But none of what we've just discussed diminishes the urgency of the challenge. The government is clear eyed about the pressures on nature. It underpins our security, our prosperity, our resilience and understanding the threats we face from biodiversity loss is crucial to meeting them head on. So we are acting through the Environmental Improvement Plan to restore habitats, improve water and air quality, strengthen resilience and invest significantly in nature recovery.
This is a statutory, science based and accountable framework, and it is the right one for our legal system. Before closing, I would just like to pay tribute to Baroness Helic for her energy and her determination on the need to bring a closed season for brown hairs, and I'm sure we will hear from her again on this issue. But can I finally just thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing this bill forward and for stimulating what has been an important and thoughtful debate.
But as the noble Lord Lord Frost said, legislation must be workable, coherent and compatible with the UK's legal framework. And for these reasons, while we share the ambition that motivates the Bill, the government cannot support it. We will continue to focus on delivering the environmental improvement plan. We do want to meet our legally binding targets so that we can ensure that nature in this country is protected, restored and valued for generations to come. My Lords, I commend the House for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the quality of today's debate. My Lords, in writing to follow the noble Lady. Minister, I wish to echo that I think all noble Lords have participated in this today. It has been a very fine debate and I has been a very fine debate and I thank very much everyone who's contributed. Picking up the noble contributed. Picking up the noble Lady. The minister's comments. To start with, I'm taking
Whatever our differences on the legislative legislative route, there is absolutely no doubt about the sincerity and the intellectual rigour and energy that she and those supporting the drafting of the bill have brought to this issue, and to these proposals. As the noble Lord Lord Frost mentioned, we have heard some very thoughtful contributions on the philosophical and ethical foundations of recognising nature's intrinsic worth. And we've heard reflections on international examples, on local initiatives, and on the growing public desire for stronger action to protect the environment.
These are, of course, really important perspectives, and the government recognises the legitimate legitimacy of the concerns that underpin them. And I think the noble Lady Baroness Bennett recognised the government's commitment to this when she referenced our manifesto regarding our environmental commitments specifically. But as many noble Lords have also made clear, the question before us is not whether we value nature or whether we need to act urgently to protect it and to restore it. The question is whether the mechanism that is proposed in this Bill, recognising nature as a legal subject with enforceable rights, is the correct approach within the UK's constitutional and legal framework.
My Lords, the government's position is that it is not. We already have in place a comprehensive, outcomes focussed and legally binding framework for environmental protection through the Environment Act of 2021 and the Environmental Improvement Plan of 2025. And I'd like to assure the noble Lady Baroness Coffey that this government is not rowing back on any of its commitments, and these provide long term statutory targets. They provide strengthened duties on public authorities and independent oversight through the office for Environmental Protection.
And, importantly, they require government to act, to report and to be held to account. Taken together, these measures will help us to restore nature, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people's access to nature. The Environmental Improvement Plan ensures that nature's recovery is a key priority, fundamental to the government's approach to economic growth, and this government is committed to delivering for nature, taking action to meet our environment targets, to restore and to protect our natural world.
And this is not a system that lacks ambition or enforceability. It is one of the most robust environmental governance frameworks in the world and sets out our goals and targets how we will achieve them, and who is responsible for delivery. And it is designed to integrate environmental considerations right across government, through regulators and through the local authorities. But achieving our environmental ambitions requires collective action from individuals, communities and organisations across all sectors, and this was particularly referenced to by the noble Lady Baroness Helic.
So we have sought views and advice from civil society, business landowners and managers, and local government in developing the environmental improvement plan, and we will work in partnership to achieve its goals and targets. And we are also already strengthening nature recovery across government land by publishing a first of its kind government estate nature plan. And that improves coordination, evidence and delivery within our existing legal framework. This demonstrates that we can work together to accelerate nature recovery without creating new legal rights or legal personality for nature.
Introducing a parallel and overlapping rights based system, as the Bill proposes, would create significant risks. It could duplicate or conflict with existing statutory duties. It could generate uncertainty for regulators, land managers, businesses and communities, and it could divert resources away from delivery and into litigation, into procedural complexity and institutional restructuring. The noble Lady Baroness May particularly talked about this impact on Wales and the challenges facing Wales, and I just thought that it was important to stress to noble Lords that the Bill has UK wide ambition, but it still preserves the devolved competence which enables devolved governments to make decisions around implementation.
We've also heard today about the serious legal and constitutional implications of recognising nature as a legal entity. Such a step through the bill's proposed Integrated Rights Framework would require a fundamental reworking of long established principles of administrative, property and planning law. It would introduce new enforcement bodies, including a Nature Guardianship Council and Nature's Rights Tribunal, without clarity on how these would interact with existing regulators and courts, and it could lead to a proliferation of claims brought on behalf of ecosystems or species.
It is important to consider the whole system in the round, as demonstrated through our recently published land use framework, including considering wider, democratically determined priorities such as housing, infrastructure and economic development, and to utilise existing tools to assess their impacts on nature, international examples of nature being recognised as a legal subject were cited in her introduction by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, and they are important to consider. As the noble Lady, Baroness Smith said, we do need to be aware of alternative approaches.
However, evidence and outcomes are mixed and the interaction with relevant domestic legal systems and frameworks is complex. And whilst I acknowledge that rights of nature is a concept that is legally recognised in some countries, the UK's consistent position in international negotiations alongside many other countries has been to focus on environmental outcomes such as halting biodiversity loss, restoring ecosystems and reducing pollution, rather than debating legal constructs whose practical implications remain uncertain. The noble Lady Baroness Miller spent some time talking about this and about the the fact that there's been a marked rise in international and domestic litigation, drawing on existing human rights, such as the right to life, the right to private and family life, and linking these to adverse environmental conditions.
The Council of Europe, of course, has been particularly active on the issue in recent years and has been scoping a possible new instrument on this right, which could create a new right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment alongside other human rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. So I would just like to clarify that the UK is open in principle to exploring a new instrument to enshrine the right. However, there is not yet consensus among member states on the type of instrument.
Should it be binding, for example, or non-binding, or the content, the nature and scope of the right. But none of what we've just discussed diminishes the urgency of the challenge. The government is clear eyed about the pressures on nature. It underpins our security, our prosperity, our resilience and understanding the threats we face from biodiversity loss is crucial to meeting them head on. So we are acting through the Environmental Improvement Plan to restore habitats, improve water and air quality, strengthen resilience and invest significantly in nature recovery.
This is a statutory, science based and accountable framework, and it is the right one for our legal system. Before closing, I would just like to pay tribute to Baroness Helic for her energy and her determination on the need to bring a closed season for brown hairs, and I'm sure we will hear from her again on this issue. But can I finally just thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing this bill forward and for stimulating what has been an important and thoughtful debate.
But as the noble Lord Lord Frost said, legislation must be workable, coherent and compatible with the UK's legal framework. And for these reasons, while we share the ambition that motivates the Bill, the government cannot support it. We will continue to focus on delivering the environmental improvement plan. We do want to meet our legally binding targets so that we can ensure that nature in this country is protected, restored and valued for generations to come. My Lords, I commend the House for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the quality of today's debate. My Lords, in writing to follow the noble Lady. Minister, I wish to echo that I think all noble Lords have participated in this today. It has been a very fine debate and I has been a very fine debate and I thank very much everyone who's contributed. Picking up the noble contributed. Picking up the noble Lady. The minister's comments. To start with, I'm taking
13:25
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
start with, I'm taking encouragement from a part near the end where the noble Lady said the government may be open in principle to considering the rights of nature in an international context. I will have to read the fine detail of her study her comments, but I'm taking that as a positive step forward. I'm also acknowledging that the noble Lady recognises the legitimacy of concerns about the state of nature, which are very widespread, picking up both what the noble Lady and the noble Lord Lord Frost said about this being a transformatory, even revolutionary bill.
Step forward. Rights of nature, I agree, but I think the noble Lady talked about changing the UK's constitutional and legal framework. Well, of course, that's a broader question we very much have before us today. We are going to have to see major changes to those to create a modern, functional democratic constitution. And of course, the rights of nature could very much be part of that transformation. I think the noble Lady also talked about a fundamental reworking of principles, as well as some of the early proponents of rights and nature said that's also what happened when we created rights for enslaved people and rights for women.
We have seen significant changes in the past, but I want to begin by thanking, particularly the noble Lady Baroness Miller, for her strongest support for the bill. And I think the noble Lady summed up in one sentence why we need this bill or one question is the status quo delivering for the protection of nature and the rights of future generations? No. The current framework is not. And the noble Lady also said that the rights of nature are not in competition with human rights or economic prosperity, and explained, as the noble Lady, the Minister, I think, did, how this very much fits within the Rights of Future Generations Act in Wales.
