Public Access to Nature
Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
Indeed, the hon. Member anticipates my very next point. She is exactly right: the benefits of being in nature are not limited to our physical health; they very much affect our mental health as well, easing anxiety and increasing positive emotions. Spending time in nature has been proven fundamental to good mental health. Indeed, the growth in green social prescribing shows that that is increasingly being recognised more widely.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem with health and income inequalities is that access to nature is not equally distributed in this country? Some of the wealthiest constituencies have far greater access to nature than some of the poorest. That goes along with the historic theft of land by the very wealthiest—facilitated by this place—who stole it from the poorest communities. That has never been properly readdressed.
Caroline Lucas
I agree very much with that point. Inequalities go right through from start to finish in terms of access to the countryside, and I will say more about that, but he also rightly points to the fact that this is nothing new; this is part of a history of land grabbing that has been going on from the enclosures onwards, if not before that. It is something that we need to address if we are serious about wealth inequalities in this country as well as health inequalities, because unless we address the issue of the distribution of land, we are not going to solve that problem.
There is economic sense in increasing access to nature, too. Figures suggest that the NHS could save around £3 billion in treatment costs every year if everyone had access to good-quality green space. Despite the importance of access to nature to the nation’s health, and that significance only being underlined throughout the covid pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, there is no national strategy for ensuring that everyone can enjoy access to nature. My first question to the Minister is whether she will look to rectify that and to direct and co-ordinate policy action and resources across Government.
As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) set out, we know that access to nature remains incredibly unequal, and covid underlined that. Black people and people of colour, as well as poorer households, are far less likely to live close to green space. Friends of the Earth research suggests that 40% of people from ethnic minority backgrounds live in the most green space-deprived areas, compared with just 14% of white people.
While I welcome the Government’s goal outlined in their environmental improvement plan to enhance engagement with the natural environment and the commitment that everyone should live within a 15-minute walk of a green or blue space, the Minister will know that, as it stands, that commitment is not legally binding. It urgently needs to be accompanied by ambitious legislation, together with funding for local authorities to help achieve it.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and very much agree with the point she makes. Local authorities have a vital role to play, and yet their budgets have been slashed over the past 13 years.
To return to the issue of how the lack of access has played out in different constituencies, new research by the Wildlife and Countryside Link shows that in more than one in 10 neighbourhoods, between 90% and 100% of the population currently have no access to nature within a 15-minute walk. The Right to Roam campaign recently calculated that 92 constituencies in England currently have no right to roam at all, with many more than that having very little access.
The Minister might be aware that when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was going through the Commons, I tabled an amendment on Report that would have created a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and required public authorities to increase equitable access to nature. That call is backed by the public, with 80% of people wanting to see a legal right to local nature. With that Bill now going through the Lords, I urge the Minister and the Government to pick up my amendment and show the level of ambition that is needed.
I know that Ministers are, rightly, extremely proud of the English coastal path and the establishment of the coast-to-coast national trail. I welcome these efforts, which undoubtedly improve ease of access, but I am concerned that they do not begin to address the scale of the challenge at hand—not least because, for example, much of the English coastal path, which involves essentially a pretty thin strip of land along the coast, was already accessible through existing rights of way. The coast-to-coast route has long been an unofficial long-distance path linking east and west coasts across northern England. Last year it was designated as an official national trail, but as a result, it needs to be better signposted, better maintained and better publicised.
The bottom line is that much more needs to be done to improve public access to nature. As such, I urge the Government to look closely at other proposals, such as giving national park authorities a range of new purposes, including one to improve people’s connection to nature, which would also implement a key proposal from the Glover review of protected landscapes. Will the Minister look again at embedding public access into the new environmental land management schemes, which would help farmers to create more opportunities for people to enjoy the outdoors? Will the Government remove the new 2031 deadline for recording historic rights of way? The reimposition of that artificial deadline risks losing thousands of footpaths.
