The UK’s Demographic Future
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for securing this debate. The report Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow is a timely contribution to our national discussion on population, prosperity and the future of our United Kingdom. Many noble Lords have already highlighted the noble Lord’s distinguished career. I add my thanks for his public service, and for his notable contributions to my county of Staffordshire in his business dealings.
The report highlights the demographic shifts our nation is currently experiencing, but, before I touch on his report, I feel I should also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that I will respond to its key points. I will reflect on some of the questions in Hansard, answer some specific ones that have been raised and will, as ever, write. However, noble Lords will appreciate that this has been a wide-ranging discussion and debate. I should also highlight to the noble Lord that, before the general election, my boss was Sir Trevor Phillips, whom he cited; so I could end up getting myself in a great deal of trouble by the end of this response.
This Government recognise the points articulated in the document: the pressure on housing supply, the strain on our NHS, the impact on wages in certain sectors and the importance of maintaining social cohesion amid rapid change. We are not alone in facing these challenges. As the report notes through its international case studies, many countries across the world are also grappling with similar issues. Before I move on to the substance of the debate, I would like to make a couple of points.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who raised the issue of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, and where this debate can lead, I am well versed, having helped to lead the campaign against the BNP in my great city. Only this week, the now former leader of my county council of Staffordshire had to resign over his support of white supremacist social media sites. I am aware of what is at stake, and so are my Government. As the Prime Minister has stated, this is a battle for the values which govern our country and it is incredibly important that we are part of the fight.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who made a very powerful speech, I say that, like her mother, my mother is also a force. I would suggest that is why both the noble Baroness and I are in your Lordships’ House. My mother ensured that I understood my responsibilities to fight back against racism, and those who hated me because of who I was and not what I did. However, I think my mother beat the noble Baroness’s, because I went on my first demo when I was a toddler.
I will now address some of the specific issues in the report before us, and the points noble Lords raised in the debate. On migration, this Government have been clear that we want a system that works in the national interest, attracting the brightest and best while being fair and firm. The modern challenges that migration can present do not overwrite the millions of individual stories of people who have come to this country over the centuries, built our nation in partnership with those already here, and today are our colleagues, our neighbours, our families and our friends.
I am here because my family fled persecution and found sanctuary in our great country. It was a brave decision to flee the country from which they came, to flee the Pale of Settlement, but the scale of pogroms gave them little choice, and I am very grateful that our country let them in.
Since taking office, this Government have taken fair action to reduce the number of people coming to the UK, particularly in some of the areas identified by the report. Our recent tightening of the rules around dependants for students and the review of the graduate visa route are evidence of the Government’s commitment to responsible migration management. However, fair management of migration is only one side of the coin. We must also address the consequences of population change already in the system, as outlined by the report’s expert contributors.
Given the request for better data, however—which I will come to later in my speech—it would be helpful to remind your Lordships’ House that the latest ONS figures estimate net migration of 204,000 in the year to June, a fall from 649,000 the year before. If we are going to talk about data, we should be absolutely clear on the accuracies of that data.
Turning to some of the points raised about migration, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who raised the issue of asylum seekers, the Government have published a new asylum policy statement setting out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system. The statement outlines the current challenges, the Government’s objectives and a comprehensive package of measures to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. Elements of this include that refugee status will be temporary, granted for 30 months and renewable as necessary. Settlement will no longer be automatic; instead, there will be a 20-year route to permanent residency, ensuring long-term commitment and integration. Refugees will be able to switch into a new bespoke work and study route to access family reunion and resettlement rights, with new fees and conditions in accordance with the rules of that route. This will enable them to earn down their length of time before they can settle in the UK to 20 years.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham—from slightly different positions, I suggest—touched on the ECHR and our current plans. Noble Lords will be aware that only yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, accompanied by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, addressed the Council of Europe’s informal Conference of Ministers of Justice in Strasbourg to talk about reform of the system, in order to make sure that the ECHR can be fairly applied with regard to illegal migration, and to secure the convention’s future.
