Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Darren Jones and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These were promises made by the last Government that they knew they did not have the money to pay for. This was spending from the general reserve—the money put aside for genuine emergencies each year—that they blew three times over within the first three months of the financial year. Anyone who runs a business, anyone who runs family finances and anyone who is in charge of the country’s finances should know that that is shameful, and the Conservatives should apologise to the country for it. Nowhere is that more true than in our public services, which have suffered as a consequence of the Conservatives’ mismanagement. For example, Lord Darzi’s independent report into the state of our NHS found that the past 14 years had left the NHS in a critical condition.

[Jim Shannon]

We very much welcome what the Government are doing in relation to the contaminated blood and Post Office Horizon scandals, but let ask the Minister a very gentle question—a question that needs to be answered—in relation to the WASPI women? When the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition, we all supported the WASPI women, and now he is in government. I understand that the Government are looking at this issue. What will happen to the WASPI women? Can we expect to have that addressed during this term?

[Darren Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the ombudsman reported to this House before the election, making a number of recommendations, but did not conclude the basis on which a compensation scheme might apply. Further work is therefore required, which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking at, but I would point him to the fact that this is a Government who honour their promises. If we look at the infected blood scandal or the Post Office Horizon scandal—an issue that I worked on for many years—we were told by the Conservatives that they were doing the right thing by compensating the victims, but they did not put £1 aside to pay for it.

From education to our justice system, we have inherited public services that are on life support, but I do not need to tell working people that. Sadly, they know it all too well, because the last Government lost control of both our public finances and our public services. This Budget and this Government will get both back under control. I will now outline how we should do that, by focusing on one simple word: reform. Reform is urgent, because we cannot simply spend our way to better public services.

This is a Government for working people, and we are determined that they will get the best possible public services for the best possible price, but public service reform is not just about policy or IT systems or procurement, as important as they are; it is about people. It is about the people at the end of each of our decisions: the patient in the hands of the NHS with worry and hope in their heart; the pupil in a school, college or university with aspirations that should be met; and the pensioner who wants to feel safe walking to the shops on their high street. Behind each of those people is a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, a police officer or a civil servant.

These are public servants who have chosen to work in public service to serve the public, as this Government do. They are public servants and people who today feel frustrated by not being able to access public services and not being able to deliver them. These are public services that, when performing well, deliver a well-functioning state and help keep workers educated, well and able to help grow our economy and protect our country. It is for these people that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed we will deliver a new approach to public services that is responsible, that looks to the future and that balances investment to secure public services for the long term with reforms to drive up the quality of those services today, and with reform as a condition for investment. From the Attlee Government founding the NHS to the Blair Government reforming poorly performing state schools, reform is in Labour’s DNA.

I now turn to some of the points made by right hon. and hon. Members today, and I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), on delivering their maiden speeches.

There were many speeches today, so colleagues will have to accept my apologies for not being able to address all 80 contributions individually. However, I join my Labour colleagues in celebrating this Budget, because building an NHS that is fit for the future is one of this Government’s five missions. That is why we have invested over £22 billion, the highest real-terms rate of growth since 2010 outside of the covid response.

I have also heard the voices of hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Scotland, including the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who encouraged me so dearly to listen to his speech but has not returned to the House for my summing up. Under this Labour Government, the largest real-terms funding increase since devolution began has been delivered for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This Labour Government are delivering from Westminster for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we will work in partnership with the devolved Governments to deliver the change for which people voted, and which we have now given the devolved Governments the money to deliver.