Will the Government urgently conduct a mapping review of existing open access land? Ministers have tabled a further amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to defer that review until the end of 2030, which is more than 25 years after the first maps were produced, despite a legal requirement that they be updated every 10 years. Will the Minister bring forward new funding for local authorities to maintain public rights of way? Finally, will the Government support local councils and national park authorities to improve access to the countryside for everyone, including those with disabilities and those who do not own or have access to a car? For both those groups of people, much of the countryside remains out of reach—a situation that has undoubtedly been exacerbated by cuts to local bus services.
Having said that, I am just going to give a quick shout-out to the Brighton & Hove bus company and its “Breeze up to the Downs” service—I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown will agree. That service is supported by the council, the National Trust and the South Downs National Park Authority. Those kinds of models, which enable people to get into the countryside affordably and easily if they do not have a car, need to be supported. I will also use this opportunity to congratulate the former Green administration in Brighton and Hove, which blazed a trail with its transformative city downland estate plan. That plan contains commitments to consider proposals to designate every site under the council’s management as statutory open access land.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Lady raises an important point about the ability for councils to use their own estate. Is she looking forward to the exciting plans that we might have in Lewes, as I am?
Caroline Lucas
I am indeed looking forward to exciting plans in Lewes, and I pay tribute to local councillors there.
However, we must go further to truly transform our relationship with nature, with access to wilder spaces where we can marvel at the wonders around us and be fully immersed in the natural world. Those who organised the mass trespass of Kinder Scout in 1932, which so many of us have taken so much inspiration from, knew the value of access to our dramatic Peak district, and their actions united the campaign for access to the countryside.
At the start of this millennium, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 finally gave us a right to roam in certain areas, over mountain, moor, heath and down, designating them as open access land. However, that designation still covers only 8% of land in England, and much of it is remote. Too often, tracts of legally accessible open country land lack any legal means for the public to cross other land to access them, rendering them effectively off limits. Just 3% of rivers in England and Wales are accessible, and even that is only provided by voluntary agreements with landowners and can therefore be taken away.
That is why last year, I tabled a Bill that would have extended the right to roam to woods, rivers, green-belt land and more grassland. In doing so, it would have provided access to nature on people’s doorsteps, as those landscapes are found in almost every community, and it would have extended access to approximately 30% of English land. Since I drafted that Bill, the momentum behind the campaign for access to nature has only grown, and I believe now is the time to be even bolder and more ambitious. It is time for a reset of our very relationship with the natural world around us, one that re-establishes the intimacy and connection that is essential if we are to restore the state of our—quite often literally—scorched earth.
I believe it is time to expand our minds and our horizons and look north of the border to Scotland, where the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 enshrined the right of access to most land and water, providing that the right is exercised responsibly. Of course, there will be some sensible exclusions such as fields where crops are growing, seasonal restrictions for sensitive nature sites, school playing fields and even gardens. However, that is essentially a much more expansive approach. It designates a universal right to roam with exclusions carved out, rather than the opposite approach that is taken in England, which is based on a universal exclusion with access only to some very specific landscapes. The Scottish approach is far simpler, meaning that we are no longer reliant on confusing and often outdated land designations that no longer reflect the nature of our countryside, and it is more equal, meaning that everyone has shared access to this island that is our home.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I would describe this as a bit of a Stockholm syndrome Budget. After the appalling set of Budgets we have had, 13 years of the failed austerity experiment started by the Tories and Liberal Democrats, and of course the latest mini-Budget, it is tempting to think that the captives would say thank you for some of the peanuts that have been thrown—peanuts such as childcare, but even then, the measures will not come in fully for two and a half years. Hopefully, by that time this shambles will be long gone.
In Brighton, we have one of the lowest payments for childcare from the Government scheme, but we have some of the highest costs because of an historical injustice in the way that the money is calculated. This Budget will not help those childcare workers. It will not save the places at the nurseries currently up for closure by the Green council, because it will not increase the money, wages and professionalism of the sector. What is clear is that, despite a few giveaways, this Budget will still see household incomes fall by 5.7%, one of the largest falls in our constituents’ lifetimes.