With regard to immigration and the effect on GDP, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, the UK’s immigration system is geared towards supporting businesses and accessing highly skilled overseas workers, who boost the supply of skills and talent in the UK labour market. These individuals are the most likely to contribute to growth. That is why the Government have recently announced plans to improve access to our highly talented visa routes and tilt the immigration system back towards attracting higher skilled workers to the UK. The Government are clear that overall net migration must fall from the very high levels over recent years. We plan to achieve this by reducing lower skilled migration and groups with lower participation in the labour market, who contribute less to growth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, also raised the issues of skills and productivity. Increasing skills is responsible for a third of productivity growth and provides the opportunity for people to boost their incomes and improve their quality of life. Through short courses, funded by the growth and skills levy, and partnership with colleges and universities, Skills England will work in partnership with employers to support clearer navigation of the skills landscape and training products for the outcomes they need. The Department for Work and Pensions will work with employers to fill their vacancies—to get the right people with the right skills, or set them on the right path to grow their necessary skills.
The introduction of work visas was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Since the introduction of the skilled worker route, the salary requirements dictate that a migrant must be paid whatever is higher out of the general threshold for the route or the going rate for that occupation, with an absolute minimum salary requirement that an overseas worker has to be paid. This is designed to place a premium on recruiting overseas and maintaining access to international talent for firms, while also ensuring that UK resident workers are not undercut—something the noble Lord would expect from the Labour Party.
The Government are clear that international recruitment cannot be a cheap alternative to fair pay, and this must be reflected in future changes to the immigration system. On that point, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, who raised a series of interesting points about new technologies. I will reflect on his comments, especially that robots are nice. Given the subject of the report, he really is thinking about tomorrow. I have all the lyrics of “Don’t Stop” in front of me, and I am very disappointed that other noble Lords have not used them in their speeches.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about international students converting from study visas to work visas. The Government’s approach is to link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policies, so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK. This approach will be important to enabling delivery of the Government’s broader agenda.
Moving from migration to social cohesion: the UK has experienced a sustained period of rapid demographic, economic and technological change, which, alongside 14 years of Tory austerity, has put increased pressure on public services and local communities. We have seen tension, frustration and, in some cases, division manifested in the places most affected. At this point, I put on record my former roles at HOPE not hate and the CST, where my core responsibilities involved work on social cohesion and counterextremism.
I reassure your Lordships’ House that these issues are being taken extremely seriously, and I especially reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that this is key to what we seek to do. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is co-ordinating cross-government efforts to consider a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion, working in partnership with local government, communities and stakeholders comprehensively to address complex, deep-seated issues in our places. As the right reverend Prelate asked for, this is a whole-society approach.
As part of our pride in place strategy, we are providing up to £5 billion over 10 years to support more than 330 of our most deprived communities across the country, helping to build strong, resilient and integrated communities. My great city of Stoke-on-Trent is a participant in that, including in my husband’s constituency—I set that out for the record. Bentilee, Ubberley and Meir North are areas that will each receive up to £20 million over the next 10 years.
Our long-term investment is designed not only to address deprivation but to rebuild social capital and strengthen community ties in areas, with a portion of funding expected to support cohesion-related projects. Importantly, we are empowering communities to make decisions that shape their places. We will continue to seek ways to bolster social cohesion, working in partnership with local government and civil society.
I turn to one of today’s consistent themes: the pressure on public services and housing. The 10-year health plan, published in July 2025, set out a vision for how the Government will make an NHS fit for the future. The plan set a clear direction for the service, its stakeholders and the public on the future shape of care through three radical shifts: hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. I turn to a specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—I want to call her “my noble friend” even though she is a Cross-Bencher. An engaged workforce is central to delivering the Government’s objectives for the NHS. The 10-year health plan set out the vision for how the Government will make the NHS fit for the future.
A new workforce plan will be published next year to detail how the workforce will be equipped to deliver the 10-year health plan, the roles it should carry out, where they should be deployed and the skills it should have. That includes staff being better treated and having better training and more exciting roles. The new workforce plan will be based on multi-professional teams, with the skills needed to enable the delivery of the three shifts.
Building on that point—and in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—NHS England will shortly commence the second phase of the medical education and training review, working with partners to design a package of reforms that will provide doctors with the skills they need to meet the evolving needs of our patients in a modern NHS. That includes work focused on procedure-heavy specialities, to ensure a rapid acquisition of skills and to develop a curriculum that delivers the skills needed for a community-based, digitally enabled healthcare system.
On housing, we are committed—as noble Lords have recognised—to delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes this Parliament, as set out in our plan for change. We have already taken urgent action through bold planning reforms and a record £39 billion investment to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country.
