House of Commons
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
May I start by saying that the dream is over, and my commiserations go to Steve Clarke and the Scottish team now that they are out of the Euros? Us Scots will now turn our attention to Wimbledon, where we have won the men’s singles twice in the last eight years. I also congratulate Wales and England on proceeding to the knockout stages of the tournament, and I wish them well in that.
In answer to the question, it is a tragedy that drug deaths in Scotland are the worst in Europe and about four times those of England and Wales. The majority of the levers to tackle drugs misuse are delivered and devolved to the Scottish Government, including health, education, housing and the criminal justice system, but as the First Minister has admitted, they have taken their eye off the ball. The United Kingdom Government are keen to work with the Scottish Government to tackle this scourge, and the Minister for Crime and Policing, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), held a UK-wide summit in Glasgow. He also invited the Scottish Government to be part of a new scheme, Project ADDER, which aims to protect communities from the harm caused by drugs. The Scottish Government have, sadly, so far declined.
Angela Crawley [V]
The Scottish Government intend to open an overdose prevention centre in Glasgow to tackle drug deaths and HIV infection rates. They are prevented from doing so by this Government’s reliance on the out-of-date, ill-fitting drugs legislation, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Ahead of Saturday’s “Support. Don’t Punish” day of action, will the Minister speak with his Cabinet colleagues about the need to reform the Act and support the Scottish Government’s call for an urgent four nations summit on this issue?
Mr Jack
As I said, all home nations have the same tools at their disposal, yet the drug death rate in Scotland is four times higher. There are no plans to introduce drug consumption rooms. The current evidence does not support their use. We do support, however, needle and syringe programmes to prevent blood-borne diseases, and the widening of the availability of naloxone to help prevent overdose deaths.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
I draw the House’s attention to the words of the Prime Minister when he announced the Government’s plans for a public inquiry. He said that we should learn the lessons “as one Team UK” and that the Government
“will consult the devolved Administrations”—[Official Report, 12 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 137.]
about the scope and remit of the public inquiry. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has started the conversations with his devolved counterparts.
Rosie Cooper [V]
The Scottish Government revealed earlier this month that they underspent their budget last year by hundreds of millions of pounds. That is a slap in the face to businesses across Scotland that are struggling without the financial support they need. Does the Minister agree that any future covid inquiry must examine whether the financial support offered to businesses by both Governments was sufficient and whether it actually reached those who needed it?
Iain Stewart
The hon. Lady raises a very fair point. This Government have provided unprecedented levels of support to people and businesses in Scotland. Some of that comes through UK-wide schemes such as furlough, but other money goes as a fund to the Scottish Government for them to distribute, and there are serious questions about whether that money has been used in the most effective way and gone to the people for whom it was intended. I very much hope that will be part of the remit of this inquiry.
Mr Dhesi
One of the greatest tragedies in the coronavirus crisis has been the scale of the outbreak in care homes. I know from personal experience that that has caused untold misery and robbed families across the UK of our loved ones. The brutal reality is that that loss was multiplied because of Scottish Government and UK Government decisions to discharge hundreds of patients into care homes even after they had tested positive for covid-19. Does the Minister agree that any future pandemic inquiry must investigate how the discharge of those patients was ever allowed to happen?
Iain Stewart
I recall that, in a previous exchange, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had suffered some personal family losses as a result of the pandemic, and I again extend my sympathy to him. He raises an important question. I am pretty certain that those matters will be covered by the inquiry. As I say, the discussions to establish its remit and processes are under way. The issue of care homes in Scotland is, of course, a devolved matter for the Scottish Government, but we want this inquiry to be as wide-ranging as possible so that we learn the lessons from the pandemic.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Stevie Clarke and the whole Scotland team on cheering up a nation over the past 10 days or so. As we said in the 1970s, we had a dream. That dream died, unfortunately, last night, and it will now have to wait until Qatar next year for the World cup.
In recent weeks we have heard scathing criticisms from the Prime Minister’s former chief adviser about the UK Government’s covid response, which has no doubt cost many lives. We have even learned that the PM described his Health Secretary as “hopeless”. Most recently, their dither and delay in securing the borders of the UK has resulted in restrictions continuing beyond the initial date. Sadly, the people of Scotland have also been failed by the choices of the Scottish Government. We know from a recent freedom of information reply that the Scottish chief medical officer advised the Scottish Government to say nothing at all in response to the Edinburgh Nike conference outbreak last March. The Scottish public were kept in the dark. These are just some of the major issues, which include the two we have heard about from my hon. Friends this morning. Will the Government agree with calls for an urgent separate Scottish judge-led public inquiry into both Governments’ management of covid-19 in Scotland so that we can learn the lessons of covid and the grieving families can get the answers they so deserve?
Iain Stewart
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s first point about the tartan army, my experience is that while the spirit is often tested it is never broken, and I am sure it will sustain.
I do not think that, at this stage certainly, there is a need for a separate inquiry. We are still at the very early stages of establishing the remit of the UK-wide inquiry, which will cover both reserved and devolved matters. It is important that that inquiry looks at all aspects of the situation. We should also remind ourselves that this is an unprecedented challenge that Governments right across the world have faced. Inevitably, with the benefit of hindsight, different decisions would have been made. We are learning all the time. I do not necessarily accept some of the charges that the hon. Gentleman has made—on borders, for example—but lessons are being learned all the time, and the right place for permanent lessons is from the wide-ranging inquiry that the Prime Minister has promised to set up.
Ian Murray
I am tempted to ask the Minister if he has ever filled any of London’s fountains with Fairy liquid, but that can maybe be kept for private discussion. [Interruption.] Exactly—only for cleansing purposes.