Big business will of course receive huge incentives for investment, but they will not be focused on green investment. There will be no focus on co-operative businesses, as the Co-operative party has called for, and the Federation of Small Businesses says it cannot hide its disappointment and that this Budget was wide of the mark and irrelevant. A Budget that is irrelevant to small businesses is a dangerous Budget indeed. The Chancellor said he would save Labour the “bother” of reviewing business tax, but then made no mention of business rates—a regressive tax that punishes our high streets.
The help for draught beer will be welcome, but the problem in our pubs is not the tax on beer pulled from the pump; it is business rates, land values and planning laws that allow speculative breweries to sell pubs and chuck out landlords, because they get better amounts for other uses. The reality is that our leisure and night-time economies will be crippled by rising fuel bills, and, apart from the welcome leisure centre relief, they are being offered no protection whatever.
The failure to bring down energy bills will affect our constituents. That is a failure of Ofgem and of the horizontal privatisation that means it is illegal for British Gas to sell energy to its customers at the price at which it generates it. That is madness. It allows speculation and profits to win out, rather than hard-working ordinary people, for whom there is no benefit.
Of course, it is not just businesses that will suffer. As we know, the Government had to announce only last month a scheme for residential customers who are on business tariffs so that they get the £400 support. As the business tariffs will no longer be capped, all those people will have to pay an uncapped amount for their energy bills. Many of them are the poorest in our communities—they live in houses in multiple occupation and blocks of flats. In fact, some of them pay on commercial prepayment meters, but because they pay their landlord rather than the energy supplier, the welcome support for prepayment meters that is provided directly through the energy supplier will not be extended to them. That is a tragic miss of this Budget.
Another problematic area is that of investments. There are no real investments in the green sector. Germany is proposing 5.2% of its GDP for green transformation; the UK is proposing just 1.2%. America has passed the Inflation Reduction Act, and France has pledged billions for green steel. We are not even scratching the surface. Okay, there are some nice warm words on—currently unproven—nuclear reactors, which I hope will be proven. [Interruption.] Nowhere have they been proven at commercial level.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
No, I will not.
Britain should invest in the reactors and roll them out, but as yet, we have not done so. [Interruption.] No. It is the same with carbon capture. Investment is welcome, but we are yet to see it at full-scale capacity. It was Labour that said that investment should have come in 2010, but the Conservatives stopped it. They are unproven because of a Conservative failure to invest. Coming late to the party is no good for anyone.
Of course, let us be clear: only a third—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can continue making a noise if they want, but it is a complete waste of their time. Only a third of the poorest households own a car, whereas 90% of the richest households do. A freeze on the fuel escalator is good news for them, but the fact that there is no subsequent freeze on bus, rail and other forms of public transport means that the rich benefit and the poor get messed over again—[Interruption.] There is no cap on rail, and if you do not realise that, you are not really a rail traveller, are you?
Of course, this was a Budget for the top taxpayers—and the pension pots that they will now be able to save—not for normal people. It could have been so different. The upper earnings limit of the national insurance rate is, in my view, a disgrace. It is a disgrace that people earning under £50,000 pay 12% towards national insurance, but those earning over £50,000 pay only 2% on earnings above that. Not only is that a flat rate of tax, which Conservatives usually advocate for, but it is actively regressive. It harms the poorest and helps the richest.
If that one change had been made, £30 billion would have been raised according to the most conservative estimates. What could that £30 billion have paid for? I can tell the House one thing it could have paid for: social care, another area that was totally missed in this Budget. That £30 billion could have paid for all the social care costs that councils up and down this country are currently having to pay, which would have freed up our councils to invest in their communities, as they should in Brighton. It would have equated to £100 million every year in the pocket of Brighton council that could have been invested in our streets and roads. We would not need a pothole giveaway—we would have had our own money to spend—but instead, the Conservatives’ failure to sort social care means that that money is being drained.
Was there any real mention of education going forward? Yes, there were some nice giveaways for higher levels of education through the lifetime guarantee—a policy that has already been announced, might I add, not something new. However, there is no additional funding for proper further education, basic skills, maths, functional skills, GCSEs and A-levels—those things that people at the very bottom need. Yes, it is good that people who achieve higher learning will be able to draw that down, but we need learning for all people. Of course, the biggest thing in the education sector that comes into my inbox and my letterbox is special educational needs. Was there any mention in this Budget of more money going into the awful system that we have at the moment for special educational needs? Not a jot. Those children will go without the care and support that they currently have, which is a disgrace, because every day that they go without the education they need is a day of their potential being squandered.