Houses are homes which anchor communities. It is vital that the homes delivered are high-quality, well designed and in places where people can work and thrive. We will ensure that what we build is supported by the necessary infrastructure and well-designed place-making, working in partnership with councils, housing associations and the wider sector.
Employment support was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. Professor Harper’s analysis in the report of an ageing UK workforce is particularly pertinent. People in the UK are living longer, and the proportion of workers over 50 in the workforce is growing. Noble Lords need only look at your Lordships’ House.
Good work and careers have a positive impact on health, well-being and financial resilience. Work gives people purpose, a focus for learning and the important means to engage with society. This is particularly important for people who experience loneliness in later life, as the right reverend Prelate highlighted. Our focus is on lifelong learning, upskilling and incentivising longer, healthier working lives to maximise the potential of our domestic workforce.
The DWP currently offers employment support for all ages through its network of jobcentres across the UK and through contracted employment programmes. In addition, work coaches and employers are supported by 50PLUS Champions working across all 37 jobcentre districts. Champions provide a critical layer of support through jobcentres to ensure that the needs of workers over 50 are met.
I have many points on the environment, but there were not many points made on it. So I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who was the main person to raise it.
I move on to security, on which there were several points. Professor Clarke, who I worked with when he acted as an adviser to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and is a great analyst, addresses two areas of national security: protecting the state from external threats, and internal stability. He focuses in particular on military recruitment and on threats to national cohesion from state-directed sub-threshold warfare.
At this point, I refer the House to my register of interests. Like my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. While we are talking about matters relating to the senior service, I will just quickly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I reassure him that both the Type 26 and the Type 31 frigates are currently being built in the UK as we speak. When I questioned myself, I did go and check with the former First Sea Lord, who usually sits in front of him.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, emphasised, the issues of security are key, and some of the issues we are addressing are outside our immediate scope. These are both important aspects of the challenges we face. Our national security strategy, published in June, sets out the Government’s intent to harden their approach. Its objectives include strengthening our borders and making the UK a harder target for adversaries and for gangs engaged in people trafficking.
Beyond our borders, we must consider the effects of the very significant demographic changes which will take place in other countries over the next 50 years. The strategy is clear that we are entering a period of significant global instability. Demographic change will contribute to a number of issues, with challenging implications for the UK.
As set out in the strategy, our statecraft will need to adapt to this environment, ensuring that we can defend our territory and overseas supply chains from increased competition, improving our resilience to transnational risks and strengthening our key alliances so that we are better placed to tackle together the challenges that we all face. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, is aware of exactly what is in the national security strategy, so I will not read out the details.
I am trying to make sure that I come in under 20 minutes.
In terms of how we legislate, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and Henry VIII and delegated powers, following on from previous reports laid by the noble Lord, I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee will review every single Henry VIII power that comes forward. There are circumstances where it is appropriate for Bills to contain substantial delegated powers, but departments with Bills containing any delegated powers must produce a delegated powers memorandum detailing each power and the justification for it, which is published on introduction. Noble Lords are aware that we are seeking to move away from the sheer volume of SIs that there has been previously.
The lack of data to understand trade-offs and what is happening on migration was raised specifically by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Finn. Forecasting net migration is an uncertain business. The impact of external events as well as uncertain behavioural responses to policy measures on migration trends make future migration hard to predict. Not all impacts of migration are quantifiable, as set out by the Migration Advisory Committee in its report, EEA Migration in the UK.
Although there is a significant body of evidence to suggest that highly skilled immigrants make a positive contribution, there remains a lack of evidence and significant uncertainty about wider impacts on productivity, investment and social cohesion. The ONS is making more use of administrative data in its estimates for net migration. It keeps published estimates under review and revises accordingly, with estimates in the last 12 months marked as provisional. The revisions published recently by the ONS are primarily due to changes in the data sources, which have led to improvements in the ONS’s methodology. Although the numbers have changed, the overall trend for net migration has remained the same.
The Home Office continues to develop its data linking. In May 2025 the Home Office published a research report linking sponsored work and family visa data with HMRC PAYE data, providing crucial data on the earnings and tax contributions of visa holders, but I appreciate that not all points raised by noble Lords are covered there so I will come back—I am going to go slightly over time, so apologies.
The key recommendations of the report are
“the creation of a new body that would provide a commentary on the government’s stated policy objectives, to undertake research into demographic issues, and to provide an open transparent forum to reassure the public that these challenges were not being overlooked”.