One of the most frustrating elements for many people is the inconsistency of the decisions that have been made. Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has rightly criticised the First Minister both for mimicking the arrogance of the Prime Minister by failing to contact the Manchester authorities before announcing a travel ban and for its inconsistencies. Cases remain lower than they are in Dundee, yet Dundonians can travel all over Scotland while those living in Bolton, for example, are effectively banned from travelling to Scotland at all.
These varying decisions are having a devastating impact on key sectors. Take the wedding sector, for example. Yesterday I was contacted by a constituent whose wedding in Edinburgh is limited to 50 guests but will travel to London the following week to a wedding where guests are unlimited, and she was at the Glasgow fan zone last week with 3,000 other supporters. She is deeply frustrated, and I am sure the Minister can understand her anger. So does he agree that any covid inquiry should examine the consequences that have resulted from the refusal of both Governments to work together?
Iain Stewart
I am happy to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that to the best of my knowledge I have never filled any fountain anywhere with any domestic cleaning product.
Turning to the important points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, the issue between the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the First Minister is clearly not satisfactory, and I would urge them both to come to a very sensible arrangement to allow travel to resume between Scotland and Greater Manchester. The two Governments do work closely together. There are several meetings a week, whether between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the First Minister or the Health Secretary and his counterparts, to discuss all these arrangements. At the end of the day, the Scottish Government have the ability to make their own decisions, but a lot of them are co-ordinated—particularly, at the moment, on the travel corridors. Of course we constantly look at all these decisions and have to make often snap judgments in the face of new evidence, but we do so in a way of co-operation as far as is possible.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
Let me first take this opportunity to thank Department for Work and Pensions staff in Scotland and across the UK who have provided unprecedented levels of support to families during the pandemic. It is a mark of their dedication that the system has coped well with the extra demand that we placed on it.
We take child poverty very seriously. Through the joint ministerial working group on welfare, I regularly discuss welfare matters with Ministers from the Scottish Government and the Department for Work and Pensions. Our most recent meeting included a discussion of the new Scottish child payment, which was delivered through the powers in the Scotland Act 2016.
Alex Cunningham
I join the Minister in paying tribute to DWP staff. Perhaps the Government could respond by giving them a decent pay rise this year. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, over two thirds of children growing up in poverty in Scotland live in a household where someone is actually working. That is a damning indictment of the economy under both the Tories and the SNP—low pay, insecure work and children growing up in poverty. Does the Minister accept that both Governments need a fundamental rethink of their strategy to tackle child poverty?
Iain Stewart
We are putting in considerable support in a whole range of ways, such as through increases in the living wage. One of the challenges of the pandemic is to ensure that new employment opportunities are there, and this Government and the Scottish Government do work well on co-ordinating our various schemes, such as the kickstart process, to make sure that those jobs are secure and sustainable for the future. It is not just about jobs, of course; it is also about issues such as the quality of education. I know there are significant issues with the stewardship of the Scottish education system under the Scottish Government.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Scottish Government recently spoke of making the eradication of child poverty a “national mission”. Those are welcome words, but statistics released last month show that child poverty has risen in every single local authority in Scotland since the Scottish First Minister took office. Indeed, the last national mission for the SNP—there have been plenty—was closing the attainment gap, which the OECD has said will not be possible with the levels of poverty that exist in Scotland.
Of course, it is not just the SNP; the UK Government’s record is appalling, too. More than a decade of Tory government has created a society of low pay, insecure work and pushing families into in-work poverty. Both Governments are failing Scotland’s children. Can the Minister explain now what he is doing to try to resolve the shocking levels of child poverty in Scotland to show that this Tory Government really do care and to actually try to deal with some of the SNP’s failings in Holyrood?
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the OECD report, which came out this week and which I have read. It does contain some very worrying findings. It is yet another reason why the Scottish Government should be focusing on the day job of improving services for people in Scotland, rather than obsessing about constitutional matters. On the wider point he makes about child poverty, throughout this Government’s period in office we have done a huge amount of reform to increase the take-home pay of people at the lower end of the income scale. For example, we have massively increased the personal tax allowance, which allows people to keep more money in their pocket. However, that is just one example; there is much more work to do, and I work regularly with ministerial colleagues across Government looking at the cost of living and what steps we might take to improve matters.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The UK shared prosperity fund will be the successor to EU structural funds, with decisions about how taxpayers’ money is spent being taken in the United Kingdom, rather than in Brussels. The £220 million community renewal fund, for which applications closed last week, will lead us up to publishing the shared prosperity fund prospectus later this year. We look forward to working directly with local authorities in Scotland on applications for the new UK shared prosperity fund. They know best what their communities need. This is real devolution in practice.
Cherilyn Mackrory [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Can he assure me that Scotland and all the other coastal and rural areas of the United Kingdom, including all the way to my constituency in Cornwall, will get their fair share of shared prosperity funding, and will he ensure that the money is distributed in a fairer way, better tailored for our economy?
Mr Jack
The Prime Minister has previously provided assurances that our plans to replace structural funds will at least match the figures of the EU funding. We are confident that will start with the community renewal fund this year, and will lead next year into the UK shared prosperity fund, as I mentioned earlier, in April 2022. That will reach £1.5 billion in total, and I can assure my hon. Friend that her area will be receiving its fair share.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Under the EU structural funding arrangement, the Scottish Government played a role in determining the allocation of that funding. This ensured that funding was allocated based on the democratic choices of the people of Scotland, reflecting the priorities that they voted for. Will the Secretary of State now commit the UK Government to give the devolved Governments a formal say in the delivery of the SPF to ensure that democratic working continues?