Fiscal Rules

Debate between Darren Jones and Jim Shannon

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank his constituent for putting her trust in this Labour Government. As the Prime Minister said today, this Government will “run towards” the problems, as opposed to running away from them, as the Conservative party did. That will mean difficult decisions at the Budget on Wednesday to deal with the mess that we inherited, to reset public finances and to be able to start to deliver our manifesto. But this Government will take those decisions and we will announce the detail on Wednesday.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I want to ask what the legacy of this will be. Will he further outline how the change to the fiscal rules to allow for more efficient borrowing will not simply pass more debt on to, for example, my six lovely grandchildren and everybody else’s grandchildren, who already face a scaled-back welfare system and increased costs of living before they even earn their first pay cheque? How will the Minister’s so-called guardrails not simply be barriers to future generations owning their own homes and making ends meet? I am thinking of the ones who come after.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He and his constituents will know, as much as mine do, that the problem for this country before the election was that the last Government had to borrow each month to pay for bills that they did not have the money to pay for, and that they made a whole list of promises across the country that they knew they could not pay for. That is why we have the £22 billion black hole, and why our first fiscal rule is that day-to-day spending will be paid for from tax receipts by the Exchequer. We will put the public budget back into surplus so that we are not in a doom loop of borrowing and borrowing just to keep ahead of ourselves each month. Where the Government do borrow, we will do so for productive investment to modernise our public services and to get growth back into our economy.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Debate between Darren Jones and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I congratulate you and welcome you to your place in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to open this debate in my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as a Minister in this new Labour Government.

At the general election, the British people voted for change, and this new Labour Government began work immediately to deliver on that mandate. Sustained growth is the only route to the improved prosperity that this country needs and to improve the living standards of the British people. After 14 years of Conservative failure, this work is urgent—it is now our national mission. To deliver on that mission, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out days after taking office, we must fix the foundations of the economy and restore economic stability. She emphasised that commitment to delivering economic stability by meeting with the Office for Budget Responsibility soon after becoming Chancellor.

Under the legal framework we inherited from the Conservative party, there is no requirement on the Treasury to subject fiscally significant announcements to independent OBR scrutiny. We all experienced what happens when huge unfunded fiscal commitments are made without proper scrutiny and key economic institutions such as the OBR are sidelined. The country cannot afford a repeat of the calamitous mini-Budget of September 2022, when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s reckless plans unleashed economic turmoil that has loaded hundreds of pounds on to people’s mortgages and rents. Conservative Ministers put ideology before sound public money and party before country.

This Labour Government are turning the page: we will always put the country first and party second. Our commitment to fiscal discipline and sound money will never waver. That is why we are firmly committed to the independence of the OBR, and to the important principle that in normal times, the announcement of a fiscally significant measure should always be accompanied by an independent assessment of its economic and fiscal implications, in order to support transparency and accountability. That is why we made a commitment in our manifesto to strengthen the role of the OBR, and it is why we have acted quickly to deliver on that commitment today.

This action will reinforce credibility and trust by preventing large-scale unfunded commitments that are not subject to an independent fiscal assessment. As Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, reiterated in his recent letter to the Chancellor,

“it is a good principle of fiscal policymaking that major fiscal decisions should be based upon, and presented alongside, an up-to-date view of the economic and fiscal outlook”.

In line with this, the Chancellor yesterday commissioned a full forecast to accompany our Budget on 30 October, following the important principle that significant fiscal policy decisions should be made at a fiscal event and accompanied by an independent OBR assessment. That fiscal lock is an essential part of our mission to deliver economic stability. It is one of our first steps towards fixing the foundations of the economy, and it is our guarantee to the British people that this Labour Government are a responsible Government who will never play fast and loose with public and family finances, as the Conservative party has done before.

The Bill sets the legal framework for the operation of the fiscal lock. It builds on the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, which established the OBR. In line with that, the technical detail underpinning the fiscal lock will be set out via an upcoming update to the charter for budget responsibility. The charter sets out the Government’s fiscal framework, including guidance on how the OBR performs its duties within that framework. To support scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through Parliament, the Treasury has published a draft of the relevant charter text, which will make clear exactly how the Government plan to implement the fiscal lock. A full update to the charter will be published in due course, and Members will vote on it in the usual way.