The Government have a manifesto commitment to strengthen the Migration Advisory Committee to deliver several key reviews and to fill a new remit with a new Labour Market Evidence Group to support a more joined-up approach to skills, migration and labour market policy. The Labour Market Evidence Group consists of the Migration Advisory Committee, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, the Department for Work and Pensions, Skills England and equivalent skills and training experts from the devolved Governments.
As set out in the immigration White Paper, the Labour Market Evidence Group has an ongoing standard function to work together to gather and share evidence about the state of the workforce, training levels and participation by the domestic labour force, including at devolved and regional levels. It will focus on sectors and occupations that are central to industrial strategy, currently have high levels of reliance on migration for their workforce or are anticipated to in future, and it will make recommendations about sectors or occupations where workforce strategies are needed or where the labour market is currently failing.
This report is a timely challenge to all of us in this House, and across all parties, to think beyond the immediate term. The people of this country have a right to expect a Government who plan for tomorrow. We are committed to taking action now to tackle these pressing issues, providing the clear leadership and long-term strategic planning that the British people deserve. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his report and for the opportunity to debate it in your Lordships’ House. In the words of Fleetwood Mac, who I assume he is very fond of: “Don’t you look back”. I wish him well in his retirement.
Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent ExcerptsFriday 18th October 2024
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for raising the important issue of how we legislate and how we should legislate. It is the constitutional duty of this House to ensure that legislation that the Government bring forward is of the highest standard. I know that this duty is taken seriously by all Members of your Lordships’ House. The Government consider Parliament’s role in the legislative process to be of the utmost importance and hold the contribution of this House in the highest regard, taking seriously the comments and concerns raised by noble Lords, especially today. Your Lordships’ House’s ability to scrutinise is second to none, even if that does make it slightly terrifying for a new Minister.
I acknowledge the work over recent years of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee. Their tireless work to support and scrutinise the creation and use of delegated powers, and the legislative process more broadly, helps to shape policy and uphold the high standards that Parliament and the public expect. Their diligent scrutiny and focus are an example of your Lordships’ House at its best.
I turn to the substance of the Bill. The issue of statutory instruments and, more broadly, the nature and scope of powers conferred to the Executive is not new. There has always been a need to strike a balance between providing the Government with the flexibility they need to deliver for the country and ensuring that the legislature can retain proper control over changes to the law. This debate is as old as Parliament and has been a running sore—perhaps most notably with the powers conferred by the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, which granted King Henry VIII sweeping powers to legislate by decree, without any semblance of parliamentary oversight as we would recognise it today. We can be thankful that the Act was repealed shortly after his death. That being said, the interesting debate today is evidence of the persistent and lively nature of the subject of delegated powers and the importance that Parliament gives to the legislative process.
Procedures for delegated powers have come a long way since Henry VIII—although it does not always feel like it—but that is not to say that the situation is perfect. This Government are clear that, too often, Parliament has been asked to approve overly broad and insufficiently constrained powers, and not been given the information it needs to fully scrutinise legislation. That is why this Government have pledged to do better—to respect Parliament’s role and to enable proper legislative scrutiny. To that end, I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposals before us. However, I do not believe that they are the right way to address the problems we see.
It is important to remember that Parliament already has the opportunity to scrutinise the nature and scope of powers during the passage of enabling primary legislation, as well as the content of statutory instruments when they are laid before Parliament. Parliament routinely requires that statutory instruments are subject to parliamentary scrutiny through either the negative or affirmative procedures. Under either procedure, once an instrument is laid before Parliament, Members of both Houses may scrutinise and debate its purpose and form, and even move to prevent it becoming or remaining law. Scrutiny of statutory instruments and delegated powers begins before a Bill even reaches Parliament. A high bar has been set to ensure that any delegated powers are justified. The Government have been clear that any delegated powers must possess a robust rationale, must be legally sound, and should not be taken in lieu of underdeveloped policy.
Indeed, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General spoke passionately about the rule of law in his maiden speech, when he promised to guard against the abuse of the proper role of secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted the Attorney-General’s 2024 Bingham Lecture, titled “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism”—I think he will be delighted at how many noble Lords have followed his speech on Monday. My noble and learned friend spoke about the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive, saying that:
“Secondary legislation has an indispensable role to play in a modern, regulated society”,
but that there is a need for a
“sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.