Mr Jack
What we are doing is working with all responsible delivery partners in Scotland, as I have said, and the community renewal fund will be an example of real devolution at work. We will be working with local communities and local authorities in ensuring that the projects respond to local wishes and meet local needs.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]
Lasting prosperity requires successful business people and, sadly, my constituency in Scotland lost one of our finest examples on Monday, when Alasdair Houston, the entrepreneurial chairman of the Gretna Green Group and a leading figure in Scottish tourism and agriculture, lost his long battle with cancer at the age of only 59. Alasdair will be remembered not just for his own zest for life and the transformational impact he had on his own businesses in the Gretna area, but for his passion for the Star of Caledonia, an iconic environmental structure being built on the Scotland-England border that will surely be his lasting legacy. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our friend Alasdair’s many achievements, but will he also agree that, whatever form the shared prosperity fund takes, it should reflect his spirit and support inspirational projects such as the Star?
Mr Jack
I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to my close friend Alasdair Houston, and I send my deep sympathies to his family. Ali was a proud Scot, a lover of Dumfries and Galloway, and a formidable champion for Gretna, his home town, and the Star of Caledonia would be a very fitting tribute to him. He will be missed by many.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
I and other UK Government Ministers are in regular contact with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to try to secure the harmonisation particularly of covid-19 guidance when it comes to regulations on international travel, while at the same time of course respecting devolved competence in matters such as public health.
Wendy Chamberlain
Golf tourism plays a major part in the local economy of North East Fife, particularly as St Andrews is the home of golf. There is a whole ecosystem built up around golf tourism, including accommodation, hospitality and inbound tour operators. The majority of these tourists come from north America and then travel to other golf courses around the UK, and there are concerns about the incoherent travel rules between the four nations and restrictions within the four nations deterring those visitors. Can I therefore ask the Minister to outline what steps he is taking to reach consensus, particularly in relation to the US?
David Duguid
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is pertinent not just for golf tourism but for whisky tourism and tourism in general across Scotland. The UK Government are committed to full alignment with the devolved Administrations, because we recognise the importance of such alignment for public compliance, as well as for business confidence and for tourism. We share the data, and we have created the structures to make that happen. However, we also respect the right of the devolved Administrations to make their own decisions on devolved matters. Thankfully, the differences in the exemptions, particularly for international travel, are not currently that material and can be justified as legitimate differences, but I do take on board the comments she made about golf tourism specifically.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This morning we heard that as a direct result of the baffling and inconsistent travel ban placed on Scots going to Greater Manchester, easyJet has cancelled its newly announced route from Aberdeen to Manchester, putting at risk many jobs in north-east Scotland. What work is being done, and may I beg the Minister and the Scotland Office to ensure that in the reopening of international travel, the same rules and regulations will apply around the entirety of the UK, instead of leaving the Scottish aviation sector and the thousands of people it employs at the mercy of a Scottish Government who have completely abandoned them?
David Duguid
My hon. Friend and I share a lot in common, not least the regular use of Aberdeen airport, to which he refers, and the fact that we both have wives who were not born in this country and unfortunately have not been able to visit their families for the last year and a half. That aside, on the specific issue about easyJet and the flight to Manchester, it has made a commercial decision, announced today, in response to the Scottish Government’s decision to regulate to prohibit travel to Manchester. The Scottish Government decision has been widely criticised as disproportionate; clearly Scottish Government Ministers will be keeping travel regulations under constant review, and there are calls for this regulation in particular to be reviewed in closer consultation with all interested parties. The Scotland Office would be happy to facilitate that, if helpful.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
UK Government Ministers talk about a single approach, but, if we cast our minds back just a couple of months ago, travellers from India into Scotland faced managed hotel quarantine whereas the same travellers into England did not, and the consequences of that inaction are clear for all to see with the delta variant now dominant right across the UK. So I ask the Minister, does he regret the damage caused to Scotland’s covid-19 recovery as a result of his Government’s failure to follow Scotland’s lead?
David Duguid
What I regret, particularly considering the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, is that the Scottish Government did not, despite the repeated calls from the oil and gas industry, from MSPs, and from MPs who, like him, represent constituencies in the north-east of Scotland, give the same allowance for oil and gas workers from amber list countries that was allowed to them by the rest of the UK.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The value and strength of the Union has never been more important or more apparent. The United Kingdom Government have supported all parts of the UK during the pandemic; that includes the furlough scheme, which at its peak supported nearly 1 million jobs in Scotland, the help of our fantastic military, and the UK-wide vaccination programme which means we can now see light at the end of the tunnel. The UK Government will lead our recovery from the pandemic, investing in communities right across the United Kingdom, getting young people into jobs and improving connectivity between all parts of our country.
Mark Fletcher
The UK Government have been unwavering in supporting Scotland through the pandemic, from providing £14.5 billion in additional Barnett funding to protecting nearly 900,000 jobs through our furlough scheme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows how the UK Government and the Treasury have protected lives and livelihoods across every part of this country?
Mr Jack
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The support provided by the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom Treasury is staggering and simply unprecedented in peacetime. As he said, there are jobs being supported by furlough and an extra £14.5 billion provided to the Scottish Government through Barnett funding, and I would point out that 530,000 claims have been made in Scotland under the self-employment income support scheme, so far totalling around £1.5 billion.
Mr Harper
Is it not the case that the success of our vaccine programme, which was a combination of successful UK Government procurement and then an NHS roll-out in the individual nations of the United Kingdom, is a fantastic example of the two Governments in Scotland—the UK Government and the Scottish Government—working together, which is exactly what we should see in the future? That demonstrates the strength of our Union, and we should fight to keep it in place.
Peter Gibson [V]
The A68 links Darlington with Edinburgh and serves as an economic and cultural link between England and Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be celebrating and strengthening connections between our two nations, and will he lend his support to the proposed improvements to the artery in my constituency as a means of strengthening our precious Union?