The Bill itself does five things to ensure that proper scrutiny of fiscal plans will take place. First, it requires the Treasury, before the Government make any fiscally significant announcement in Parliament, to request that the OBR presents an assessment taking the announcement into account. This builds on the usual process whereby the Chancellor commissions the OBR for an economic and fiscal forecast to accompany a fiscal event. It guarantees in law that, from now on, every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR.

Secondly, the Bill gives the OBR new powers to independently decide to produce an assessment if they judge that the fiscal lock has been triggered. If a fiscally significant announcement is made without the Treasury having previously requested a forecast from the OBR, the OBR is required to inform the Treasury Committee of its opinion and then prepare an assessment as soon as is practicable. That means that, come what may, the OBR, through Parliament, will be able to hold the Government to account.

Thirdly, the Bill defines a measure, or combination of measures, as “fiscally significant” if they exceed a specified percentage of GDP, with the charter then setting the precise threshold itself. Setting the threshold in this way provides clarity for both the OBR and external stakeholders about what constitutes a “fiscally significant announcement”—that is, when the fiscal lock has been triggered—and it ensures that the Government can set it at the right level going forward, recognising economic conditions. The threshold level will be set at announcements of at least 1% of nominal GDP in the latest OBR forecast. As an example, this year the 1% threshold would be £28 billion. This will ensure that we properly capture any announcements that resemble the growth plan of former Members Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng in 2022, with the broader risks to macroeconomic stability that this entailed.

Fourthly, the Bill ensures that the fiscal lock does not apply to Governments responding to emergencies, such as the covid-19 pandemic. The Bill does so by not applying in respect of measures that are intended to have a temporary effect and which are in response to an emergency. The charter will define “temporary” as any measure that is intended to end within two years. This recognises that it is sometimes reasonable—for example during a pandemic—for the Government to act quickly and decisively without an OBR assessment, if that is needed in response to a shock. Of course, in emergencies it may be appropriate for the Chancellor to commission a forecast from the OBR to follow measures that needed to be announced or implemented rapidly, and that would happen in the usual way. Alongside any such announcement, the Treasury will be required to make it clear why it considers the situation to be an emergency. As set out in the updated charter, the OBR will have the discretion to trigger the fiscal lock and prepare a report if it reasonably disagrees.

Fifthly and finally, the Bill requires the Government to publish any updates to the detail of the fiscal lock—such as the threshold level at which it is triggered—in draft form at least 28 days before the updated charter is laid before Parliament. This is an essential safeguard in the Bill, preventing any future Government from choosing to ignore the fiscal lock by updating the charter without the consent of Parliament.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is setting out the stark realities of where we are financially, which it is important that we all understand. Given that the financial positions of all of us within the United Kingdom could be fairly dramatically changed, regionally, it will be important that discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament take place early enough for the impacts of what might happen to be better understood.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. As I am sure he knows, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is traditionally the lead Minister in Government for relationships with the Finance Ministers in the devolved Governments. I have already met a number of times with counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as those in Scotland and Wales. I look forward to meeting them in person in Northern Ireland, I hope in September, for further such discussions.

To conclude, people across the country are still suffering the consequences of the Conservative party’s economic experiment in 2022. Conservative Ministers took the most reckless decisions without any thought for their real-life impact on the British economy and on family finances. Astonishingly, they have still made no apology.

With this Labour Government, our commitment to fiscal discipline and sound money is the bedrock of our plans. The Budget Responsibility Bill guarantees in law that, from now on, every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR. The Bill will reinforce credibility and trust by preventing large-scale unfunded commitments that are not subject to the scrutiny of an OBR fiscal assessment. This delivers on a key manifesto commitment to provide economic stability and sound public finances by strengthening the role of the independent OBR. This is a crucial first step to fix the foundations in our economy, so that we can achieve sustained economic growth and make every part of the country better off.