I strongly believe that this is the right approach. This emphasis on adherence to good legislative practice ensures that primary legislation is specific and measured in the powers it grants, and that Parliament has ample opportunity to scrutinise any provisions for statutory instruments.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, highlighted, the Government have specific concerns with the procedural processes set out in the Bill. They would require that a greater proportion of parliamentary time is spent on secondary legislation. Most draft SIs would be subject to the affirmative procedure, under which both Houses must debate and approve instruments before they become law. Subjecting these instruments to the possibility of further debate would, in effect, create yet another forum for relitigating debates that took place during the passage of the primary legislation.
Furthermore, the proposed procedure is asymmetric between the Houses. It would allow the other place to require the Government to withdraw and reconsider an instrument only on the initiative of this House. This would sit in tension with the fundamental principle of the primacy of the elected Chamber, and it is not for this House to tell the other how to operate. I think we can acknowledge that we would not welcome such an approach either from the other place, if they tried it. As such, the Bill in question would represent a significant step and fundamentally alter the way that government business is arranged, particularly in the Commons.
It is often statutory instruments on which the Government rely to respond to dynamic and emerging national and international issues; this is not something we would wish to restrict. I am sure we can all understand the negative effect that the Bill would have on this process, introducing the possibility of multiple, potentially drawn-out debates and votes on statutory instruments that would truly hinder the Government’s ability to respond to ever-changing national and international opportunities and challenges and take up precious parliamentary time. It is the opinion of the Government that our efforts should instead be directed at ensuring that we get the regulations right in the first place—that is to say, that they are drafted to the highest standard and Parliament is provided with the necessary information to hold the Government to account.
We are working hard to achieve this. The Explanatory Memorandum template has been revised to ensure that they are clear and meet the needs of Parliament and the public. We will review the template and guidance, which was published for the first time earlier this year, in the new year to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. We are also developing and delivering a range of training initiatives, including e-learning focusing on the project management aspect of secondary legislation, which will be available to all civil servants. This is complemented by a biannual programme of high-level seminars covering the delivery of secondary legislation, alongside an ongoing programme of workshops on the fundamentals of secondary legislation and how to draft effective Explanatory Memoranda. The team that develops these resources works closely with the SLSC secretariat. Ministerial training is now being delivered on a regular basis to ensure that Ministers have a clear understanding of the key issues, and understand the process around statutory instruments and broader delegated powers.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked about impact assessments. We agree that legislation should arrive in Parliament with all the necessary supporting documents to ensure that we in this place and those in the other place are best positioned to conduct appropriate scrutiny. We will do everything that we can to ensure that all impacts assessments are delivered when required.
Before I conclude, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his contribution. I know that he has spoken in this debate in a personal capacity. However, I am grateful for all his work as chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that of his committee—especially when I was in opposition and used much of it in debates on SIs in the Moses Room, and especially recommendations that it has made about the importance of seeing improvements to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation. I hope that he will be reassured by my response to the debate. I assure him that the Government have heard his arguments today, and as chair of his committee, and we look forward to continuing to work with him.
As the now shadow Leader so succinctly put it, in a previous debate before the House:
“It is the Government’s constitutional role, and indeed their right, to put before your Lordships … legislation they judge to be expedient to deliver on their manifesto commitments and to address the issues of the day. It is Parliament’s role to ensure that this legislation is effective, necessary and balanced”.—[Official Report, 6/1/2022; col. 793.]
Statutory instruments are often the appropriate device for such events. The Government have confidence that the existing processes are robust and fit for purpose. They necessarily provide the Government with the means to respond effectively to developing circumstances while upholding the constitutional duty of Parliament to scrutinise the laws that this Government bring forward. However, it is important to recognise that there will be times when the Government will not get this right. This process is not static.
This debate has been welcomed and heard by the Government, but I remind your Lordships that we are 106 days in. It may take us some time to get this right. If this debate has shown one thing, it is the noble intent of Members of this House to uphold the highest standards of scrutiny and legislative procedure. I commend everyone for that.
Climate Change
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to his place, It was an excellent maiden speech and I look forward to working with him in the coming years. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing such a timely debate.
As we convene this evening, fires rage across Europe. Families have had to be evacuated from Rhodes and now Corfu, and temperatures have broken all records. Parts of southern Europe exceeded 47 degrees yesterday. People are struggling, roads are melting and crops are failing in the extreme temperatures. Unfortunately, this is not a unique phenomenon. Last year, 61,752 people died across Europe due to excess temperatures.