Mr Jack
Yes, and Darlington has also been supporting the Scottish football team over the last few weeks. It is vital that we have good connectivity between all parts of the United Kingdom. Sir Peter Hendy, in his review, is looking at how we can improve that, and he will publish his report later this year, but I must say—I put it on the record again—that I was disappointed that the Scottish Government told their civil service not to engage in this work because, as ever, they want to put a grievance ahead of improving Scotland’s economy.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) successfully pursued a two-year campaign calling on this Government to publish the results of the secret polling that they commissioned, using public funds, to ask people in Scotland how they feel about the Union. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that information will be published in the next three weeks, as the tribunal has ordered the UK Government to do?
Mhairi Black
I will move on from that rather bizarre answer. Today, we learned that the UK Government have used emergency covid funds to publicly fund further polls on the Union, in a contract given to close associates of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Would the Secretary of State say that that is an appropriate use of emergency funds, and will he back the SNP’s calls for an inquiry into this misuse of funds?
Mr Jack
Again, I say that the hon. Lady should be at Cabinet Office questions asking the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to answer for his Department. Again, I have spoken to the Cabinet Office about this. It does not engage in political polling, and it is very clear about that.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It seems to me that this Government’s plan to strengthen the Union is to first sell out the fishing industry and then betray Scotland’s farmers. Can the Secretary of State explain how the Australia trade deal, which allows the UK market to be flooded with thousands of tonnes of cheap, factory- farmed, inferior-quality beef and lamb, is the golden opportunity the Prime Minister promised? How will it help Scottish farmers’ business?
Mr Jack
I am going to answer the question very clearly. The SNP voted against or abstained on all trade deals in the European Parliament and the one we have just done with the European Union. It is an isolationist party. The reality on the Australia trade deal is that it is upholding animal welfare standards. Under the World Organisation for Animal Health, Australia gets five out of five. We have safeguards in place to stop the market being flooded with beef or any collapse in price. We are very clear that we will protect our farmers, and this leads us into the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, worth £9 trillion. That will be a huge win for our farmers, and all the members of the farming community I have spoken to understand that. The SNP should see the big picture and understand that we are not going to reduce our animal welfare standards, that we are not going to flood the market, and that it will be seen very clearly in a few years’ time to have cried wolf.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Before we get under way, I point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of Prime Minister’s questions is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Today marks five years since this country voted to leave the European Union. It has allowed us to take back control of the issues that matter to the people of the United Kingdom. It has given us the freedom to establish eight freeports across the country, driving new investment; to develop the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe; to protect and invest in jobs and renewal across every part of the UK; to control our immigration system, and to sign an historic trade deal with Australia. It will allow us to shape a better future for our people. Over 5.6 million EU citizens have already applied to our EU settlement scheme, and I would encourage anyone who may still be eligible to apply ahead of the deadline next week.
This week is Armed Forces Week, and I am sure that colleagues from across the House will wish to join me in thanking our fantastic armed forces and their families for their service to our country.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
John Stevenson
Prime Minister, we are to host COP26. Our goal is net zero by 2050. To achieve that target will require innovative policies and a free market approach would help. Therefore, if we were to make solar panels compulsory for all new residential builds, we immediately create a large market. It will lead to innovation, lower prices, job creation and contribute towards our 2050 target. Will the Prime Minister support such a policy initiative?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion which I will certainly look into, though I should caution that some homes do not have enough space on their roof or indeed have their roofs angled in the right way to make solar panels viable. What we are already doing is tightening our standards to ensure that new homes produce at least 75% lower carbon dioxide emissions compared to current standards, on our way to net zero by 2050.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Why, under this Government, has the number of rape convictions and prosecutions fallen to a record low?
The Prime Minister
One of the first things I said when I came to the Dispatch Box as Prime Minister was that I thought that rape prosecutions and convictions were too low. That is why we have the end-to-end rape review, that is why we have been investing in independent sexual violence advisers and domestic violence advisers—another £27 million—and that is why we have been investing more in the Crown Prosecution Service, with another £85 million. We are also dealing with the misery experienced by rape victims and survivors who have to hand over their mobile phones, which I think has been one of the evidential problems that has arisen in prosecuting rape cases. What we have also been doing is imposing tougher sentences for serious sexual and violent offences. It would have been good to have some support in that from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and from those on the Opposition Benches.
Keir Starmer
We all agree that the figures are appalling. The question is why. The Government’s own review makes it clear that rape convictions and prosecutions have halved since 2016—halved. We know that that is nothing to do with the pandemic, because this is a five-year trend and we know it is not because there are fewer rape cases being reported, because that number has gone up significantly, so let me return to the question that the Prime Minister has not answered: why does the Prime Minister think that rape prosecutions and convictions have plummeted on his watch?
The Prime Minister
Because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well because he has some experience of this matter, there are considerable evidential problems, particularly in recovering data from mobile phones, and that has been an obstacle to the speedy preparation of cases. Too often, let us be frank, cases go from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service not in a fit state. Too often, those cases are not in a fit state when they come to court and there is not a good enough join up across the criminal justice system. That is exactly what we are addressing by our investment and with our end-to-end rape review. What would be good, Mr Speaker, is if we had some support from the Opposition for tougher sentences for rapists and serious sexual offenders. What kind of a signal does it send when they will not even back tougher sentences?
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister knows very well why we voted against his Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: precisely because it did more to protect statues than women. But since he has brought it up, let us address the central question. Prime Minister, 98.4% of reported rapes do not end up in a charge—98.4%—and therefore the question of sentence never arises in those cases. Since he has brought up the Bill—it is his main defence, it seems—can he point to what provision, what clause, what chapter, what part of that Bill will do anything to change the fact that 98.4% of reported rape cases do not end in charges and do not get to sentence? Which clause, part, chapter or words in that Bill? Point to one thing.
The Prime Minister
Let me point to sections 106 and 107 of that Bill, which Labour voted down, which would have stopped the early release of rapists at the halfway point of their sentences. What kind of signal or message does that send to people who commit crimes of rape? It is very important that the message should go out from this House of Commons that we will not tolerate serious sexual violence. I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been supporting that message.