And as the noble Lady, the Minister acknowledged, this does acknowledge the competences of the devolved administrations. That's very much been carefully written into the Bill. I will also very much thank the noble Lady Baroness Helic, who said how we have looked at how we derive benefit from nature, rather than seeing as owing a duty of care, and I wish her bill, her bill all fair winds behind it, and thank her for starting my morning, as we had a pre-debate discussion with a lovely picture of a leveret which really cheered up my morning.
I can recommend that any morning you need to be cheered up. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, very much for stressing the need for urgency and action. I'm going to look up the work of his grandfather. I'll be very interested to find out about that, and also for the focus on the need to support indigenous communities. I've recently come back from the High North and indigenous communities in the High North. Indigenous communities within Europe have a lot to teach us, but are also under very significant threat and need that protection.
And also, as did the noble, noble Lady beside me. Highlighting the work of Robert MacFarlane is a River alive. These are. That's a great book, and anyone who hasn't read it should read that book. I engage now with the noble Lord Lord Frost, and indeed the noble Lady Baroness Coffey. And I very sincerely say to both of them, my thanks for seriously engaging with this debate and this bill, and I appreciate that. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord Frost regarded as an argument against it, that it would be a complete upending of our current arrangements coming from one of the chief proponents of Brexit.
That seems a little curious that that would be an argument against the bill, but I'll park that there. Although I will also note that the noble Lord said we should have more philosophical debates in our chamber, and I very much agree with that. We have philosophies that have led us to a very bad place in the world at this moment, debating the philosophies, thinking about the foundations of our thought is something we need to do a great deal more of. I.
One of the points that noble Lord Lord Frost said that there's a problem of how do you balance various types of nature, various organisms, various ecosystems. A number of others also said this. The noble Lord described it as an incommensurable variable. Well, we have had about 4 billion years of life on this planet. It has always been a balance. It has always been very often cooperation between organisms, cooperation between species, working together, working and working out. And that's what we would have to continue with as part of that nature.
Now, the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey asked about the definition of nature, and I will point the noble Lady to clause 42, page 37, which actually sets out the definition under the basis of this bill. And I really appreciate, again, the careful engagement and some of the questions about the negative and affirmative procedures. And I will very much look at those looking going forward. And the noble Lady asked how this might work with the EU reset. What I will point out, of course, that there is a parallel effort happening within the EU at this moment.
The rights for nature, empowerment of citizens to represent and protect ecosystems has been accepted under the European Citizens Initiative regulation and is being taken forward within Europe. And of course, should we in the future return to being part of Europe, then it wouldn't be a problem anymore at all. The noble Earl Earl of Effingham. I'm just going to pick up a couple of points. I'm aware of time, but said national security is the first duty of any government. Well, I would of course point to the Joint Intelligence Chiefs report highlighting how biosecurity biodiversity is essential to our security and how food security is a pressing problem because of those those risks.
So these are not two things to be set against each other. Now, the noble Lords seem to find problems with a legal duty of care for companies and organisations with regard to overseas activities. Well, again, I would cross-reference the JIC report. Those overseas activities are not far away. Things with no impact on us. They very much have close impacts on our. As the noble Lord said, everyday economic realities. Now the noble Lord Lord Winston. Said this might be giving too much power to lawyers.
Well, a great deal noble Lords will read, and why there's so much detail in the bill is. There's a stress on democracy, particularly local democracy, picking up the points of the noble Lady Baroness Miller. There's a stress throughout the bill on local democracy, and that being those, that's where the power lies, rather than with the lawyers and the noble Lord raised perhaps a fairly obvious point about bacteria. Well, of course, that's where we have to acknowledge that we are holobionts. We consist of some 5000 species.
We tend to think of bacteria as being that thing out there we want to kill. But protecting the bacteria, our own microbiome is an absolutely crucial step to protecting our own health. And finally, I'm just going to pick up the points from the noble Lady Baroness Miller and wish the friends of the dart absolutely all the best and all of the other similar groups around these islands. The noble Lady said we need to address the failure of enforcement and regulation. Yes, we do, but we've been trying to do that for decades and failing under our current model.
It's a model that's not working. And the noble Lady pointed to the way in which there are limitations in how rights of nature has been working for Ecuador. I'm not going to claim any single bill. Any single action is a silver bullet to fix all of our problems. Anyone who tells you that, I would immediately tell you to disregard. I've got this one thing that's going to fix everything. This is an essential foundation for our future. It doesn't solve all of our problems or deliver everything we need.
It's a foundation to build on a foundation that acknowledges our life is dependent on all other life. And the noble Lady mentioned agroecological farming and a new way of thinking and working. And that is what we actually need is a new way of thinking and working. So
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move. The question is that this bill be now read a second time as many be now read a second time as many of the nutritional content. Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have it. I beg to move that this bill is committed to a committee of. The whole House. Knows that this bill be committed to a Committee of the committed to a Committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion shall say, content not content, the contents of it. content, the contents of it. Perhaps this might be a moment at which the Lords might wish to leave
Step forward. Rights of nature, I agree, but I think the noble Lady talked about changing the UK's constitutional and legal framework. Well, of course, that's a broader question we very much have before us today. We are going to have to see major changes to those to create a modern, functional democratic constitution. And of course, the rights of nature could very much be part of that transformation. I think the noble Lady also talked about a fundamental reworking of principles, as well as some of the early proponents of rights and nature said that's also what happened when we created rights for enslaved people and rights for women.
We have seen significant changes in the past, but I want to begin by thanking, particularly the noble Lady Baroness Miller, for her strongest support for the bill. And I think the noble Lady summed up in one sentence why we need this bill or one question is the status quo delivering for the protection of nature and the rights of future generations? No. The current framework is not. And the noble Lady also said that the rights of nature are not in competition with human rights or economic prosperity, and explained, as the noble Lady, the Minister, I think, did, how this very much fits within the Rights of Future Generations Act in Wales.
And as the noble Lady, the Minister acknowledged, this does acknowledge the competences of the devolved administrations. That's very much been carefully written into the Bill. I will also very much thank the noble Lady Baroness Helic, who said how we have looked at how we derive benefit from nature, rather than seeing as owing a duty of care, and I wish her bill, her bill all fair winds behind it, and thank her for starting my morning, as we had a pre-debate discussion with a lovely picture of a leveret which really cheered up my morning.
I can recommend that any morning you need to be cheered up. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, very much for stressing the need for urgency and action. I'm going to look up the work of his grandfather. I'll be very interested to find out about that, and also for the focus on the need to support indigenous communities. I've recently come back from the High North and indigenous communities in the High North. Indigenous communities within Europe have a lot to teach us, but are also under very significant threat and need that protection.
And also, as did the noble, noble Lady beside me. Highlighting the work of Robert MacFarlane is a River alive. These are. That's a great book, and anyone who hasn't read it should read that book. I engage now with the noble Lord Lord Frost, and indeed the noble Lady Baroness Coffey. And I very sincerely say to both of them, my thanks for seriously engaging with this debate and this bill, and I appreciate that. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord Frost regarded as an argument against it, that it would be a complete upending of our current arrangements coming from one of the chief proponents of Brexit.
That seems a little curious that that would be an argument against the bill, but I'll park that there. Although I will also note that the noble Lord said we should have more philosophical debates in our chamber, and I very much agree with that. We have philosophies that have led us to a very bad place in the world at this moment, debating the philosophies, thinking about the foundations of our thought is something we need to do a great deal more of. I.
One of the points that noble Lord Lord Frost said that there's a problem of how do you balance various types of nature, various organisms, various ecosystems. A number of others also said this. The noble Lord described it as an incommensurable variable. Well, we have had about 4 billion years of life on this planet. It has always been a balance. It has always been very often cooperation between organisms, cooperation between species, working together, working and working out. And that's what we would have to continue with as part of that nature.
Now, the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey asked about the definition of nature, and I will point the noble Lady to clause 42, page 37, which actually sets out the definition under the basis of this bill. And I really appreciate, again, the careful engagement and some of the questions about the negative and affirmative procedures. And I will very much look at those looking going forward. And the noble Lady asked how this might work with the EU reset. What I will point out, of course, that there is a parallel effort happening within the EU at this moment.
The rights for nature, empowerment of citizens to represent and protect ecosystems has been accepted under the European Citizens Initiative regulation and is being taken forward within Europe. And of course, should we in the future return to being part of Europe, then it wouldn't be a problem anymore at all. The noble Earl Earl of Effingham. I'm just going to pick up a couple of points. I'm aware of time, but said national security is the first duty of any government. Well, I would of course point to the Joint Intelligence Chiefs report highlighting how biosecurity biodiversity is essential to our security and how food security is a pressing problem because of those those risks.
So these are not two things to be set against each other. Now, the noble Lords seem to find problems with a legal duty of care for companies and organisations with regard to overseas activities. Well, again, I would cross-reference the JIC report. Those overseas activities are not far away. Things with no impact on us. They very much have close impacts on our. As the noble Lord said, everyday economic realities. Now the noble Lord Lord Winston. Said this might be giving too much power to lawyers.