Earlier this month, your Lordships’ House questioned the Government on potential global temperature rises of 4% by 2100. While I pray that our planet will not experience such an increase, it is no longer beyond the realms of possibility. However, it is nearly recess, and I wish to be slightly more hopeful. No one who has listened to the calibre of this evening’s debate should question our collective desire to achieve net zero and try to mitigate the worst excesses of the damage already done. This debate has also demonstrated the sheer scale of the issues in front of us, as each noble Lord has highlighted a different threat posed.
Climate change is no longer an academic theory: we are living through the realities every day, and the impact of our changing environment is beginning to affect every part of our lives. It is crucial that we not only seek to mitigate the damage we have done to our environment but prepare effectively to manage the impact of changing temperatures on our daily lives.
As we have heard throughout the debate, the impact of climate change is indiscriminate. Let me touch on some of our deepest concerns. As the NFU has stated, last year was the driest on record in the UK since 1911. This has had an impact on both our domestic agri-businesses and our long-term water table and biodiversity, which in turn will have an impact on the security of our food supply.
Rising temperatures and the increased frequency of extreme weather events are contributing to crop damage and loss, with potentially dramatic consequences for both domestic and global food security. The Government have put many of their eggs in the basket of gene-edited climate-resistant crops, having passed enabling legislation for the development and marketing of such products earlier this year. Can the Minister provide an update on this work and the ongoing discussions being held with stakeholders?
On a similar theme, earlier this year we saw disruption to supply chains as a result of extreme weather conditions in north Africa and across the Mediterranean. Supermarkets called for government support, but Ministers resisted on the basis that supply-chain issues should be resolved by business, not the state. Can the Minister assist the House by letting us know what steps the Government have taken to track progress made by retailers in relation to supply-chain diversity and appropriate mitigations? Do the Government expect the introduction of import checks later this year to exacerbate shortages when they arise?
Moving to a different aspect of security just touched on, I declare my interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. One of the issues less frequently discussed when we look at the impact of climate change is how it impacts our national security at a tangible level. In 2017, the Pentagon published a report highlighting that rising sea levels were having an impact on the functionality of its Norfolk shipyard, the largest naval facility in the world. In the last century, sea levels at Norfolk have risen by 1.5 feet and remediation works totalling $300 million are now under way. I know how much work all our services are doing to move to net zero, but remedial works will be necessary. Can the Minister assure the House that the relevant discussions are under way and will be fully funded?
I move on to our energy supply. One of the consequences of extreme temperatures is an increased demand for energy for both air conditioning and other forms of cooling, as well as a need for enhanced heating, for longer periods in both domestic and business premises. What long-term assessments have the Government made of these increases in demand, both in the additional energy that would be required to power new units—earlier this year, a coal power station was put on standby in case air-con use caused a surge in power usage, although evidently that has not been a requirement for us this summer—and the potential longer-term consequences of relying on systems that expel hot air into the environment?
On housing infrastructure, today the Government announced that they plan to meet their manifesto commitment to build 1 million houses before the next general election, seemingly by focusing on urban regeneration using permitted development rights. Putting aside the practicality and the politics of this rehashed commitment, the announcement does lead to some questions following on from the recent report from the Climate Change Committee, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. The committee stated that its confidence in the Government to meet their medium-term targets had decreased over the last year. Specifically on our housing infrastructure, it noted the importance of updating building regulations to ensure that new homes meet higher environmental standards. Can the Minister assure the House that these will be expedited to apply to all newbuilds?
Regarding our current housing stock, it has been reported that a third of the funding pot allocated for improved insulation and green energy installations has yet to be spent. In light of recent reports suggesting that the Energy and Utilities Alliance is seeking to delay the transition to heat pumps, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not be swayed and that they are committed to delivering more sustainable housing?
A recurrent theme of today’s debate is that climate change is an international issue, that unless we work with others to protect our natural resources we will all fail, and that it will be harder for smaller and less wealthy countries to meet their commitments. During the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Government resisted an amendment to increase transparency around financial institutions’ investment in firms that contribute to deforestation. Ministers eventually offered a compromise, but the review may not surface for many years. Given the obvious urgency, can the Minister confirm a timescale for the review?