For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

National AI Strategy and UNESCO AI Ethics Framework

Debate between Darren Jones and Jim Shannon

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this Adjournment debate on the regulation of artificial intelligence has been granted. I declare my interest as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Britain is at a turning point. Having left the European Union, irrespective of what people thought about that decision, we have decided to go it alone. This new chapter in the long history of our great nation is starting to unfold, and we have a number of possible destinations ahead. We stand here today as a country with great challenges and an identity crisis: what is modern Britain to become? Our economy is, at best, sluggish; at worst, it is in decline. Our public services are unaffordable, inefficient and not delivering the quality of service the public should expect. People see and feel those issues right across the country: in their pay packets, in the unfilled vacancies at work, and in their local schools, GP surgeries, dentists, hospitals and high streets. All of this is taking place in a quickly changing world in which Britain is losing influence and control, and for hostile actors who wish Britain—or the west more broadly—harm, those ruptures in the social contract present an opportunity to exploit.

Having left the European Union, I see two destinations ahead of us: we can either keep doing what we are doing, or modernise our country. If we take the route to continuity, in my view we will continue to decline. There will be fewer people in work, earning less than they should be and paying less tax as a consequence. There will be fewer businesses investing, meaning lower profits and, again, lower taxes. Income will decline for the Treasury, but with no desire to increase the national debt for day-to-day spending, that will force us to take some very difficult decisions. It will be a world in which Britain is shaped by the world, instead of our shaping it in our interests.

Alternatively, we can decide to take the route to modernity, where workers co-create technology solutions at work to help them be more productive, with higher pay as a consequence; where businesses invest in automation and innovation, driving profits and tax payments to the Treasury; where the Government take seriously the need for reform and modernisation of the public sector, using technology to individualise and improve public services while reducing the cost of those services; and where we equip workers and public servants with the skills and training to seize the opportunities of that new economy. It will be a modern, innovative Britain with a modern, highly effective public sector, providing leadership in the world by leveraging our strengths and our ability to convene and influence our partners.

I paint those two pictures—those two destinations: continuity or modernity—for a reason. The former, the route to continuity, fails to seize the opportunities that technological reforms present us with, but the latter, the route to modernity, is built on the foundations of that new technological revolution.

This debate this evening is about artificial intelligence. To be clear, that is computers and servers, not robots. Artificial intelligence means, according to Google,

“computers and machines that can reason, learn, and act in such a way that would normally require human intelligence or that involves data whose scale exceeds what humans can analyse.”

These AI machines can be categorised in four different ways. First, reactive machines have a limited application based on pre-programmed rules. These machines do not use memory or learn themselves. IBM’s Deep Blue machine, which beat Garry Kasparov at chess in 1997, is an example. Secondly, limited memory machines use memory to learn over time by being trained using what is known as a neural network, which is a system of artificial neurons based on the human brain. These AI machines are the ones we are used to using today. Thirdly, theory of mind machines can emulate the human mind and take decisions, recognising and remembering emotions and reacting in social situations like a human would. Some argue that these machines do not yet exist, but others argue that AI such as ChatGPT, which can interact with a human in a humanlike way, shows that we are on the cusp of a theory of mind machine existing. Fourthly, self-aware machines are machines that are aware of their own existence and have the same or better capabilities than those of a human. Thankfully, as far as I am aware, those machines do not exist today.

That all might be interesting for someone who is into tech, but why am I putting it on the public record today? I am doing so because there are a number of risks that we as a Parliament and the Government must better understand, anticipate and mitigate. These are the perils on our journey to continuity or modernity. Basic artificial intelligence, which helps us to find things on the internet or to book a restaurant, is not very interesting. The risk is low. More advanced artificial intelligence, which can perform the same tasks as a junior solicitor, a journalist or a student who is supposed to complete their homework or exam without the assistance of AI, presents a problem. We already see the problems faced by workers who have technology thrust upon them, instead of being consulted about its use. The consequences are real today and carry medium risks—they are disruptive.