Well, a great deal noble Lords will read, and why there's so much detail in the bill is. There's a stress on democracy, particularly local democracy, picking up the points of the noble Lady Baroness Miller. There's a stress throughout the bill on local democracy, and that being those, that's where the power lies, rather than with the lawyers and the noble Lord raised perhaps a fairly obvious point about bacteria. Well, of course, that's where we have to acknowledge that we are holobionts. We consist of some 5000 species.
We tend to think of bacteria as being that thing out there we want to kill. But protecting the bacteria, our own microbiome is an absolutely crucial step to protecting our own health. And finally, I'm just going to pick up the points from the noble Lady Baroness Miller and wish the friends of the dart absolutely all the best and all of the other similar groups around these islands. The noble Lady said we need to address the failure of enforcement and regulation. Yes, we do, but we've been trying to do that for decades and failing under our current model.
It's a model that's not working. And the noble Lady pointed to the way in which there are limitations in how rights of nature has been working for Ecuador. I'm not going to claim any single bill. Any single action is a silver bullet to fix all of our problems. Anyone who tells you that, I would immediately tell you to disregard. I've got this one thing that's going to fix everything. This is an essential foundation for our future. It doesn't solve all of our problems or deliver everything we need.
It's a foundation to build on a foundation that acknowledges our life is dependent on all other life. And the noble Lady mentioned agroecological farming and a new way of thinking and working. And that is what we actually need is a new way of thinking and working. So
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move. The question is that this bill be now read a second time as many be now read a second time as many of the nutritional content. Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have it. I beg to move that this bill is committed to a committee of. The whole House. Knows that this bill be committed to a Committee of the committed to a Committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion shall say, content not content, the contents of it. content, the contents of it. Perhaps this might be a moment at which the Lords might wish to leave
13:34
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
life. We often hear. Yet the question of where people may be laid to rest are too often being treated as an afterthought in our planning system. This bill seeks to planning system. This bill seeks to address that omission through a simple but important principle that simple but important principle that every community should plan responsibly for the burial needs of its population. At present, my its population. At present, my Lords, the local authorities have powers to provide cemeteries, but they are under no statutory duty to ensure that sufficient burial space exists in many areas.
Areas burial provision depends upon a patchwork of local authorities, cemeteries, faith organisations and private providers with no strategic assessment of long term demand. The result is that in some parts of England, burial capacity is becoming increasingly constrained, placing pressure on bereaved families and on the communities they serve. This bill does not seek to dictate where burial grounds should be located, nor does it impose unrealistic obligations on local authorities. Instead, it asks local planning authorities to do what they already do for housing, schools, transport green infrastructure to assess future need, incorporate that assessment into their local plans, and publish a long term strategy for meeting any shortfall in burial capacity.
Planning is about looking ahead. My Lords, we routinely plan. We routinely plan decades into the future for homes, employment, land and public services. It seems only right that we should also plan for the final. Resting places for communities will inevitably require. My Lords, the urgency of this has also been recognised independently by the Law Commission in. In its comprehensive review of burial and Cremation law, the Commission concluded that England and Wales faces growing pressures on burial capacity, particularly in the urban areas, and described the existing legal framework as fragmented and outdated.
It observed that many burial authorities are approaching capacity and that outside of London, councils generally have no powers to reuse old graves as a means of managing demand. We can already see the consequences. Councils including Birmingham, Leicester, Slough, Luton, several London boroughs have all warned of diminishing burial capacity. I, from first hand, saw the situation in Birmingham and in Dewsbury and Kirklees, as well as in my home city of Sheffield. While national surveys have found that around 1 in 4 local authorities had ten years or less of burial space remaining, around 1 in 6 had less than five years.
The issue has been particularly significant for many faith communities and for Muslims and Jews. My Lords, for example, burial is a religious obligation and cremation is not an acceptable alternative. Many Christian denominations also continue to place great importance upon burial. While this bill has obvious benefits for those faith communities, it is not a sectarian measure. It's about ensuring that every family, whatever their belief or tradition, have access to a dignified burial within a reasonable distance of their community.
Without forward planning, families may increasingly find themselves having to arrange burial many miles from where their loved ones lived, worked and worshipped. That creates unnecessary emotional distress at a time when people are already coping with bereavement. This bill also supports better land use planning, by requiring burial needs to be considered as part of a local planning process. It enables authorities to identify suitable land well in advance, rather than responding to shortages through emergency or piecemeal decisions. Early planning allows burial provisions to be balanced alongside competing demands for housing, environmental protection and other essential infrastructure.
So some may question whether these plans place an additional burden upon local authorities, and I recognise those concerns. However, the duties proposed are proportionate and aligned with existing planning processes. The Bill does not require every authority to provide a cemetery itself. Rather, it requires authorities to understand local need, assess existing capacity and explain how any future demand will be met. Those are reasonable expectations for any effective planning system. Others may argue that changing burial practices or increased cremation rates will reduce demand.
While those trends are relevant, they are far from universal. Significant sections of our population continue to require burial, and demographic growth in many areas means demand is likely to continue for decades. Ignoring the issue today simply passes a greater problem to future generations. My Lords, this is a modest bill, but it addresses a genuine gap in our planning framework. It promotes foresight rather than crisis management, supports local decision making rather than centralised prescription, and helps ensure that communities can continue to meet one of humanity's oldest and most fundamental needs.
With dignity and respect. I hope whatever our views on planning policies more broadly, noble Lords will agree that preparing responsibly for future is one of the core principal purposes of local government. This bill helps ensure that burial provision is no longer overlooked in that process. I therefore commend the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill to the House. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. My Lords, tomorrow we.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
tomorrow we. Are celebrating or commemorating 250 years since the Declaration of 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, which established the United States. Still, as far as I'm aware, supposed to be a republic.
Areas burial provision depends upon a patchwork of local authorities, cemeteries, faith organisations and private providers with no strategic assessment of long term demand. The result is that in some parts of England, burial capacity is becoming increasingly constrained, placing pressure on bereaved families and on the communities they serve. This bill does not seek to dictate where burial grounds should be located, nor does it impose unrealistic obligations on local authorities. Instead, it asks local planning authorities to do what they already do for housing, schools, transport green infrastructure to assess future need, incorporate that assessment into their local plans, and publish a long term strategy for meeting any shortfall in burial capacity.
Planning is about looking ahead. My Lords, we routinely plan. We routinely plan decades into the future for homes, employment, land and public services. It seems only right that we should also plan for the final. Resting places for communities will inevitably require. My Lords, the urgency of this has also been recognised independently by the Law Commission in. In its comprehensive review of burial and Cremation law, the Commission concluded that England and Wales faces growing pressures on burial capacity, particularly in the urban areas, and described the existing legal framework as fragmented and outdated.
It observed that many burial authorities are approaching capacity and that outside of London, councils generally have no powers to reuse old graves as a means of managing demand. We can already see the consequences. Councils including Birmingham, Leicester, Slough, Luton, several London boroughs have all warned of diminishing burial capacity. I, from first hand, saw the situation in Birmingham and in Dewsbury and Kirklees, as well as in my home city of Sheffield. While national surveys have found that around 1 in 4 local authorities had ten years or less of burial space remaining, around 1 in 6 had less than five years.
The issue has been particularly significant for many faith communities and for Muslims and Jews. My Lords, for example, burial is a religious obligation and cremation is not an acceptable alternative. Many Christian denominations also continue to place great importance upon burial. While this bill has obvious benefits for those faith communities, it is not a sectarian measure. It's about ensuring that every family, whatever their belief or tradition, have access to a dignified burial within a reasonable distance of their community.
Without forward planning, families may increasingly find themselves having to arrange burial many miles from where their loved ones lived, worked and worshipped. That creates unnecessary emotional distress at a time when people are already coping with bereavement. This bill also supports better land use planning, by requiring burial needs to be considered as part of a local planning process. It enables authorities to identify suitable land well in advance, rather than responding to shortages through emergency or piecemeal decisions. Early planning allows burial provisions to be balanced alongside competing demands for housing, environmental protection and other essential infrastructure.
So some may question whether these plans place an additional burden upon local authorities, and I recognise those concerns. However, the duties proposed are proportionate and aligned with existing planning processes. The Bill does not require every authority to provide a cemetery itself. Rather, it requires authorities to understand local need, assess existing capacity and explain how any future demand will be met. Those are reasonable expectations for any effective planning system. Others may argue that changing burial practices or increased cremation rates will reduce demand.
While those trends are relevant, they are far from universal. Significant sections of our population continue to require burial, and demographic growth in many areas means demand is likely to continue for decades. Ignoring the issue today simply passes a greater problem to future generations. My Lords, this is a modest bill, but it addresses a genuine gap in our planning framework. It promotes foresight rather than crisis management, supports local decision making rather than centralised prescription, and helps ensure that communities can continue to meet one of humanity's oldest and most fundamental needs.