We have also seen no movement on capital gains or unearned income. Now we have a situation where landlords using shell companies pay little or no tax compared with hard-working ordinary people. It is morally wrong that people who survive on unearned income pay less tax than those who have earned it, because this Budget comes from a Government for people who do not work hard, but who speculate, extract, and use Ponzi schemes to get money out of the market. Rather than build our country up, they take out. This is a Budget of lost opportunities—a Budget that could have changed our country. The Government have to use the term “technical recession” because everyone knows we have a household cost of living recession and a household income recession. Yes, it is a technical avoidance of recession, but the day-to-day lives of people in this country are worse.
Of course, Labour would have done better. We would have supported businesses and the economy, we would have tackled climate change, and we would have made the lives of people in our communities better. It feels that after the last Budget, things could only have got better, but rather than having some poor tribute act that is getting all the notes wrong, we need things to get better with a Labour Government. Move over and let the greats do it again. We did it in 1997, and we will do it again now.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning, during Science, Innovation and Technology questions, the Secretary of State responded to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about the use of TikTok on Government officials’ devices. In her question, my hon. Friend stated that three weeks ago the Secretary of State said that having TikTok installed on a Government device was a personal choice. In response, the Secretary of State said that
“what I actually said was that, in terms of the general public, it is absolutely a personal choice”.
I have since checked, and in her interview with Politico, the Secretary of State stated in response to a question specifically about Government officials using TikTok that the use of the app is a “personal choice” thing. I fear that the Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled the House. As we know, the Official Report belongs to Parliament, and it is vital that our record is true and accurate. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am hoping that you will be able to advise on the next steps so that we can seek clarity on this issue, which ultimately concerns all our national security.
Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power
Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The real truth of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 discussion is that almost five years ago this Government opened up a consultation on GRA reform and did sweet nothing on it. They opened up that Pandora’s box of fear, hate and misinformation, and then when one part of our country takes action—we all should have taken action—they want to use it for a constructed constitutional crisis. Is it not time that this Government brought forward proper GRA reform on basis laid out in the Scotland legislation and put to bed, once and for all, the lie that this is about equalities?
Mr Jack
I am here to answer on the constitutional decision I have taken. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to oral questions and asks those questions of the Minister for Women and Equalities.
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Power
Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
We put in protections on the age limit in Scotland. We have the leader of the SNP at Westminster accusing the Scottish Labour party and the UK Labour party of different positions on this. There is nothing between the positions, but we should have devolution at the same time. The leader of the UK Labour party has made his position perfectly clear, and Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Scottish Labour party, and his team put in significant protections for 16 and 17-year-olds, including the notary public measure, which means that a person has to swear in front of a notary public for this to take effect and they have to get a responsible adult over the age of 18 to be able to do any of this under the age of 18.
Essentially, the hon. Gentleman is challenging people not to have different views on this, but two of his Front-Bench MSPs voted for the legislation. People are entitled to have slightly different views on what is an incredibly important subject. He has managed to do only one thing in the past week, which was not to get both Governments together to try to resolve this, but to write to me to ask my position on the Bill. I would rather that the two Governments came together. [Interruption.] We want the Bill passed and we want section 35 resolved; it is as simple and as straightforward as that. It has been our position for some time that we should modernise the GRA. That position has been eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, and it is still the one that we hold.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made the crucial point—and this goes back to an earlier intervention—that gender recognition certificates can already be issued under the Equality Act. As we sit here today, single-sex spaces are protected by exemptions under the Equality Act. The adverse reasons that the Government are giving us on that are not about the process of getting a GRC, but about the process that is currently already in place. The Government are all over the place on this, and it is little wonder that the only result is to fan the flames for people who wish to break up the United Kingdom.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not right that, in the passing of the Equality Act 2010, it was noted then that the GRA needed to be reformed and depathologised? The party that came in straight after the passing of that Act—the party currently in Government—has spent 12 and a bit years twiddling its thumbs and fanning the flames of fear and hatred, and then, when one Parliament of this United Kingdom takes decisive action, rather than stepping up and working to resolve the issue, the party has constructed a constitutional crisis that will benefit its voting.