Then we have the national security or human rights-level risks, such as live facial recognition technologies that inaccurately identify someone as a criminal, or a large language model that can help a terrorist understand how to build a bomb or create a novel cyber-security risk, or systems that can generate deepfake videos, photos or audio of politicians saying or doing things that are not true to interfere with elections or to create fake hostage recordings of someone’s children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. It is a very deep subject for the Adjournment debate, but it is one that I believe is important. Ethics must be accounted for to ensure that any industries using AI are kept safe. One issue that could become increasingly prominent is the risk of cyber-threats, which he referred to, and hacking, which not even humans can sometimes prevent. Does he agree that it is crucial that our Government and our Minister undertake discussions with UNESCO, for example, to ensure that any artificial intelligence that is used within UK industry is assessed, so as to deal with the unwanted harms as well as the vulnerabilities to attack to ensure that AI actors are qualified to deal with such exposure to cyber-attacks? In other words, the Government must be over this issue in its entirety.

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member is of course right. In the first part of his intervention, he alluded to the risk I have just been referring to, where machines can automatically create, for example, novel cyber-risks in a way that the humans who created those systems might not fully understand and that are accessible to a wider range of actors. That is a high risk that is either increasingly real today or is active and available to those who wish to do us harm.

The question, therefore, is what should we in Parliament do about it? Of course, we want Britain to continue to be one of the best places in the world to research and innovate, and to start up and scale up a tech business. We should also want to transform our public services and businesses using that technology, but we must—absolutely must—make sure that we create the conditions for this to be achieved in a safe, ethical and just way, and we must reassure ourselves that we have created those conditions before any of these high-risk outcomes take place, not in the aftermath of a tragedy or scandal.

That is why I have been so pleased to work with UNESCO, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and assistant director general Gabriela Ramos over the past few years, on the UNESCO AI ethics framework. This framework, the first global standard on AI ethics, was adopted by all 193 member states of the United Nations in 2021, including the United Kingdom. Its basis in human rights, actionable policies, readiness assessment methodology and ethical impact assessments provides the basis for the safe and ethical adoption of AI across countries. I therefore ask the Minister, in summing up, to update the House on how the Government are implementing their commitments from the 2021 signing of the AI ethics framework.

As crucial as the UNESCO AI ethics framework is, in my view the speed of innovation requires two more things from Government: first, enhanced intergovernmental co-ordination, and secondly, innovation in how we in this House pass laws to keep up with the speed of innovation. I will take each in turn.

First, on enhanced intergovernmental co-ordination, I wrote to the Government at the end of April calling on Ministers to play more of a convening role on the safe and secure testing of the most advanced AI, primarily with Canada, the United States and—in so far as it can be achieved—China, because those countries, alongside our own, are where the most cutting-edge companies are innovating in this space. I was therefore pleased to see in the Hiroshima communiqué from last week’s G7 a commitment to

“identify potential gaps and fragmentation in global technology governance”.

As a parliamentary lead at the OECD global parliamentary network on AI, I also welcome the request that the OECD and the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence establish the Hiroshima AI process, specifically in respect of generative AI, by the end of this year.

I question, however, whether these existing fora can build the physical or digital intergovernmental facilities required for the safe and secure testing of advanced AI that some have called for, and whether such processes will adequately supervise or have oversight of what is taking place in start-ups or within multinational technology companies. I therefore ask the Minister to address these issues and to provide further detail about the Hiroshima AI process and Britain’s contribution to the OECD and GPAI, which I understand has not been as good as it should have been in recent years.

I also welcome the engagement of the United Nations’ tech envoy on this issue and look forward to meeting him at the AI for Good summit in Geneva in a few weeks’ time. In advance of that, if the Minister is able to give it, I would welcome his assessment of how the British Government and our diplomats at the UN are engaging with the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology, and perhaps of how they wish to change that in the future.