With dignity and respect. I hope whatever our views on planning policies more broadly, noble Lords will agree that preparing responsibly for future is one of the core principal purposes of local government. This bill helps ensure that burial provision is no longer overlooked in that process. I therefore commend the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill to the House. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. My Lords, tomorrow we.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
tomorrow we. Are celebrating or commemorating 250 years since the Declaration of 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, which established the United States. Still, as far as I'm aware, supposed to be a republic.
13:41
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
aware, supposed to be a republic. And I mentioned it because one of its founding fathers and the noble Lord has alluded to this. Benjamin Franklin was famous for having said, there are only two things in life that are certain death and taxes. Well, now this is a bill about death, or more particularly about the. Where dead bodies are put to rest. And throughout human history, the way we deal with our dead and dead bodies has a great deal to say about our humanity.
I read recently that there's now archaeological evidence that Neanderthals had burial practices. And of course, we know a great deal about civilisations like the Egyptians and the Chinese. And even if I may say so, more recently, HS2 unearthed a great deal of knowledge about the way in which people were buried in the 17th century when building the line through a central London. Now. So I want to say straight away that this is a bill that the House should very much take seriously, even if it is not everybody's cup of tea.
Now I commend the noble Lord, Lord Muhammad of Tyldesley, for sponsoring this bill. He was kind enough to draw it to my attention, for which I thank him, and who has adroitly made his case for the Bill today? I also congratulated him on having been successful in the lottery of a private member's bill. And as someone who's piloted a private member's bill myself through onto the statute book, I wish him every success. If you read the bill carefully, you will find several references to, and I quote, the cultural effects of communities, and I want to return to this aspect of the issue later, because the bill tackles issues that of growing concern to people of all communities, and reference has been made already to the recent Law Commission report of March this year on burial and cremation, which concluded not only that the last serious survey of burial space is already 20 years old and out of date, but also that the burial space in Church of England and local authority burial grounds might run out within the coming decades.
I rather regret the fact that the Bishops bench is not contributing to today's debate, and it may be a short debate, and I'm sure we'll hear some very interesting speeches. But before I turn or say a bit more about the bill itself, I hope the House will allow me to make a few general comments, because I think this bill is best approached with some understanding of the recent history of approaches to burial in this country. Supposing we were holding this debate 200 years ago today, what would it be about? Well, you would find a situation where there was widespread concern about body snatching.
It was 200 years since the great private cemeteries of London were being planned. Kensal green, Nunhead, West Norwood, Highgate and so on. And they were built by joint stock companies and their whole design was about security. No coincidence that they were built with high walls and imposing gates, because the whole point of them was to provide the emerging middle classes with a safe and secure burial environment planned in the 1820s, literally 200 years ago now, and built in the 1830s.
They were known as the Magnificent Seven. And incidentally, they no longer felt obliged to bury in the Christian east west orientation sunrise to sunset. But they could be planned according to a more elaborate layout. And hence you see these beautiful cemeteries that we have today. And on the whole, of course, the aristocracy had provision for their own burials and their own vaults and lands. But the poorest in society, by contrast, were most vulnerable to body snatching. And it was a very successful business which fulfilled a need for medical colleges, as well as providing a lucrative living for the body snatchers.
Now people were murdered for body snatching, and their bodies were sold to the anatomy schools and the infamous case of Burke and Hare in Edinburgh. They murdered 16 people in the 1820s, and it provided the impetus for Parliament to pass the Anatomy Act of 1832. Because the murders raised public awareness of the need for bodies, for medical research and contributed to the passing of the act and intervening in this way, Parliament sought to deal with the body snatching problem. Incidentally, the Bill made its way through this Parliament at the same time as the Great Reform Bill of 1832.
Only it was passed. It was known as the midnight Bill, because it passed late at night, when people were not as interested. And the main business of Parliament was carried on during the day, which was the Great Reform Act, which most of us learn about when we learn about history in school. Now, at all events, the Anatomy Act did provide sufficient bodies for medical schools, and the pauper institutions at that time were used as a means of furnishing the dead bodies required for them.
Basically, if you were a qualified for a pauper funeral, you certainly qualified for dissection. Other developments in the 19th century included the creation of Brookwood Cemetery. Some members may know it. It was designed to deal with the rapidly expanding population of London, and a special train service was set up going from Waterloo Necropolis station, which transported the bodies down. I think it's near Dorking and indeed it was only bombing in the Second World War that blew up the station. Otherwise you'd be able to see it today.
Now, cremation as a means of dealing with death only really started to appear in the 1890s and began to take off after the Great War. Perhaps it's only a guess because of the colossal death toll of that war, and a natural fear of decomposition changed people's perceptions of the Christian community about burial. But the fact is, the growing trend towards cremation in the Christian community did not erode the pressures on burial space. Over the decades, churches and local authorities have had to make increasing provision for burial space.
And by the way, there's quite a market in burial spaces. One colleague in this House told me a couple of days ago that the going price for a space in his particular hoped for cemetery was £24,000. This is not inconsiderable. Now, perhaps it would be a good moment to declare that a few years ago I was a member of an opposed private bill. There are not many of these. It's something of a specialism. I'm not sure if many members here have ever had experience of one, but I'm glad to say we've got some clerks in this House who are great specialists.
And I sat on this bill. It was a bill promoted by Bishop's Stortford Council, known, I am sure, to my noble friend the Minister, which was seeking permission to use reuse burial space in its cemetery because space was running out. Now, these proposals can arouse great emotion and depth of feeling. The proceedings were quasi judicial, and eventually the House did grant permission for the proposal to proceed, and I believe it was the first such bill to succeed outside London. But the point I'm making is this the pressure for increased burial space is growing, and the issues that we're discussing today, whether or not this particular bill succeeds, will not be going away.
So we may as well tackle the underlying issues head on. I mean, if I may say so, that no London borough could have possibly afford to burial space in their within their boundaries at the moment. Now, it may be that, my noble friend the Minister will agree that there is a real issue here, and will tell the House that it must be addressed. But perhaps this Bill is not the right way or vehicle to do it. But the Bill does seek to meet those needs in the context of local authority planning, and I think we should debate closely what effects this may have up and down the country when we reach Committee stage.
But before we reach the minister's speech, let me return to the phrase all faith and cultural communities that appears on the face of the Bill. My Lords, different communities have different burial traditions. For example, as has been mentioned, Jewish and Muslim communities have strong preference for burial as soon as possible. Hardly surprising as the religions originated in the Middle East, when a quick burial was a health necessity. And I think it's fair to observe that both communities still broadly prefer burial to cremation, though this is a generalisation.
But some communities also prefer an individual grave and dislike multiple graves, and people are entitled to have their own views. But I think the effect of changing times and are many and varied communities is producing a more explicitly demand for more burial space. Now, my Lords, I've run out of time. Now. I need hardly add that I'm very much looking forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say, and whatever approach the government take to this bill to taking part in further proceedings on it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I to congratulate Lord Mohammed of Tinsley on coming so Mohammed of Tinsley on coming so high in the ballot, and I hope that his luck continues in his dealing with the government on the bill, with the government on the bill, because I'm one of those who's in support of his efforts. I would have to would have welcomed the presence of some bishops today, given the nature of the subject, and the Church of England has
I read recently that there's now archaeological evidence that Neanderthals had burial practices. And of course, we know a great deal about civilisations like the Egyptians and the Chinese. And even if I may say so, more recently, HS2 unearthed a great deal of knowledge about the way in which people were buried in the 17th century when building the line through a central London. Now. So I want to say straight away that this is a bill that the House should very much take seriously, even if it is not everybody's cup of tea.
Now I commend the noble Lord, Lord Muhammad of Tyldesley, for sponsoring this bill. He was kind enough to draw it to my attention, for which I thank him, and who has adroitly made his case for the Bill today? I also congratulated him on having been successful in the lottery of a private member's bill. And as someone who's piloted a private member's bill myself through onto the statute book, I wish him every success. If you read the bill carefully, you will find several references to, and I quote, the cultural effects of communities, and I want to return to this aspect of the issue later, because the bill tackles issues that of growing concern to people of all communities, and reference has been made already to the recent Law Commission report of March this year on burial and cremation, which concluded not only that the last serious survey of burial space is already 20 years old and out of date, but also that the burial space in Church of England and local authority burial grounds might run out within the coming decades.
I rather regret the fact that the Bishops bench is not contributing to today's debate, and it may be a short debate, and I'm sure we'll hear some very interesting speeches. But before I turn or say a bit more about the bill itself, I hope the House will allow me to make a few general comments, because I think this bill is best approached with some understanding of the recent history of approaches to burial in this country. Supposing we were holding this debate 200 years ago today, what would it be about? Well, you would find a situation where there was widespread concern about body snatching.
It was 200 years since the great private cemeteries of London were being planned. Kensal green, Nunhead, West Norwood, Highgate and so on. And they were built by joint stock companies and their whole design was about security. No coincidence that they were built with high walls and imposing gates, because the whole point of them was to provide the emerging middle classes with a safe and secure burial environment planned in the 1820s, literally 200 years ago now, and built in the 1830s.