What we are doing now is bringing forward measures by investing in independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers to ensure that victims and survivors of the crime of rape have people in whom they can confide and trust throughout that miserable period when they are in the criminal justice system. Another thing we are doing is recruiting record numbers of police officers, and I am proud to say that 40% of our new recruits are female, which I believe will be of great consolation and use to those who are victims and survivors of rape.
Keir Starmer
What an appalling answer. I asked the Prime Minister why 98.4% of cases are not getting into the system and he talks about sentence. That is the problem. If he thinks that is the answer, that is why we have got these terrible rates of conviction and of prosecution. The answer is: there is nothing in that Bill. The truth is, victims of rape are being failed. Those are not just my words; they are in the Government’s own report:
“Victims of rape are being failed.”
There is no escaping that appalling figure: 98.4% of rape cases ending without anybody being charged, and those that do get into the system take years to go through. Does the Prime Minister accept that cuts to the criminal justice system have contributed to that appalling situation?
The Prime Minister
No, because we have increased the numbers of people in the CPS by at least 200, and they are specifically dedicated to helping to prosecute the crime of rape and sexual violence. We are absolutely determined to stamp it out. This is a problem that has been getting worse because of the evidential difficulties caused by the data recovery process and a lack of unity and joined-up thinking between all parts of the criminal justice system. That is something that the Government are now addressing by more investment, by putting more police out on the street and by having tougher sentences. Finally, it would be good to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman support it.
Keir Starmer
I spent five years as Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecuting thousands of rape cases. I do not need lectures, but I do know the impact of cuts in our criminal justice service. The Government cannot make significant cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service, 25% cuts to the Ministry of Justice, close half the courts in England and Wales and now pretend that a small budget increase will solve the problem.
This is about more than just cuts. The rape review is welcome, but it is weak. The Government’s Victims’ Commissioner described the review as “underwhelming” and said it could have been “10 times stronger”. That review is littered with pilots and consultations on proposals that have literally been discussed for years and years. It is so unambitious. Is it not the case that despite these shameful figures—they are shameful—the Government are still not showing the urgency needed to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls?
The Prime Minister
No, because we have also brought in the landmark domestic violence Bill—again, it would have been good if we had had wholehearted support from the Labour party—and no, because the Government have brought in much tougher sentences for serious sexual and violent offenders. No matter how much the right hon. and learned Gentleman wriggles and squirms, he cannot get away from the simple fact that, on a three-line Whip, he got his party to vote against tougher sentences for serious sexual and violent offenders. That is weak.
Keir Starmer
You can always tell when he is losing, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is a very, very emotive and important issue and I need to hear the question and the answers. I certainly do not expect shouting from the Back Benches.
Keir Starmer
On the Prime Minister’s watch, rape prosecutions and convictions are at a record low, court backlogs are at a record high, victims are waiting longer for justice and criminals are getting away with it. This was not inevitable; it is the cost of a decade of Conservative cuts. Even now, the Government are not showing the urgency and ambition that is needed. The Justice Secretary has done the rarest of things for this Government and apologised, but I note that the Prime Minister has not done that today. It is time that he did—that he took some responsibility and backed it up with action. Will he do so?
The Prime Minister
As I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and I fought to have tougher action against rapists and sexual offenders throughout my time as Mayor of London; and, of course, to all the victims of rape and sexual violence, all the victims and survivors, of course I say sorry for the trauma that they have been through, the frustration that they go through because of the inadequacies of the criminal justice system. We are fixing that. We are fixing that by investing another £1 billion in clearing the court backlogs and ensuring that they have people that they can listen to and trust who will help them through the trials of the criminal justice experience. But above all, we are helping them by getting our courts moving again. The fastest, most efficient way to do that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is to get our country moving again, which is what we are doing with the fastest vaccination roll-out anywhere in Europe. We are getting on with the job. They jabber, we jab. They dither, we deliver. They vacillate and we vaccinate.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The levelling-up fund has the potential to do massive good for Calderdale, and indeed the whole country, and I hope that Calderdale Council has listened to his strictures this afternoon and will act.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
This morning, The Herald newspaper revealed that, in the middle of a pandemic, Tory Ministers secretly directed funds from an emergency covid contract to carry out polling on the Union. This evidence was uncovered in official documents submitted to the High Court, so the Prime Minister would be well advised to be very careful in his answer to this question. And it is a very simple question: did the UK Government use a £560,000 emergency covid contract to conduct constitutional campaigning on the Union?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid I am not aware of the contract to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but what I can tell him is that I think that the Union, and the benefits of the Union, have been incalculable throughout the covid pandemic, and that for the vaccine roll-out, which I just mentioned to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), vaccines have been pioneered in Scotland, brewed in Oxford, bottled in Wales and rolled out throughout the UK. I think it is a tribute to the Union that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) seeks to undermine.
Ian Blackford
The Prime Minister has just demonstrated, not for the first time, that he has not got a clue. The answer to the question is yes. Whether it is redecorating the Downing Street flat or siphoning off covid funds for political campaigning, the pattern is clear: the Tories simply can’t be trusted. Let us be very clear as to what happened here: these emergency covid contracts were supposed to be used for things like personal protective equipment for our brave doctors and for nurses fighting covid. Instead, during the height of this deadly pandemic, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster used these emergency contracts to commission political research on—and I quote—
“attitudes to the UK Union.”
What is worse, he handed these lucrative contracts to long-term friends and former employees. In essence, this was a UK Government contract that sanctioned corrupt campaigning, Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister has even a shred of credibility, will he now commit to a full public inquiry on this gross misuse of public funds?