Secondly, I want to address the domestic situation here in the UK following the recent publication of the UK’s AI strategy. I completely agree with the Government that we do not want to regulate to the extent where the UK is no longer a destination of choice for businesses to research and innovate, and to start up and scale up their business. An innovation-led approach is the right approach. I also agree that, where we do regulate, that regulation must be flexible and nimble to at least try to keep up with the pace of innovation. We only have to look at the Online Safety Bill to learn how slow we can be in this place at legislating, and to see that by the time we do, the world has already moved on.

Where I disagree is that, as I understand it, Ministers have decided that an innovation-led approach to regulation means that no new legislation is required. Instead, existing regulators—some with the capacity and expertise required, but most without—must publish guidance. That approach feels incomplete to me. The European Union has taken a risk-based approach to regulation, which is similar to the way I described high, medium and low-risk applications earlier. However, we have decided that no further legislative work is required while, as I pointed out on Second Reading of the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill, deregulating in other areas with consequences for the application of consumer and privacy law as it relates to AI. Surely, we in this House can find a way to innovate in order to draft legislation, ensure effective oversight and build flexibility for regulatory enforcement in a better way than we currently do. The current approach is not fit for purpose, and I ask the Minister to confirm whether the agreement at Hiroshima last week changes that position.

Lastly, I have raised my concerns with the Department and the House before about the risk of deepfake videos, photo and audio to our democratic processes. It is a clear and obvious risk, not just in the UK but in the US and the European Union, which also have elections next year. We have all seen the fake picture of the Pope wearing a white puffer jacket, created by artificial intelligence. It was an image that I saw so quickly whilst scrolling on Twitter that I thought it was real until I stopped to think about it.

Automated political campaign videos, fake images of politicians being arrested, deepfake videos of politicians giving speeches that never happened, and fake audio recordings are already available. While they may not all be of perfect quality just yet, we know how the public respond to breaking news cycles on social media. Many of us look at the headlines or the fake images over a split second, register that something has happened, and most of the time assume it to be true. That could have wide-ranging implications for the integrity of our democratic processes. I am awaiting a letter from the Secretary of State, but I am grateful for the response to my written parliamentary question today. I invite the Minister to say more on that issue now, should he be able to do so.

I am conscious that I have covered a wide range of issues, but I hope that illustrates the many and varied questions associated with the regulation of artificial intelligence, from the mundane to the disruptive to the risk to national security. I welcome the work being done by the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on this issue, and I know that other Committees are also considering looking at some of these questions. These issues warrant active and deep consideration in this Parliament, and Britain can provide global leadership in that space. Only today, OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, called for a new intergovernmental organisation to have oversight of high-risk AI developments. Would it not be great if that organisation was based in Britain?

If we get this right, we can take the path to modernity and create a modern Britain that delivers for the British people, is equipped for the future, and helps shape the world in our interests. If we get it wrong, or if we pick the path to continuity, Britain will suffer further decline and become even less in control of its future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick the path to modernity.

International Trade and Geopolitics

Debate between Darren Jones and Jim Shannon

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and electric vehicles are a prime example. He and I were in Sweden last week on a Select Committee visit to look at how its electric vehicle battery manufacturing looks in comparison with the UK. If we are to continue to export cars to the European Union, we will have to hit the so-called rules of origin requirements where the components come from local or regional sources. Eventually they will have carbon embedded within them, in order to meet carbon border adjustment mechanisms and net zero targets. It is therefore crucial that the UK Government work with the private sector successfully to deliver that industrial policy outcome, or I fear we will see the near total decline of car manufacturing in the UK. While it is not for me as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to prejudge the conclusion of its inquiry into this issue, the contrast between what we saw in Europe last week, and what is happening in the UK, was stark.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I cast the hon. Gentleman’s mind back to his comments about the CPTPP? The Northern Ireland constituency that I represent has a large farming and agricultural manufacturing sector, and we export right across the world. Businesses in my constituency tell me that they are looking forward to opportunities that will potentially arrive from the far east. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that farming in Northern Ireland has the potential to grow more, and that part of that growth will be in the far east through the CPTPP? If that grows, there will be extra jobs, extra opportunity, and real growth in my constituency and across Northern Ireland.