They were known as the Magnificent Seven. And incidentally, they no longer felt obliged to bury in the Christian east west orientation sunrise to sunset. But they could be planned according to a more elaborate layout. And hence you see these beautiful cemeteries that we have today. And on the whole, of course, the aristocracy had provision for their own burials and their own vaults and lands. But the poorest in society, by contrast, were most vulnerable to body snatching. And it was a very successful business which fulfilled a need for medical colleges, as well as providing a lucrative living for the body snatchers.
Now people were murdered for body snatching, and their bodies were sold to the anatomy schools and the infamous case of Burke and Hare in Edinburgh. They murdered 16 people in the 1820s, and it provided the impetus for Parliament to pass the Anatomy Act of 1832. Because the murders raised public awareness of the need for bodies, for medical research and contributed to the passing of the act and intervening in this way, Parliament sought to deal with the body snatching problem. Incidentally, the Bill made its way through this Parliament at the same time as the Great Reform Bill of 1832.
Only it was passed. It was known as the midnight Bill, because it passed late at night, when people were not as interested. And the main business of Parliament was carried on during the day, which was the Great Reform Act, which most of us learn about when we learn about history in school. Now, at all events, the Anatomy Act did provide sufficient bodies for medical schools, and the pauper institutions at that time were used as a means of furnishing the dead bodies required for them.
Basically, if you were a qualified for a pauper funeral, you certainly qualified for dissection. Other developments in the 19th century included the creation of Brookwood Cemetery. Some members may know it. It was designed to deal with the rapidly expanding population of London, and a special train service was set up going from Waterloo Necropolis station, which transported the bodies down. I think it's near Dorking and indeed it was only bombing in the Second World War that blew up the station. Otherwise you'd be able to see it today.
Now, cremation as a means of dealing with death only really started to appear in the 1890s and began to take off after the Great War. Perhaps it's only a guess because of the colossal death toll of that war, and a natural fear of decomposition changed people's perceptions of the Christian community about burial. But the fact is, the growing trend towards cremation in the Christian community did not erode the pressures on burial space. Over the decades, churches and local authorities have had to make increasing provision for burial space.
And by the way, there's quite a market in burial spaces. One colleague in this House told me a couple of days ago that the going price for a space in his particular hoped for cemetery was £24,000. This is not inconsiderable. Now, perhaps it would be a good moment to declare that a few years ago I was a member of an opposed private bill. There are not many of these. It's something of a specialism. I'm not sure if many members here have ever had experience of one, but I'm glad to say we've got some clerks in this House who are great specialists.
And I sat on this bill. It was a bill promoted by Bishop's Stortford Council, known, I am sure, to my noble friend the Minister, which was seeking permission to use reuse burial space in its cemetery because space was running out. Now, these proposals can arouse great emotion and depth of feeling. The proceedings were quasi judicial, and eventually the House did grant permission for the proposal to proceed, and I believe it was the first such bill to succeed outside London. But the point I'm making is this the pressure for increased burial space is growing, and the issues that we're discussing today, whether or not this particular bill succeeds, will not be going away.
So we may as well tackle the underlying issues head on. I mean, if I may say so, that no London borough could have possibly afford to burial space in their within their boundaries at the moment. Now, it may be that, my noble friend the Minister will agree that there is a real issue here, and will tell the House that it must be addressed. But perhaps this Bill is not the right way or vehicle to do it. But the Bill does seek to meet those needs in the context of local authority planning, and I think we should debate closely what effects this may have up and down the country when we reach Committee stage.
But before we reach the minister's speech, let me return to the phrase all faith and cultural communities that appears on the face of the Bill. My Lords, different communities have different burial traditions. For example, as has been mentioned, Jewish and Muslim communities have strong preference for burial as soon as possible. Hardly surprising as the religions originated in the Middle East, when a quick burial was a health necessity. And I think it's fair to observe that both communities still broadly prefer burial to cremation, though this is a generalisation.
But some communities also prefer an individual grave and dislike multiple graves, and people are entitled to have their own views. But I think the effect of changing times and are many and varied communities is producing a more explicitly demand for more burial space. Now, my Lords, I've run out of time. Now. I need hardly add that I'm very much looking forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say, and whatever approach the government take to this bill to taking part in further proceedings on it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I to congratulate Lord Mohammed of Tinsley on coming so Mohammed of Tinsley on coming so high in the ballot, and I hope that his luck continues in his dealing with the government on the bill, with the government on the bill, because I'm one of those who's in support of his efforts. I would have to would have welcomed the presence of some bishops today, given the nature of the subject, and the Church of England has
13:50
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
-
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
and the Church of England has probably got the majority of the acreage of burial grounds around the country. My interest comes really from the fact that I'm in my 80s, and in a sense, I'm in the waiting room. I've long expressed a desire to be buried in the churchyard of Saint Paul's Church in Alverthorpe in Yorkshire, the parish of my birth and my family roots and. But space is limited there. But with the help of a friend, my friend Philip Collins, who's used genealogy, used Wikitree, used AI.
We've managed to trace a whole range of my forebears there, and we think that some of those graves in which they're buried are not full. So there is an opportunity, a green opportunity, I would say, for me possibly to be buried in one of those graves. And Lord Muhammad's suggestion, I would like to add to it that we should have an extra section on the end about the full utilisation of existing cemeteries around the country, and there are acres and acres of them.
And I think given that now we have AI and we've got other methods of genealogy, we can make a connection between the graves and between the ancestors. And the likelihood is given that what the Viscount Stansgate just mentioned about somebody being willing to pay £24,000 to find a bedroom, this is an amazing opportunity, certainly for the Church of England, maybe for the Roman Catholic Church and for other faiths. If they explore this, to make a connection with individuals who would wish to be buried.
If there is an opportunity to link with their forebears and there would probably be willing to pay for it. So where have we got to? I wrote to the Bishop of Leeds, and he's given some assistance to me. I asked him to raise it to the Church of England. I think it may have been buried somewhere, so I raised it myself with Marsha de Cordova, who was my MP in Wandsworth, but she's also one of the church commissioners, and she had an open meeting for the Church of England for anyone to raise questions.
I raised it there and there seemed to be little disposition to give support. One response was, this is all about money. Well, of course, the Church of England is badly in need of money for the upkeep of their churches. So as Roman Catholic churches. So I really think I've stumbled on a business opportunity for the churches of all faiths that we should be exploring the link between technology, between the new way of exploring the way into our genealogy, and to link up with people who may have an interest in finding a burial spot.
Given that there is such pressure on finding appropriate places. And in addition, we will need new space. And I support Lord Mohammed all the way with that. So I'm wondering if my noble friend the Minister, was at the end of a tiring week. I don't want too much trouble from me whether she would be willing to explore. I'm not sure how we take this further forward. I've spoken to the public bill office and they said, well, after you've had the debates and see where the Minister responds, how she responds, we will then look to see whether we can table additional amendments, maybe a new section which would be about utilisation of existing burial grounds to the maximum extent, whether in fact there is an opportunity there, I would say, as a green policy to open it up, but more particularly for those who own the churchyards, actually to raise additional money for the upkeep of their churches or for the benefit of their communities, their local communities.
So it's, it's I'm not causing trouble. I say. It's an interesting area that I don't think has been explored previously. There are great opportunities. There are acres and acres of burial grounds around the country that is of valuable land. It is not being fully utilised and we should really before we start worrying, we need to extend. Yes, but we can probably minimise the encroachment of other land into other land if we utilise what we already have. So I hope the Minister will be.
Give me a pointer on the direction I should go, and I will then talk to the public Bill office and come back with some appropriate amendments, which I hope she might find acceptable.
We've managed to trace a whole range of my forebears there, and we think that some of those graves in which they're buried are not full. So there is an opportunity, a green opportunity, I would say, for me possibly to be buried in one of those graves. And Lord Muhammad's suggestion, I would like to add to it that we should have an extra section on the end about the full utilisation of existing cemeteries around the country, and there are acres and acres of them.
And I think given that now we have AI and we've got other methods of genealogy, we can make a connection between the graves and between the ancestors. And the likelihood is given that what the Viscount Stansgate just mentioned about somebody being willing to pay £24,000 to find a bedroom, this is an amazing opportunity, certainly for the Church of England, maybe for the Roman Catholic Church and for other faiths. If they explore this, to make a connection with individuals who would wish to be buried.
If there is an opportunity to link with their forebears and there would probably be willing to pay for it. So where have we got to? I wrote to the Bishop of Leeds, and he's given some assistance to me. I asked him to raise it to the Church of England. I think it may have been buried somewhere, so I raised it myself with Marsha de Cordova, who was my MP in Wandsworth, but she's also one of the church commissioners, and she had an open meeting for the Church of England for anyone to raise questions.