The Prime Minister
I cannot think of a better use of public funds than making sure that the whole of the UK fights the covid pandemic together, and that is what we are doing. Thanks to the UK Treasury, we were able to spend £407 billion supporting jobs and families in Scotland. We were able to use the British Army to send vaccines throughout the whole of the UK. I believe that the story of this last two years has shown the incalculable value of our Union and the strength of our Union, and that we are better together.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I have fond memories of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency and using an electric taxi. They thought that was impossible 15 years ago, but we got it done and we will make sure that his constituency and constituencies across the country are in the lead in building new electric vehicles for this country and for the world.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
In Chesham and Amersham, several people told me how they struggle week in, week out to care for family loved ones while trying to hold down a job. They told me that they felt the Prime Minister was not interested in them, that he was not listening to them and that he did not care about them. Such inspiring working family carers are not unique to Chesham and Amersham. There are thousands in every constituency—no doubt in every seat across the so-called Conservative heartlands—with an estimated 7 million people juggling unpaid care and jobs last year. What is the Prime Minister going to do to make these people’s lives a little bit easier? When is he going to stop taking working family carers for granted?
The Prime Minister
I salute working family carers and people who look after loved ones, as they have done throughout the pandemic. What we have tried to do, as I have just said, is to look after families through the last 18 months to the best of this country’s ability, supporting them with furlough and with all sorts of schemes, in addition to putting unprecedented sums into social care. But there is nothing any Government could do, and there are no words that I could express, that would be enough to requite the care and love that is given by family carers to those they look after.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a point that has been raised repeatedly with me in Cornwall, and we are absolutely determined to address the issue in question and to work with Linda Taylor, the leader of the newly Conservative Cornwall Council, to ensure that we build local homes for local people so that young people growing up in Cornwall have the chance of owning their own home.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I was shocked and amazed to hear that computers were literally being sent to landfill in the way the hon. Lady describes, and I think the whole House would agree that the practice is bizarre and unacceptable. I am sure Amazon will wish to rectify it as fast as possible, but one thing that we are doing—to get to her second point—is ensuring that tech giants and other companies pay their fair share of tax on their sales within this country, thanks to the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor struck at the G7.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Department for Transport’s review is looking at the design and construction of the Aylesbury spur, but I have to caution that the cost of construction of that spur is currently very high and we need to look at the numbers to ensure that they come down. I hope he may be helpful in that matter.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am seldom away from Scotland and cannot wait to be back there as soon as possible, after the record poll secured by Scottish Conservatives at the recent election. Yet again we hear this abuse of Australia, which has high animal welfare standards, and a negative attitude to the opportunities that free trade offers this country and the people of Scotland. When is the hon. Gentleman going to stop running down Scottish agriculture and the potential of Scottish farming?
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise the issue of the appalling murder in Swadlincote. We are making sure with our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that such crimes are dealt with in a more expeditious way, with greater powers for the police. As I say, we are also recruiting 20,000 more police, including, she will be pleased to know, an additional 85 in Derbyshire.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
The EU settlement scheme has been one of the great successes of our recent Brexit negotiations, and it has produced 5.6 million applications already; I seem to remember that we were told there were only 3.2 million or 3 million to begin with. Everybody knows what the deadline is. I hope people will come forward and do what 5.6 million other people have already done.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Prime Minister
BT Openreach recently extended its offer of commercial coverage for gigabit broadband to services in my hon. Friend’s area—in the community that he mentions—and that is partly because of the super deduction in taxation in respect of investment that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced recently at the Budget.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
For the sake of brevity, I think I can say absolutely nothing.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to review the recent Foreign Office announcement that Britain is to cut its support for tackling neglected tropical diseases by a staggering 95%? That will not only write off quite a considerable investment by British taxpayers in this important work, but mean that 280 million drugs, tablets and vaccines will have to be written off and burned or destroyed. Does he know that the World Health Organisation has said that this one act will lead to the maiming, the blinding, the disruption of the lives and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?
Will my right hon. Friend accept and respect the statement that Mr Speaker made from his Chair on Monday 7 June, when he said that there must be a meaningful vote in this House on this matter? Will my right hon. Friend see whether such a vote can be brought forward before the end of term and the summer recess? If not, will he ensure that the 0.7% commitment is brought back from the start of next year?
The Prime Minister
I am told by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there will be an estimates day debate on overseas aid, but I must say that I just do not accept the characterisation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—for all his expertise and learning in this matter—has just given of this country and our contribution to the fight against disease around the world. In spite of all the difficulties we face, we are contributing £10 billion in official development assistance this year—in spite of the colossal expenditure that the British state has been forced to make to look after jobs and families around the country. In addition to that, we are spending £1.6 billion on supporting COVAX and £458 million on supporting Gavi. Colleagues should remember that one in three of the COVAX vaccines that are, as my right hon. Friend knows, saving lives around the world is the direct result of the actions of the UK Government. The people of this country should be very proud of what we are achieving.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I accept the injustice that was done to the Windrush generation and renew the apologies on behalf of the Government for our share of responsibility. Yes, I do want to make sure that the compensation scheme is accelerated; I spoke to the people responsible for distributing it just the other night. I also said—I hope the House would agree—that I hope that in due time the name Windrush will be associated not just with that injustice, though it was appalling, but with the amazing contribution, sacrifice and effort of the Windrush generation to this country, that Windrush is a positive name for the people of this country, and that, indeed, Windrush is regarded as the Mayflower of our country.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of gigabit broadband. That is why the coverage has gone up, just since I have been Prime Minister, I think from 9% of our country to 60% this year. We hope to get up to 100% in the course of the next few years. I cannot agree with her, however, about HS2. The House did vote for it. It has the potential to do a massive amount of good in levelling up across the whole UK. Indeed, I think even the Liberal Democrats voted for it—I see the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) there—although you would not think it to judge from some of their recent campaigns, would you, Mr Speaker? But that is the thing about the Liberal Democrats: they can vote for one thing, then say another when it comes to elections.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
When the covid-19 pandemic exploded, scientists warned that with rapid transmission more dangerous variants would emerge and that vaccines could lose efficacy in the face of mutations. Now variant upon variant has sparked surge testing, further lockdowns and the recent delay to the end of restrictions, with 41 people already reported to have the more virulent delta-plus variant. The Prime Minister held his vaccine donation as putting people squarely above profit, but that is lousy in the face of the fact that intellectual property is driving global supply shortages. Does he therefore understand why it is no use for the G7 to promise 1 billion doses at some point in the future when people are dying now, and when the success of our vaccination programme is under threat from emerging variants now? Will he reconsider his negligible vaccine donation policy and join over 100 countries in supporting the vaccine intellectual property waiver?