The issue of climate change is all-encompassing and increasingly terrifying. I would like to conclude in a slightly more positive manner. As this is one of the last debates before the Recess, I wish your Lordships a relaxing and enjoyable break.
EU Exit Negotiations
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When people come to look at their decision in relation to this deal, it will be important for individual Members of this House to weigh very carefully a number of factors, and the impact of their decision not only on our financial services sector, but on the economy more widely will be one of them.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
My constituency voted leave. I promised that we would fight for the best possible Brexit deal for my constituents—one that will protect industry. This is not it. Given that ceramics is mentioned just once in the 585-page deal, how can we trust the Prime Minister to deliver a deal that will benefit my constituents, protect jobs and return sovereignty?
The Prime Minister
The deal that we have agreed—and in particular the future relationship that we are working on filling out the detail of—is precisely one that will be good for manufacturing industry across the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am very pleased first to wish Dennis Brock a very happy 100th birthday, and secondly to pay tribute to him for his 87 years of bellringing. As my hon. Friend has said, that is a considerable and significant record, and I think the support he has given, the work he has done and his commitment to St Mary’s in Sunbury-on-Thames are truly inspiring.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady is well aware, we are introducing universal credit because the previous system, the benefits system that we inherited from the Labour party, did not work. It left more than a million people living on benefits, trapped on benefits for up to a decade. What we are doing is ensuring that people are given more encouragement to get into the workplace, and that when they are in the workplace, work always pays. As I have said, we are seeing very good figures showing a significant reduction in the number of children in workless households.
Carillion
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
In respect of Carillion it is perfectly within the scope of both the official receiver and the Pensions Regulator to look at those actions taken by either current or previous directors and, if they are persuaded by evidence, to impose quite stringent penalties upon those people.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Every community represented in this place will be touched by the collapse of Carillion, including for me the Harplands Hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). My concern, however, relates to the wider impact on my county, which includes Army accommodation and over £1 billion nationally of Government funds that have been spent with Carillion both directly and through subsidiary companies. What assurances are you giving to them, and how are you communicating with service users from today to say that everything is going to be fine? One tweet from the Second Sea Lord is not enough.
G20 Summit
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I understand my hon. Friend’s point and the concept he sets out. It is, of course, very difficult to look at some of these issues in practice in terms of what is happening on the ground. He is right, however, that the communiqué refers to mass movements of people and that we need to think very carefully about the support that we can provide for refugees. That is why this country is proud of being the second-biggest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid for Syrian refugees.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Thousands of jobs in north Staffordshire are dependent on international trade. Given the Prime Minister’s reluctance to outline her priorities for future negotiations, will she inform us who she is consulting domestically in our industrial centres to ensure that their views are represented in the negotiations?
The Prime Minister
As I have indicated, the Department for Exiting the European Union is looking across and consulting different sectors of the economy on their requirements. I am very interested to hear that the hon. Lady is an advocate for free trade. I suggest that she imparts that to her party leader, who has patently set out this afternoon that his policy for his party is not to believe in free trade.
UK's Nuclear Deterrent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am a proud member of both the GMB and Unite trade unions and I stand here today to make the case for our national security, both in terms of the role of the deterrent in an increasingly turbulent world, and for our domestic defence manufacturing capability.
Our country is at a crossroads. Just weeks ago we voted to leave the European Union and to forge our own destiny, but we must do this as part of the family of nations and the global community, embracing our responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and as a founder member of the NATO alliance, not running away from them. To be clear, I view the renewal of our continuous at-sea deterrent as a necessary evil. I, like all of us in the Chamber, would like to see a nuclear-free world, but this can be achieved only by international co-operation and be negotiated only from a position of strength.
To disarm ourselves unilaterally would not just be to abandon our responsibilities to our international allies, but would leave us at the mercy of other nuclear powers and would send us, in the words of Nye Bevan, so ably quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon),
“naked into the conference-chamber”.
At a time of unprecedented global turmoil, it would be utter recklessness to abandon a fundamental element of our national security in the name of some abstract ideological objection, however well meaning.
Ruth Smeeth
My hon. Friend ably outlines the threat we really face.