I raised it there and there seemed to be little disposition to give support. One response was, this is all about money. Well, of course, the Church of England is badly in need of money for the upkeep of their churches. So as Roman Catholic churches. So I really think I've stumbled on a business opportunity for the churches of all faiths that we should be exploring the link between technology, between the new way of exploring the way into our genealogy, and to link up with people who may have an interest in finding a burial spot.
Given that there is such pressure on finding appropriate places. And in addition, we will need new space. And I support Lord Mohammed all the way with that. So I'm wondering if my noble friend the Minister, was at the end of a tiring week. I don't want too much trouble from me whether she would be willing to explore. I'm not sure how we take this further forward. I've spoken to the public bill office and they said, well, after you've had the debates and see where the Minister responds, how she responds, we will then look to see whether we can table additional amendments, maybe a new section which would be about utilisation of existing burial grounds to the maximum extent, whether in fact there is an opportunity there, I would say, as a green policy to open it up, but more particularly for those who own the churchyards, actually to raise additional money for the upkeep of their churches or for the benefit of their communities, their local communities.
So it's, it's I'm not causing trouble. I say. It's an interesting area that I don't think has been explored previously. There are great opportunities. There are acres and acres of burial grounds around the country that is of valuable land. It is not being fully utilised and we should really before we start worrying, we need to extend. Yes, but we can probably minimise the encroachment of other land into other land if we utilise what we already have. So I hope the Minister will be.
Give me a pointer on the direction I should go, and I will then talk to the public Bill office and come back with some appropriate amendments, which I hope she might find acceptable.
13:55
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
My Lords, I'm also very grateful to Lord Mohammed of Tinsley for bringing forward this Bill and with the clarity of its purpose, that he the clarity of its purpose, that he has spoken about. This is a thoughtful and timely proposal for addressing an issue which other noble Lords have raised. That is clearly important, and I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire and, not, unsurprisingly, space in cemeteries is a key issue. In one of my villages, Westoning, there are six spaces left in a village of around 2000 souls, and the noble Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe said he's in the waiting room.
Well, we're all in the waiting room. Some of us just wish to wait a little bit longer than maybe he does. But. But that point is very much prescient amongst some of my residents who are very conscious, and they want to be buried in their local village. And actually, I've been helping them for the 17 years I've been there to try and find a site. And it's not necessarily easy. You would have thought in a village in the middle of the greenbelt, there would be space.
But when you take account of land ownership and in particular in my area, the risk of flooding, because you obviously have to have a water table well below the depth at which you bury people. So it's not simple and it is very important. So I do recognise that now responsibility for burial provision rests primarily with local authorities. Not quite sure of the case in London, but much of the rural area, the actual delivery of it is parish councils and religious bodies and churches.
Now, with the pressures on land use, demographic change, different faith and cultural communities. I mean, the current framework, frankly, is increasingly stretched. The Law Commission's ongoing review of the death management system has highlighted the complexity of existing arrangements and the need for a more coherent and long term view. I'd also like to highlight what the noble Lord Viscount Stansgate raised, which is if you go back, as you said, into the 17th and 18th century, this was a commercial opportunity.
And he mentioned the the seven major cemeteries in London, one of which is Highgate Cemetery, which I had the pleasure of visiting about a year ago. Well, that was set up as a private enterprise and made a lot of money until it went bust. And running cemeteries is a long term business. It is costly to set
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And there are ongoing costs for a long period of time. Now, the noble Lord Brooke of Althorp noble Lord Brooke of Althorp mentioned the price of £24,000. Well, for many people that is way Well, for many people that is way out of reach. And I wouldn't like to go back to the 17th century provision of where the nobility can provision of where the nobility can bury nicely and the paupers can't. So it's very important that I think So it's very important that I think we look at this in the round, and I take his suggestion that maybe we should look at extending this bill to look at how we can have re-use of existing facilities.
Bearing in mind that would also raise the whole issue of ownership of those facilities. So we recognise the challenges. We recognise the sensitivities, sensitivities, but ensuring that all communities have access to dignified, appropriate burial space is a basic matter of respect. And the bill's emphasis on consultation with faith groups, burial authorities and neighbouring councils is very welcome. We also note the context of the Law Commission's work on grade reuse. And while the government have yet to publish their full response, the Commission's proposal strengthening safeguards, extending powers beyond London and protecting war graves demonstrate the scale of reform that may be required in the years ahead.
Now, the Bill does not pre-empt that work, but does provide practical interim framework for local planning. Now, there are clearly going to be questions at the Committee stage, and one of the ones that I'd like to focus on is the resource implications. As I mentioned, it's not just the cost of setting up a cemetery, but looking after it not for five or 10 or 20 years, but potentially over 100 years. That cumulative cost is significant. Now, given that many local authorities are severely stretched, and I appreciate the noble Lord Tinsley implied that it was not going to necessarily be a burden on local councils.
But as I understand the way that the written the the bill is written, ultimately they're the backstop. And I think if you're the backstop for anything, then you need to make sure that you can afford that backstop. So I'd be very interested to hear from the Minister, given the stretched finances of local government, particularly after some recent cuts for some councils, what is the government's position on new burdens? Because this will be a new burden for local councils. In addition, we need to look at the interaction between existing planning duties, the balance between local discretion and national prescription, and the responsibilities for existing sites and how they will managed.
But the principle that burial space should be planned for transparently, consistently and with due regard to community need is one that we support. I look forward to hearing contributions from across the House as we move forward on this bill. And for our part, the opposition will not oppose the bill, and we welcome the opportunity to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
scrutinise it further. Yes. My Lords, I will resist the temptation to talk about last thing on a Friday being the graveyard on a Friday being the graveyard slot. I'm not going to I'm not going to do that. Obviously, it's a serious a very serious topic, and I serious a very serious topic, and I would like the Lord Mohammed for bringing forward this private member's bill, giving me the opportunity to meet with him the opportunity to meet with him yesterday to talk through what he wanted to do in terms of the
Well, we're all in the waiting room. Some of us just wish to wait a little bit longer than maybe he does. But. But that point is very much prescient amongst some of my residents who are very conscious, and they want to be buried in their local village. And actually, I've been helping them for the 17 years I've been there to try and find a site. And it's not necessarily easy. You would have thought in a village in the middle of the greenbelt, there would be space.
But when you take account of land ownership and in particular in my area, the risk of flooding, because you obviously have to have a water table well below the depth at which you bury people. So it's not simple and it is very important. So I do recognise that now responsibility for burial provision rests primarily with local authorities. Not quite sure of the case in London, but much of the rural area, the actual delivery of it is parish councils and religious bodies and churches.
Now, with the pressures on land use, demographic change, different faith and cultural communities. I mean, the current framework, frankly, is increasingly stretched. The Law Commission's ongoing review of the death management system has highlighted the complexity of existing arrangements and the need for a more coherent and long term view. I'd also like to highlight what the noble Lord Viscount Stansgate raised, which is if you go back, as you said, into the 17th and 18th century, this was a commercial opportunity.
And he mentioned the the seven major cemeteries in London, one of which is Highgate Cemetery, which I had the pleasure of visiting about a year ago. Well, that was set up as a private enterprise and made a lot of money until it went bust. And running cemeteries is a long term business. It is costly to set
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And there are ongoing costs for a long period of time. Now, the noble Lord Brooke of Althorp noble Lord Brooke of Althorp mentioned the price of £24,000. Well, for many people that is way Well, for many people that is way out of reach. And I wouldn't like to go back to the 17th century provision of where the nobility can provision of where the nobility can bury nicely and the paupers can't. So it's very important that I think So it's very important that I think we look at this in the round, and I take his suggestion that maybe we should look at extending this bill to look at how we can have re-use of existing facilities.
Bearing in mind that would also raise the whole issue of ownership of those facilities. So we recognise the challenges. We recognise the sensitivities, sensitivities, but ensuring that all communities have access to dignified, appropriate burial space is a basic matter of respect. And the bill's emphasis on consultation with faith groups, burial authorities and neighbouring councils is very welcome. We also note the context of the Law Commission's work on grade reuse. And while the government have yet to publish their full response, the Commission's proposal strengthening safeguards, extending powers beyond London and protecting war graves demonstrate the scale of reform that may be required in the years ahead.
Now, the Bill does not pre-empt that work, but does provide practical interim framework for local planning. Now, there are clearly going to be questions at the Committee stage, and one of the ones that I'd like to focus on is the resource implications. As I mentioned, it's not just the cost of setting up a cemetery, but looking after it not for five or 10 or 20 years, but potentially over 100 years. That cumulative cost is significant. Now, given that many local authorities are severely stretched, and I appreciate the noble Lord Tinsley implied that it was not going to necessarily be a burden on local councils.