Ian Murray
That is what I have been saying. We desperately want the legislation to pass, but we also desperately want to make sure that the issues raised under section 35 are resolved. There are only two ways to do that: either through the courts, which is where I think this is heading, or through the Governments getting together. We do not have the power to make either of those things happen.
Opinion polling shows that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland just want their two Governments to work closely together in the interests of the country, and, on this particular issue, in the interests of equality. Let me say to both Governments that these issues are not irresolvable. We can create an environment where protections exist for women at the same time as strengthening the rights for trans people. We can create a legal framework where GRCs issued in Scotland are entirely compatible with the UK-wide equality legislation. We can have a country where both the Scottish and UK Governments act like grown-ups, get round the table and resolve these issues. That is what used to happen. That is the way that Donald Dewar designed the legislation that this Government are now implementing. We need genuinely constructive discussions between the two Governments. Let us lock them in a room and not let them out until they find a solution. I can assure Members that there is a way through this, but both Governments are unwilling to take it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Goodness me, that speech was probably one of the worst transphobic dog-whistle speeches I have heard in an awfully long time. Linking the Bill with predators is, frankly, disgusting, and you should be ashamed.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
No, I will not give way to you, or anyone else. [Interruption.] I mean to the hon. Member.
On the substance of this, ignoring that horrible speech we have just heard—
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Did you hear anything transphobic in the previous speech?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have to say to the Father of the House that different Members of this House will interpret speeches in different ways. I suggest that we move on quickly, and I think the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) needs to calm down, moderate his language and move on to the substance of the debate, otherwise I will ask him to resume his seat.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is difficult when we are talking about these emotional matters.
The reality of this is that this section 35 is the new Tories’ section 28. It is their continuation of a war against a group of people—their culture war—that they want to pursue, and they think it will advantage them in the polls. That is what the Australian Conservatives thought as well and what the Republicans in the US thought, but I trust it will not, because the people do not like the bigotry that we hear from the other side.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Could I just say to the hon. Gentleman that we are very short of time and I hope that, if he takes an intervention, he will stick to the four minutes?
Alicia Kearns
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this, but I would ask him to use caution about labelling a party as solely one thing, because it is Conservative party colleagues who led for the conversion therapy ban that has been announced today. When I was elected, no other MP talked about it for seven months, and we have delivered it today. I caution him to please not label all Members on certain sides of the House as transphobic or homophobic, and I also challenge anyone being labelled that in this House.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I will say that there are some very honourable Members on all sides of the House, including the Conservative side, who resisted moves from the Government and who, when trans conversion therapy was removed from that ban, pushed for it to get back in, and their work is to be applauded.
What this report says in reality is that there is no amendment this Government would accept or allow to pass. What this flimsy piece of paper indicates is that the only Bill they would accept is the current UK law, and anything that deviates from it would be blocked. I am afraid that is an undermining of the very concept of devolution. The Government should just be honest, and say that they want to remove the devolved competences in this area from the Scottish Parliament and return them back to Westminster. At least that would be an honest debate, rather than this dog-whistle debate about the safety of children, which, frankly, is not correct.
Of course there will be concerns and of course this Bill will not be perfect—no Bill is perfect—but one of the key principles of my job, and I think of the job of all of us, is not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let us see how this Bill rolls out in Scotland. We could then see the flaws that might come from it, and the Scottish Parliament could have amended it and taken action, because all Bills are living, practical documents.
I say this as a gay man who loves all-male spaces sometimes and finds that the liberation of having such spaces is important—and I am sure that many women feel that the safety of all-women spaces is important to them—but this Bill does not change that law one bit. GRCs exist at the moment, and we already have a system for people to change their passport and their driving licence without a GRC. Going into a toilet, a public facility or a refuge is not contingent on a certificate at all, so all those arguments are bogus, and to continue a bogus argument knowing that it is bogus is, I am afraid, a form of bigotry.