Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Toby Perkins

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call Toby Perkins.

[Mr Perkins]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair—that was a pleasant surprise.

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but I will take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s steps in the Bill, which build on the steps that we took with the emergency legislation that ensured a future for Scunthorpe. We all recognise that steelmaking is part of our national security. Without steel capability, we are simply unable to be truly independent in military terms or in many other terms. The commitment of the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to ensuring a future for British Steel is not only sensible and ambitious, but a welcome change from the policies that were pursued by previous Prime Ministers over too many years to mention.

At a time when there has been such huge pressure on the public finances, it is tremendously welcome that the Government are stepping forward with £2.5 billion to boost the steel industry, along with the important measures relating to those with expertise in the industry, which is a complicated sector. It is therefore very welcome that the Government’s efforts in these areas are being led by those with such expertise in the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who clearly speaks with great knowledge on these subjects. He makes an important point, once again raising the importance of this whole area of legislation to the defence industry and to sovereign capability. The reality is that our defence industry is crucial economically, for jobs and for our national protection, but also for exports. We should absolutely welcome those British manufacturers making things here and selling them across the world. If we inadvertently cause them to be less competitive, we will rue the day, so we need to tread carefully. But his point about ore and those amendments is well made.

I will sit down now, but I tell the Government that they have my absolute support on this approach to the nationalisation of British Steel, and I ask the Minister to respond to the points I have made.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Toby Perkins

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Bill, whose introduction last year involved a happy coincidence in fulfilling one of the Government’s commitments and satisfying one of the Committee’s recommendations at the same time. This landmark legislation will lay the groundwork for protecting the marine environment and the wildlife that inhabits it, which lie beyond the control of individual nations. As the Government’s “Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss”, published last week, set out in stark terms, natural ecosystems such as the ocean and the Amazon rainforest are at risk of collapsing, and the resulting crop failures, intensified natural disasters, and conflict and political instability are highly likely to threaten UK national security and prosperity. It is vital for the UK to take leadership on the international stage to tackle global biodiversity loss and climate change.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to multilateral co-operation on ocean governance and I look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, which will enable the UK to ratify the BBNJ agreement. It is true to say that the initial indication of Government support for the agreement came from the last Government, although it was disappointing that over the 18 months or so that followed that commitment we never got the legislation back here. I am therefore pleased that the present Government have proceeded with this important measure.

The UK also makes an important contribution to global efforts to halt environmental decline through its international funding for climate finance, a third of which is earmarked for nature-based solutions to climate change. To date, however, there has been limited indication of the Government’s next steps regarding the five-year international climate finance budget that is due to commence in April. They have also failed so far to invest in the tropical forests forever facility and to leverage further private finance into that innovative fund, thus protecting forests in perpetuity.

Although the Minister has rightly championed our contribution to this impressive act of international co-operation, does she agree that we have more to do to ensure that we retain the UK’s hard- earned reputation as a global leader in the field of international climate action? Can she confirm that the UK will continue to contribute to protecting and restoring global ecosystems by maintaining its international funding for climate, including funds for nature projects, in the next funding round?

I welcome this important Bill. This Government have acted where previous Governments merely talked about such action, and I look forward to them continuing in the same positive direction in respect of the other matters to which I have referred.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Toby Perkins

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Perkins]

I thank the hon. Member very much for that intervention, and I look forward to hearing her speech in support of her new clause. I do think that has merit and is worth considering, and I look forward to hearing her make her case in more detail.

The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry into housing growth and environmental sustainability to scrutinise the Government’s national planning policy proposals. Achieving growth and delivering for people, climate and nature together is a vital but challenging task. There are many provisions in this Bill that I welcome, and I thank the Minister for his efforts and his detailed engagement. I was grateful that he made time to meet me recently to discuss my proposed amendments.

Overall, I support the Government’s intention in part 3, and I think those parties that wish to simply scrap the approach entirely are wrong. It is right to introduce a more strategic approach to satisfying developers’ environmental obligations. If done well, the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposed in part 3 could simplify and accelerate the process of meeting existing environmental requirements, where developments impact protected sites or protected species. Importantly, I see the merit of this strategic approach in delivering larger-scale and more effective nature conservation measures where development has unavoidable impacts on protected sites and protected species.

However, the strength of concern from knowledgeable stakeholders should give the Government serious pause for thought. The Office for Environmental Protection, which was mentioned earlier, published advice for the Government stating that the existing provisions in the Bill would amount to a regression in environmental law, so it is welcome that the Minister continues to be open-minded about making further amendments. I look forward to hearing about the engagement in another place, where I am certain that further amendments will be brought forward.

The Environmental Audit Committee has heard evidence that there must be stronger safeguards for the proposed nature restoration fund to genuinely deliver on its potential for nature. My objective in tabling amendments to this Bill is to engage constructively with the Government’s approach to part 3, and to strengthen it so that it delivers for nature and development at the same time.

To turn first to amendment 136, I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about scientific safeguards, and I look forward to what he comes forward with. This amendment would ensure that environmental delivery plans are used only where there is scientific evidence that they will work. In other words, there must be robust evidence that a particular negative effect on a protected site or protected species can be mitigated or compensated for at a strategic level, rather than on a site-by-site basis.

Although the strategic approaches that will be delivered by EDPs can work well for some habitats and species, such as nutrients or newts, they do not always work for others. This amendment would safeguard against the EDP approach being applied to inappropriate species or habitats. The Government have recognised this principle and have committed to a modular approach to expanding EDPs with new plans applying feature by feature, and existing protections remaining in place for those not yet covered. I support this approach, and I encourage the Government to enshrine this principle in legislation to give certainty that the scientific safeguards to which they have committed cannot be altered by any future Government without revisiting this legislation.

On amendment 150—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

Storm Bert

Debate between Judith Cummins and Toby Perkins

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I entirely empathise with my right hon. Friend about what he has inherited. We have had the perfect storm of massive funding cuts to the Environment Agency with increased pressures from flooding as a result of climate change. Notwithstanding that, the need for improvements in our flood defences is urgent and critical. How can communities such as mine in Chesterfield, flooded by the Rother and Hipper rivers, engage with the work he is doing so that we can be more prepared, working with the Environment Agency to bridge the funding gap for the existing scheme on the River Hipper? My heart goes out to all the communities across the country that have been so appallingly flooded. They need to know how we can work with the Government to step up the urgency so that our country is more flood-prepared in future.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee for his questions and of course sympathise with residents in his constituency who have been affected by the recent flooding, and indeed previous flooding. The Government are reviewing the flood funding formula to see how we can make it more effective. That includes nature-based flood management, such as planting more trees further upstream to help the land hold more water, so that less rainwater floods downstream to more populated areas where it can cause more damage. That consultation will involve businesses, rural communities, coastal communities and communities such as his all feeding in to ensure that we have a flood funding formula that works for every part of the country.