[Darren Jones]

I have to take the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion at his word as he knows much more about his constituency and farming than I do. If there are export opportunities that is great, but the question is whether that will deliver the wholesale economic growth that we need across the whole UK economy. It will be an important piece of the puzzle, but my proposition is that there is a much broader area where there are problems, and where Government policy is lacking.

In Sweden last week, we learnt about the sheer complexity of delivering a so-called gigafactory for electric vehicle battery manufacturing. We held in our hands, physically, fossil fuel-free iron made using hydrogen, which was being turned into low-carbon steel. I finally saw, after years, a carbon capture facility working, plugged in and capturing carbon in real life. Here in the UK, we just have ministerial statements setting out our intention to be world leading, without anything real or tangible to show for it. The British people will soon realise, if they have not already, that at the end of this yellow brick road set out by the Government there are just Conservative Ministers blowing smoke. The tragedy is that this is not just a dream: it is 13 years of Conservative economic mismanagement that will take years to clean up.

This sorry story is not just about what is happening in the European Union; it is about what is happening in the United States, too. During our Committee visits last year, it quickly became clear that the US is doing what Europe is doing, but on steroids. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is really a green new deal for the United States, sets long-term, multi-decade, easy-to-access tax incentives, grants, loans and market-setting standards to not only drive the net zero agenda but reinvest in the industrial capacity of the United States. This $500 billion multi-decade initiative is acting like a magnet, pulling investment, jobs and businesses into the American economy. Access to those tax incentives, grants and state-level support is predicated on agreements to train and employ Americans in areas that have been crying out for investment for years. In some circumstances, it is even predicated on business owners investing in childcare to help optimise the economic activity of the American labour market, including women.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Debate between Darren Jones and Jim Shannon

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I agree entirely. I do not think British consumers will accept that position, not least because they enjoy the high-quality standards that we expect of many of our food producers in the UK. If that is exerting a pressure on home-grown produce, they will not accept it either.

Seven of the 10 largest poultry farms in this country already have a capacity to house more than 1 million birds, with the biggest farm holding up to 23,000 pigs and the largest cattle farm 3,000 cattle. These are all numbers, but to give an example to the House, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism study showed that a megafarm in Herefordshire had four 110-metre by 20-metre industrial warehouses, each with 42,000 chickens in them. There were so many chickens in these warehouses that the journalists could not see the floor. These chickens live for only a short period, and the process is repeated up to eight times each year, so that is a turnover of over 1 million birds every year in these confined settings.

These conditions are bad for animals and bad for our food. Confinement can lead to the stress-related death of animals; self-mutilation of animals due to mental health conditions; ulcerated feet, breast blisters and hock burns due to ammonia-filled litter; sudden death syndrome from unnaturally quick growth; foot and leg damage from slated or concrete floors; and in the case of lots of dairy cows, bacterial infection, mastitis, anaemia, stomach ulcers and chronic diarrhoea. These are not things consumers wish to have associated with the food they eat. As a consequence, I will be writing to Tesco, Sainsbury, the Co-operative, Marks and Spencer, Morrisons, Asda, McDonald’s and Nando’s, all of which, I am told, buy the products I am talking about for their customers.

These stressful, illness-inducing environments also lead to the excessive use of antibiotics in animal feed and water to try to limit the risk of disease from intensive farming settings. According to Compassion in World Farming, there is strong evidence that the overuse of antibiotics in animals is contributing to the antibiotic resistance we are now seeing in human medicine—something this country is, thankfully, working hard to try to prevent.

To make matters worse, these extreme farming conditions can lead animals to become stressed. Again, that is bad for food, but it is also bad for animals. I am told that stress-induced aggressive animal behaviours have led to chickens being de-beaked, which involves a hot blade cutting through a bird’s beak, bone and soft tissue. Chicken toes are also removed to discourage fighting, and the tails of pigs and cows are removed to prevent tail biting. Again, these are conditions I am sure many British consumers would not want associated with the food on their plates.