The Prime Minister
I really think it is satirical to say that the G7’s efforts have so far been negligible. What the G7 agreed at Carbis Bay was another billion, on top of the billion that has already been contributed. The UK is putting in, as the hon. Lady knows, another 100 million up to June next year. As for the points she makes about variants and vaccines, she should know that all the advice we have at present is that the vaccines are effective against all the variants that we can currently see.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. What we want to ensure— [Interruption.] Yes, because I will not have this misrepresented by the Liberal Democrats in the way that they do. I will not have it misrepresented by anybody, because what we want to do is ensure that we give young people in this country the chance of home ownership, which the Labour party would ruthlessly deny them. What we want to do, by our levelling-up agenda, is to help young people across the country and to make sure, by the way, that we relieve pressure on the overheating south-east and ensure that we build back better across the whole UK. That is the objective of our planning Bill.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Social Care Reform
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call Liz Kendall to ask the urgent question, I want to wish Helen a very happy birthday. It is a delight to be able to do so.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the Government’s plans for social care reform.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and for giving me the opportunity to talk about social care reform. I start by paying tribute to carers, paid and unpaid, for all they do in looking after people in their homes and in care homes every single day with kindness and compassion. To any who may happen to be watching or listening today, I say “Thank you for what you do.”
Over the past year in government, we have rightly focused on supporting social care through the pandemic. This has included an extra £1.8 billion of funding, sending more than 2 billion items of free personal protective equipment to care providers, distributing more than 120 million covid tests to social care and vaccinating hundreds of thousands of care home residents and most of the care workforce.
While the pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to social care, it has also strengthened the argument for reform, and we now have the opportunity to build back better in social care. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a care system for the future, and I am hugely ambitious. I want a care system in which we can be confident, for our grans and grandads, mums and dads, brothers and sisters, children and grandchildren and, indeed, ourselves. I want people to be able to get the care that they need when they need it, and to have choices—to live life to the full in the way they want, living independently and part of a community for as long as possible, without facing an astronomical bill.
I want to join up health and care around people, so that it works as one system dedicated to meeting the needs of individuals, and giving them the personal care they want and need to live their lives to the full. I want the care workforce to be properly recognised and valued for what they do—for their skills, their compassion and their commitment. I want them to have more training, more opportunities and more prospects for career progression. I am committed to supporting unpaid carers not only in the care they provide, but with their own health and well-being, so that they can live their own lives as well as caring for others.
We are already taking steps on the road to reform. The health and care Bill will introduce Care Quality Commission oversight of local authorities’ provision of social care. It will also help to join up health and social care by putting integrated care systems on a statutory footing. We are working on our long-term plan for social care, and we will bring forward our proposals for social care reform later this year.
Liz Kendall
It has been 100 weeks since the Prime Minister promised to
“fix the crisis in social care”
with a plan he had already prepared, to give people the dignity and security they deserve. Since then, almost 42,000 care home residents have died from covid-19. Two million people have applied for support but have had their requests refused, and tens of thousands have had to sell their homes to pay for care. Families have hit breaking point, and staff have been appallingly let down. Even after all the horrors of the pandemic, nine out of 10 councils say that they face care budget cuts this year.
This week, we learned that Ministers cannot even be bothered to have a meeting to finally come up with the goods. That is not delivering dignity; it is abdicating responsibility, so can I try again with the Minister? When precisely will we see the Government’s plan? A vague commitment to some time later this year will not convince anyone, after all the delays and broken promises. Will the plan include a cap on care costs, so people’s life savings are not wiped out? That has been repeatedly promised and was legislated for seven years ago, but it has still not been delivered. Will there be proper proposals for people with disabilities, who make up a third of the users and half the budget for social care, but have been entirely absent from the debate? Where is the decent workforce plan to ensure that frontline carers get the pay and conditions they deserve, and that we end endemic staff shortages? Will unpaid family carers finally get the help they need, so that their own health does not suffer and they are not forced to choose between holding down a job and caring for the people they love?
In the century of ageing, we cannot build back a better future for Britain without a decent system for social care. This is as much a part of our infrastructure as the roads and railways are. Our country urgently needs a plan. The time for excuses is over. When will the Government deliver?
Helen Whately
Of course we have focused on supporting social care through the pandemic over the past 18 months; that absolutely had to be the right thing to do when facing an unprecedented challenge. During the pandemic we not only supported social care, including, as I said, over £1.8 billion of extra funding direct to the care sector, but supported local authorities with over £6 billion of extra funding. But yes, we are determined to bring forward proposals for social care reform. We have been absolutely clear that we shall do that. The hon. Lady asked about particular meetings. Actually, the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister talk about social care reform all the time. In fact, I spoke to the Prime Minister only last week about social care reform. These are complex matters. The hon. Lady will know that nearly 25 years ago, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair said that we needed reform of social care, but during the 13 years of Labour government, was there a plan for social care reform? No, there was not. We are the Government who are going to bring forward social care reforms. I would welcome her support for that. We are a Government who deliver. We have delivered Brexit, we are delivering vaccinations at a phenomenal pace, and we will deliver social care reform.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I know that the Minister is working hard behind the scenes to get a resolution to these issues, and I thank her for her efforts to do that. Does she agree that the NHS will fail in its objective to deal with the covid backlog if the social care system continues to export its most vulnerable patients to our hospitals, filling up hospital beds that cannot then be used to deal with the enormous backlog of cancer and other operations that we have? Does she also agree that the founding principle of the NHS—that no matter who you are, rich, poor, young or old, you should be able to access the care you need—is fundamentally undermined by the way we treat people with dementia, whereby people who are wealthy are able to pay expensive care home fees but people of limited means find that they are cleaned out of absolutely everything when a loved one gets dementia?