But as I understand the way that the written the the bill is written, ultimately they're the backstop. And I think if you're the backstop for anything, then you need to make sure that you can afford that backstop. So I'd be very interested to hear from the Minister, given the stretched finances of local government, particularly after some recent cuts for some councils, what is the government's position on new burdens? Because this will be a new burden for local councils. In addition, we need to look at the interaction between existing planning duties, the balance between local discretion and national prescription, and the responsibilities for existing sites and how they will managed.
But the principle that burial space should be planned for transparently, consistently and with due regard to community need is one that we support. I look forward to hearing contributions from across the House as we move forward on this bill. And for our part, the opposition will not oppose the bill, and we welcome the opportunity to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
scrutinise it further. Yes. My Lords, I will resist the temptation to talk about last thing on a Friday being the graveyard on a Friday being the graveyard slot. I'm not going to I'm not going to do that. Obviously, it's a serious a very serious topic, and I serious a very serious topic, and I would like the Lord Mohammed for bringing forward this private member's bill, giving me the opportunity to meet with him the opportunity to meet with him yesterday to talk through what he wanted to do in terms of the
14:01
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
wanted to do in terms of the principles around the bill. And can I thank Viscount Stansgate and Lord Brooke for speaking to me in advance, in advance of the bill coming before the House. I wanted to really start where, with the phrase that Lord Mohammed used, that every family should have access to a dignified burial close to their community. I think that was a very important phrase. And certainly, as someone who's been involved with local government for as many years as I have, and I know he has too.
I think it's very important that we keep our focus on that. I absolutely recognise the importance of the provision of burial space. I have some reservations around the necessity for the bill, and I'll come to those in a moment. The bill is proposed, of course, would require local planning authorities to include suitable provision for burial space in their local plans and put that on the statute book as a separate issue to other issues that come forward for planning. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the policy expectations for what should be considered in the development of the plan, including local plans and in decision making, and the framework for what should be considered is set through policy and not statute.
In order to offer the necessary flexibility to local planning authorities across the country to consider their local area and the specific needs of the local population. It's a matter for local authorities to allocate local resources in line with their priorities, and this includes burial provision in areas where this is an issue, such as London or Cambridge. Many local authorities already include specific policies on burial grounds in their local plans, and we want to ensure that local planning authorities can do this where there is a concern but are not required to allocate where there is not an issue in their local area.
Now, the current NPF includes policies to ensure there is provision for community facilities and public service infrastructure in local areas. And whilst the current version of the NPF does not directly reference burial spaces, it sets out that strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places that make sufficient provision for community facilities such as health, education and cultural infrastructure, as well as allowing for the provision of burial space in greenbelt land.
And I think that might respond to one of the noble Lord Jameson's points about treating that that kind of development differently. We consulted, as noble Lords would be aware. We are consulted on an updated national planning policy framework between September 2025 and March 2026, and the draft NPF is clear that development plans should promote the creation of healthier and inclusive places and the provision, retention and enhancement of appropriate community facilities and public service infrastructure. So it's up to a local authority to determine the local need for those facilities, which could include burial grounds, as many local authorities have already done.
The proposed NPF also offers protections for existing burial grounds through setting out that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is unlikely to apply in situations which would involve the whole or partial loss of undeveloped land, which is used for a cemetery or burial ground. Furthermore, the NPF sets out that burial grounds are a form of development where there are benefits for approval outside of settlements and that are not inappropriate in the green belt. So we we review we received over 20,000 responses to the consultation, including a small number on this specific issue.
And we're currently analysing all of those responses. And we intend to publish our response with the new NPF in the summer in relation to the Law Commission report, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, we are acutely aware of concerns around burial space which have been considered in the context of the Law Commission's recent report. And while this report didn't call for statutory burial provision as the noble Lord Mohammed bill does, this report did address a number of issues such as burial, ground management and records, which my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are leading on.
We will publish a government response to the Law Commission report in due course, and I look forward to working with MoJ colleagues and local government as we take these important issues forward. Turning to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, I do. I thank my noble friend Viscount Stansgate for taking us through a kind of history of burial and how it works, and I would say to him that I found the the HS2 excavations and some of the information that they've thrown up really fascinating.
We've had our own our own example of that in Stevenage, where Roman remains have been found when we've been excavating sites. It's fascinating that both him and the noble Lord Brooke mentioned. The fact that there's the Bishop's bench aren't present today, and I. I'm sure they will have their own views, and I'm sure they'll get involved in the bill at a later stage. When the noble Viscount referred to the midnight Bill and the Anatomy Act of 1832, it did put me in mind of a much more up to date version of that, which was the Planning and Infrastructure bill, which we were here at 4:00 in the morning.
So that wasn't limited to the 19th century, that practice. And of course, I'm very aware of the issues around Bishop's Stortford and the and the bill that came through this House and that my noble friend Lord Brooke spoke about being in the waiting room, will. I hope he has as long a wait in that waiting room as we'd all want him to have. He. We want to see him here long into the future, both him and my noble friend Viscount Stansgate mentioned the Church of England, and of course, burial on land consecrated by the Church of England is governed by the faculty jurisdiction and is a.
Is a matter for the church, and I'm sure my noble friend Lord Brooke will continue his dialogue with the Church of England on that. And just on the. The point that the noble Lord Brooke made about green policy. I just wanted to highlight the very good practice we're seeing in some areas of providing for green burial grounds, which I think is very creditable. And I pay tribute to my colleagues in local government for their action in this respect. I think that's been a really great development in recent times.
The noble Lord Mohammed raised the question of what the government is currently doing on the provision of burial space. We are aware of increasing localised pressure on burial spaces in some parts of the country. He will know that we don't have day to day operational responsibility for burial grounds, which are managed locally, and there's no statutory duty on local authorities to make that provision is a matter for each local authority to allocate local resources. But the Law Commission's recent report means we are very keen to engage with stakeholders, including local authority representatives, to understand how, in the context of responding to the commission's recommendations, we can best facilitate the local provision and management of burial capacity going forward.
And certainly it will be my intention to do that. I think I've already spoken about the Law Commission recommendations. There is, of course, a very close connection between the work streams that the Law Commission has underway on this, and we will consider the most practical approach to publishing our response, including timing. The noble Lord Mohammed mentioned the issues around specific requirements for different communities in terms of burial practices, as did my noble friend Viscount Stansgate, and measures have been taken in recent years to update crematoria, particularly so they better reflect and understand the needs of different cultures and faiths.
It's for local authorities to deal with this because they can decide what their priorities were, depending on the groups that they represent locally, and we're very keen to engage closely with representatives from faith communities on all issues in relation to death management, particularly when we work on that response to the Law Commission report, the noble Lord Mohammed and the noble Lord Jamieson referred to the issue around funding for this, and it is, as I think was mentioned, it's a very long forward commitment.
I think the noble Lord Jamieson was talking about Highgate Cemetery. Of course, these are long term commitments that have to be made by local authorities. So if the government were to support this bill, we would consider relevant impacts such as those set out in the New Burdens doctrine. So I hope that responds to those questions. Of course, it's appropriate for these matters to be addressed in local plans rather than legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and the needs, which may, of course, include specific needs of their diverse communities, of their local population.
It's a very timely intervention because of the progress of the National Planning Policy Framework. So I'm incredibly grateful to the noble Lord Mohammed for prompting me as we go through the stages of publishing the next version of the policy framework. To look in particular at this issue, we will respond to the recent consultation in due course. And of course, we keep the matter under review. In the light of all the consultation responses we've had and of contributions in the House today, I'm most grateful to the noble Lord.
I think it's very important that we keep our focus on that. I absolutely recognise the importance of the provision of burial space. I have some reservations around the necessity for the bill, and I'll come to those in a moment. The bill is proposed, of course, would require local planning authorities to include suitable provision for burial space in their local plans and put that on the statute book as a separate issue to other issues that come forward for planning. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the policy expectations for what should be considered in the development of the plan, including local plans and in decision making, and the framework for what should be considered is set through policy and not statute.
In order to offer the necessary flexibility to local planning authorities across the country to consider their local area and the specific needs of the local population. It's a matter for local authorities to allocate local resources in line with their priorities, and this includes burial provision in areas where this is an issue, such as London or Cambridge. Many local authorities already include specific policies on burial grounds in their local plans, and we want to ensure that local planning authorities can do this where there is a concern but are not required to allocate where there is not an issue in their local area.
Now, the current NPF includes policies to ensure there is provision for community facilities and public service infrastructure in local areas. And whilst the current version of the NPF does not directly reference burial spaces, it sets out that strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places that make sufficient provision for community facilities such as health, education and cultural infrastructure, as well as allowing for the provision of burial space in greenbelt land.
And I think that might respond to one of the noble Lord Jameson's points about treating that that kind of development differently. We consulted, as noble Lords would be aware. We are consulted on an updated national planning policy framework between September 2025 and March 2026, and the draft NPF is clear that development plans should promote the creation of healthier and inclusive places and the provision, retention and enhancement of appropriate community facilities and public service infrastructure. So it's up to a local authority to determine the local need for those facilities, which could include burial grounds, as many local authorities have already done.