However, this is not just about the quality of food or the quality of animal welfare; it is also about the environment and our efforts at tackling climate change. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said we have 12 years to limit post-industrial levels of world temperature growth to 1.5° C—the subject of a separate debate I will be leading at 9.30 tomorrow morning in Westminster Hall.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I might have a slightly different opinion on this matter. I declare an interest as a landowner, and I live on a farm on the Ards peninsula in my constituency. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—the Department responsible in Northern Ireland—has stated that there is no problem with the scale of concentrated animal feeding operations in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that farmers—my neighbours—husband and care for their birds and animals, with all their focus on welfare and quality of life? A healthy animal and bird is what the market demands and what the market receives.

[Darren Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that farmers, I am sure, do the best they can for their businesses, their livestock and their customers, but we need to create an environment in which we support sustainable farming, not over-farming, as we have seen in these concentrated environments. I understand that the highest increase in concentrated farming in the country has been in Northern Ireland.

The IPCC is about climate change and carbon emissions. Megafarms might in theory, but not always in practice, reduce the amount of space needed for animals, but those animals still need to be fed, which means an ever-increasing amount of animal food for an ever-increasing number of animals farmed. That has resulted in huge amounts of land being used to grow animal food, often with the use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers. Reducing or eliminating industrial farming has been shown to be a significant way to reduce our overall carbon emissions.

I should declare, of course, that I am a vegan. I became a vegan primarily because of those environmental concerns. I was persuaded, in fact, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I was also persuaded because of the animal welfare and health concerns associated with this environment. Veganism is something that more and more people are taking up, which is why you, Mr Speaker, will see vegan options becoming more popular in service stations, supermarkets and restaurants across the country—and, indeed, in the parliamentary restaurants this week.

However, this Adjournment debate is not happening just because I am interested. I am grateful to the House of Commons digital outreach team, who trailed this debate on our House Facebook page. Over 5,000 members of the public have been engaged, with many kindly giving me their feedback. Kara and Lisa made the point that information should be required on food labelling and that they would like to know if the animal products they are buying come from intensive farming settings, so that they can decide whether to buy them.

Clare and Kareen were two of many voices that said that animal welfare was a key concern that directs their shopping decisions. Some say they cannot always afford to buy higher quality meat, so they eat less meat or eat alternatives as a consequence. Caroline, Kelly and Leanne say they buy only organic or free-range meat for their families as a consequence.

I fully appreciate that it is not the role of Government to tell people what to eat, but if we can agree to public health campaigns for eating five fruit and veg a day, or agree to a sugar tax because of the public health consequences, then it is right that we should be having this debate and deciding what kind of action we can take for public health, animal welfare, and the pressing and urgent requirement to reduce our carbon emissions more dramatically in the years ahead.

I hope the Minister in his summing up today will touch on the following points. What policy are the Government pursuing to reduce or prevent intensive farming in the United Kingdom, including working with agri-tech companies that can stimulate innovation for new methods of farming, whether high-rise farming or the production of meat products in the kitchen laboratory as opposed to the farm? What work is the Minister’s Department undertaking with colleagues across Government to change food and farming policy to help to meet our climate change objectives? Following a recent consultation on antibiotic use in farming, what measures will the Government take to prevent antibiotic resistance in animals and the indirect consequences for human health?

Will the Government consider new regulations on food labelling to make it easier for consumers to understand the quality and source of their food products? How will the Government commit to maintaining and hopefully enhancing EU-derived legislation through the Brexit process? Finally, what assurances can the Government give the House tonight that under no circumstances, further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, will they agree to international trade deals, such as with the United States, that permit the import of food products from intensive farming settings from across the world?

I apologise to the Minister. I had hoped to print off that ream of questions to give to him in advance of the debate, but sadly I was unable to do so. I am sure that if he is unable to answer them all this evening we can correspond with reference to Hansard in the coming days.