The horrific attacks in Nice last week were just the latest reminder of the risks we face. We are living through a period of extraordinary global turmoil, with threats coming from not just international terrorist networks but a resurgence in tensions between state actors—not least Russia, as the Defence Committee outlined only this month. Not only should Russian actions in Crimea, Ukraine and the Arctic give us pause for thought, but the Russian nuclear doctrine has also changed radically, and for the worse, since the end of the cold war. Not since the fall of the Berlin wall has our deterrent been so critical to our national security. Russia, with its use of increasingly hostile rhetoric, is lowering its nuclear threshold. This is, therefore, no time for Britain to abandon our nuclear capabilities or our commitments to our friends and allies.
Our military is rightly widely admired as the best in the world, and we in this place owe it to the members of our military to ensure that they are provided with the resources and support they need to ensure that our country is prepared for any scenario. However, we must also look closer to home—to the security of our communities and our economy. On that basis, the argument for our deterrent is unquestionable. Tens of thousands of jobs depend on our commitment to the Successor programme.
Ruth Smeeth
I am not giving way.
Whole communities live their lives in the shadow of the shipyards and the darker shadow that falls alongside them—the uncertainty over their future and their livelihoods. These are skilled men and women, working good jobs to support their families, including in my city of Stoke-on-Trent, where one local company in Burslem contributes to the supply chain of the Successor programme. These communities need our support and our commitment to their industry, and today we have the opportunity to offer them the reassurance they need.
As a country, we need to protect our manufacturing capability and to ensure long-term investment in our national industry. As has been repeatedly stated in the debate—most powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)—the renewal of our deterrent is my party’s policy and my union’s. For those who understand the proud history of our movement, that should come as no surprise. From Major Attlee’s support for Churchill in our country’s darkest hour to the founding of NATO under Ernest Bevin, our party has always stood up first and foremost for the security of our nation—we do now, and we always will.
As Tim Roache, the general secretary of my union, the GMB, has said:
“We’ve had enough of politicians on all sides playing politics with tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs and the communities they support.”
For the sake of those communities, for the sake of our economy and for the long-term security of our country, I will be voting in favour of replacing the current Vanguard submarines with the new Successor class, and I urge others to do the same.
Outcome of the EU Referendum
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I would say, very respectfully, that we had a vote on Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom and we had the Edinburgh agreement which said that the result should be respected. That meant that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom has now had a vote on its membership of the European Union. That is how we do things.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Seven thousand people are employed in the ceramics industry across the city of Stoke-on-Trent. Fifty per cent. of their trade is with the European Union, and their employers are incredibly concerned about the future. What reassurances can the Prime Minister give that the industry is still safe outside the European Union?
The Prime Minister
The ceramics industry is a classic example of one that needs to make its voice heard. I will make sure that happens and that we get a good negotiation, because if, at the end of two years, Britain were to come out of the European Union without an adequate deal, we could be facing quite large tariffs on, for example, ceramic products. That is a very good argument for why we need to think this through carefully, then trigger article 50 and make sure, during that process, that we protect the access of those industries to this vital market.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Whenever I get a question from my hon. Friend, I remember how grateful I am that she is representing Rochester and Strood—happy days. For the 2050 growth commission, the key areas are skills and infrastructure. A serious amount of money is being committed to that infrastructure, and we need to look at things, including the lower Thames crossing, to ensure that the economy of that region makes the most of its potential.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Q12. Some 2,500 people are employed in the ceramics industry in my constituency. Their jobs are dependent on EU trade, their rights are protected by the EU social charter, and their town centres have been rebuilt with EU funds. With his friends in the leave campaign producing more spin than a potter’s wheel, does the Prime Minister share my fears that despite Europe’s flaws, a Brexit vote could leave us picking up the pieces of a broken economy for years to come?
The Prime Minister
I will nick that soundbite—it’s a good one. The hon. Lady is right. If we leave the single market and the European Union, the Council President has said clearly that that process probably takes two years, and after that we will have to negotiate a trade deal with the European Union. If that trade deal is like Canada’s, it could take seven years. We are looking at a decade of uncertainty for our economy.
On the ceramics industry, I am advised by my Parliamentary Private Secretary, who before coming to this House did a worthwhile job of working in that industry—[Interruption.] He may not be spinning pots any more, but he is spinning for me very effectively. Last year we exported £38 million in porcelain and china to the EU. If we were outside the EU without a trade deal and had World Trade Organisation tariffs, there would be a 12% tax. I do not want us to hit British manufacturers, car makers and aeroplane makers. We should be investing in and supporting those industries, not making their situation more difficult, which Brexit would undoubtedly do.