The proposed NPF also offers protections for existing burial grounds through setting out that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is unlikely to apply in situations which would involve the whole or partial loss of undeveloped land, which is used for a cemetery or burial ground. Furthermore, the NPF sets out that burial grounds are a form of development where there are benefits for approval outside of settlements and that are not inappropriate in the green belt. So we we review we received over 20,000 responses to the consultation, including a small number on this specific issue.
And we're currently analysing all of those responses. And we intend to publish our response with the new NPF in the summer in relation to the Law Commission report, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, we are acutely aware of concerns around burial space which have been considered in the context of the Law Commission's recent report. And while this report didn't call for statutory burial provision as the noble Lord Mohammed bill does, this report did address a number of issues such as burial, ground management and records, which my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are leading on.
We will publish a government response to the Law Commission report in due course, and I look forward to working with MoJ colleagues and local government as we take these important issues forward. Turning to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, I do. I thank my noble friend Viscount Stansgate for taking us through a kind of history of burial and how it works, and I would say to him that I found the the HS2 excavations and some of the information that they've thrown up really fascinating.
We've had our own our own example of that in Stevenage, where Roman remains have been found when we've been excavating sites. It's fascinating that both him and the noble Lord Brooke mentioned. The fact that there's the Bishop's bench aren't present today, and I. I'm sure they will have their own views, and I'm sure they'll get involved in the bill at a later stage. When the noble Viscount referred to the midnight Bill and the Anatomy Act of 1832, it did put me in mind of a much more up to date version of that, which was the Planning and Infrastructure bill, which we were here at 4:00 in the morning.
So that wasn't limited to the 19th century, that practice. And of course, I'm very aware of the issues around Bishop's Stortford and the and the bill that came through this House and that my noble friend Lord Brooke spoke about being in the waiting room, will. I hope he has as long a wait in that waiting room as we'd all want him to have. He. We want to see him here long into the future, both him and my noble friend Viscount Stansgate mentioned the Church of England, and of course, burial on land consecrated by the Church of England is governed by the faculty jurisdiction and is a.
Is a matter for the church, and I'm sure my noble friend Lord Brooke will continue his dialogue with the Church of England on that. And just on the. The point that the noble Lord Brooke made about green policy. I just wanted to highlight the very good practice we're seeing in some areas of providing for green burial grounds, which I think is very creditable. And I pay tribute to my colleagues in local government for their action in this respect. I think that's been a really great development in recent times.
The noble Lord Mohammed raised the question of what the government is currently doing on the provision of burial space. We are aware of increasing localised pressure on burial spaces in some parts of the country. He will know that we don't have day to day operational responsibility for burial grounds, which are managed locally, and there's no statutory duty on local authorities to make that provision is a matter for each local authority to allocate local resources. But the Law Commission's recent report means we are very keen to engage with stakeholders, including local authority representatives, to understand how, in the context of responding to the commission's recommendations, we can best facilitate the local provision and management of burial capacity going forward.
And certainly it will be my intention to do that. I think I've already spoken about the Law Commission recommendations. There is, of course, a very close connection between the work streams that the Law Commission has underway on this, and we will consider the most practical approach to publishing our response, including timing. The noble Lord Mohammed mentioned the issues around specific requirements for different communities in terms of burial practices, as did my noble friend Viscount Stansgate, and measures have been taken in recent years to update crematoria, particularly so they better reflect and understand the needs of different cultures and faiths.
It's for local authorities to deal with this because they can decide what their priorities were, depending on the groups that they represent locally, and we're very keen to engage closely with representatives from faith communities on all issues in relation to death management, particularly when we work on that response to the Law Commission report, the noble Lord Mohammed and the noble Lord Jamieson referred to the issue around funding for this, and it is, as I think was mentioned, it's a very long forward commitment.
I think the noble Lord Jamieson was talking about Highgate Cemetery. Of course, these are long term commitments that have to be made by local authorities. So if the government were to support this bill, we would consider relevant impacts such as those set out in the New Burdens doctrine. So I hope that responds to those questions. Of course, it's appropriate for these matters to be addressed in local plans rather than legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and the needs, which may, of course, include specific needs of their diverse communities, of their local population.
It's a very timely intervention because of the progress of the National Planning Policy Framework. So I'm incredibly grateful to the noble Lord Mohammed for prompting me as we go through the stages of publishing the next version of the policy framework. To look in particular at this issue, we will respond to the recent consultation in due course. And of course, we keep the matter under review. In the light of all the consultation responses we've had and of contributions in the House today, I'm most grateful to the noble Lord.
14:11
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
My Lord, can I thank everyone for their very constructive comments. And actually, during the debate, my phone's been quite busy, and particularly the question of the attendance or not of the Lords spiritual. And actually I've had a message from them which I would like to share with you, Lordships, which is we apologise for this for not because it's ordination season and the majority of Lords spiritual are in the diocese or any new clergy. However, this is not reflect their lack of interest in this and actually they are very supportive of the Bill itself and welcome an opportunity to discuss taking it forward.
Similarly, my colleagues at the South Yorkshire Muslim Burial Trust are also watching and so many others, because clearly this issue, as we've heard, is across communities, across faiths. And as we heard it, this bill is serious. And, you know, we we talked about, you know, being all in the waiting room. And, you know, I think the fact is that we hope that many of us are still there to make sure that we do see the change that this bill requires.
Now, clearly, there may be a disagreement between us in terms of how we get to the destination, but it's very clear from the debate, from whether it's from the comments from Viscount Stansgate or Lord Brooke himself or actually Lord Jamieson, and actually the noble Baroness, the Minister, in the sense of we have all acknowledged there is an issue, there is a problem. How do we deal with it? I, like I said, look at the draw. I put my faith into that lottery and my name came out with the.
With this bill. I know other noble Lords in the past, particularly Viscount Stansgate, has talked about this issue in the past, and it's something that I look forward to, to get into the further debate at the Committee stage. And clearly, the fact that during the debate we heard that, you know, £24,000 for a burial plot is, my Lords, it is a huge issue that's way beyond most average residents. And we've got to look at the supply side. And clearly, there are opportunities here to be able to, like I said in my speech, that if we're planning for homes, businesses, schools, etc.
then there has to be fought, given to how we deal with burial. Now, it's better if we do it by long term planning rather than knee jerk reactions. In terms of trying to find space. And clearly this challenge is, you know, in London, there's clearly land issues here. That's why I said it's not every local authority has to have its own provisions. It's about saying, how do we deal with the need that is there? Like, like we heard from Lords, one of our contributors that, you know, death and taxes are given in life.
And I really welcome the opportunity to present this bill to your Lordships' House. And thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it do you move the bill or the question, is this bill be committed to the Committee of the whole House, as many of that whole House, as many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill is now committed to a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this Bill is now committed to a Committee of the whole House. Are we just on that side? Well, we I've said that you go
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, we I've said that you go to adjourn there. Lords. I beg. To move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The House. Do now adjourn.
Similarly, my colleagues at the South Yorkshire Muslim Burial Trust are also watching and so many others, because clearly this issue, as we've heard, is across communities, across faiths. And as we heard it, this bill is serious. And, you know, we we talked about, you know, being all in the waiting room. And, you know, I think the fact is that we hope that many of us are still there to make sure that we do see the change that this bill requires.
Now, clearly, there may be a disagreement between us in terms of how we get to the destination, but it's very clear from the debate, from whether it's from the comments from Viscount Stansgate or Lord Brooke himself or actually Lord Jamieson, and actually the noble Baroness, the Minister, in the sense of we have all acknowledged there is an issue, there is a problem. How do we deal with it? I, like I said, look at the draw. I put my faith into that lottery and my name came out with the.
With this bill. I know other noble Lords in the past, particularly Viscount Stansgate, has talked about this issue in the past, and it's something that I look forward to, to get into the further debate at the Committee stage. And clearly, the fact that during the debate we heard that, you know, £24,000 for a burial plot is, my Lords, it is a huge issue that's way beyond most average residents. And we've got to look at the supply side. And clearly, there are opportunities here to be able to, like I said in my speech, that if we're planning for homes, businesses, schools, etc.
then there has to be fought, given to how we deal with burial. Now, it's better if we do it by long term planning rather than knee jerk reactions. In terms of trying to find space. And clearly this challenge is, you know, in London, there's clearly land issues here. That's why I said it's not every local authority has to have its own provisions. It's about saying, how do we deal with the need that is there? Like, like we heard from Lords, one of our contributors that, you know, death and taxes are given in life.
And I really welcome the opportunity to present this bill to your Lordships' House. And thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it do you move the bill or the question, is this bill be committed to the Committee of the whole House, as many of that whole House, as many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill is now committed to a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this Bill is now committed to a Committee of the whole House. Are we just on that side? Well, we I've said that you go
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, we I've said that you go to adjourn there. Lords. I beg. To move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The House. Do now adjourn.