Helen Whately
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for our determination to reform social care. He makes an important point that we have to look at the NHS and social care together as the two parts of the system affect each other. That is one important reason why the health and care Bill needs to improve the join-up between health and social care. On his point about dementia, it is true that some people who suffer from dementia need care for very many years and this is extremely costly. That is one of the things we want to address as part of our social care reforms.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is noticeable that while the UK Tory Government failed to mention social care reform in last month’s Queen’s Speech and have yet to deliver the long-awaited social care Bill, by contrast, under limited devolution, the SNP Government are establishing a national care service backed by a 25% increase in social care investment. What lessons has the Minister learned from this Scottish example? What recent consideration have the UK Government given to exempting the Scottish Government’s £500 thank-you payment for health and social care staff from tax and benefit deductions? As the settled status deadline fast approaches, the SNP is calling on the UK Government to automatically grant post-Brexit residence status to prevent a cliff edge for EU nationals and a black hole in Scotland’s care sector. Will the Minister urgently discuss this with Cabinet colleagues?
Helen Whately
The Queen’s Speech reiterated our commitment to reform of social care, and that commitment has been reiterated many times by the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary. On the hon. Gentleman’s question about looking at other systems, of course we look and learn. We look at what works across and within England and around the UK, and in fact around the world. This is a complex thing to achieve and we are determined that we will bring forward our ambitious plans for social care reform later this year.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
My interests are in the register.
I was delighted to hear the Minister confirm that the reform announcements will come later this year, and obviously a centrepiece of that will be the key question of how we get significantly more money into the social care system. But can she guarantee that the proposals will cover issues such as workforce planning, the need for changes in the housing stock to enable people to live in their own homes for much longer than they can at the moment, and the use of technology to ease their daily burden, all of which are essential for a sustainable and civilised social care system?
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the breadth of the reform that is needed. I can confirm that we are looking at how we can support the workforce further, including by raising skills and improving training opportunities and career progression, and how technology can be used to support better care and more independence as well as providing more time for the workforce to do personal care rather than administration. On housing, most people want to live behind their own front door for as long as possible, surrounded by their own things and in their own communities, so that is also absolutely part of our reform.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
New analysis for the Care and Support Alliance found that since the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street some two years ago and promised to
“fix…social care once and for all”,
2 million requests for formal care and support from adults over 18 have been turned down by their local council; that is the equivalent of 3,000 requests being turned down every day, putting immense pressure on unpaid carers as well as the NHS. This shows the human cost of dither and delay, so will Ministers stop their internal spats and off-the-record briefings and commence cross-party talks immediately with the sector so that we can fix this issue?
Helen Whately
We have of course had to focus on the pandemic over the last 18 months, but we are already working on reform. We are already consulting widely with the sector; I and the Department have together met and spoken to more than 70 different organisations and representatives of the care sector, from care providers to local authorities, and including care users and carers themselves. We will be working with this broad range of people, including parliamentarians; we need to build a consensus not only across Parliament but in society as a whole for our social care reforms.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Over the past couple of years I have spoken to many families across the Bolsover constituency who are affected by social care and all the challenges that we know the sector and those who work in it face. Does my hon. Friend agree that this should not be a matter of party political point scoring and that what we need is a sustainable solution? Will she commit to delivering that solution this year so that we can have a social care sector that is fit for purpose for many years to come?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is clearly having conversations in his constituency, and he makes an important point about the scale and number of people who have involvement in the care system. There are over 1.4 million people who receive care, over 1.6 million people in the care workforce, and over 5 million unpaid or family carers. The scale is huge and is growing as more people need care. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is not a party political issue; we need to come together and build a consensus across Parliament, but also across society as a whole—and, yes, we will bring forward proposals for reform later this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement today on social care reform. An issue close to my heart is support for carers in the form of respite; in particular we have generations of young carers who need a break after the isolation of the pandemic. Will the Minister commit to making funding available specifically to provide respite overnights for carers who carry out their activities 24/7 and need support more than ever right now?
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about respite for carers. Being a carer is hard and back-up support and respite services help make it more possible, but frustratingly, during the pandemic many of those services have not been able to function as normal. I am currently working with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers to help local authorities across England ensure that day services and respite care are fully restarted as that is very important, and I would like to see that across the whole of the UK.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I appreciate this is very difficult for the Minister, because until we actually know what the Government’s proposals are, she is answering questions based on assumptions and guesswork, but she will know that the main concerns of families are twofold: that they get adequate care; and that they will not have to sell their family home to provide that care. What assurance can she give that the Government will take into account the fact that people want to hold on to their family home? On the assumption that the value of assets will play some part in whatever formula we come up with, what account will be taken of the vast difference in prices of property in London compared with, for example, Cleethorpes?
Helen Whately
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I am not drawn on the assumption point that he made in the second part of his question, but what I can say to him is that the Prime Minister has been clear that he wants a social care system where no one needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
On Friday I met my constituent Phil, whose mother, given the state of her dementia, has gone to into a care home. The day before I met my constituent Denise, who is trying to keep her mum, who has Alzheimer’s, in her own home. I think they are pretty typical of most of our constituents, because in addition to the cost issue, they are dealing with the complexity of a system they do not have experience of, as well as trying to get the right quality of care. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the issues of cost, complexity and quality of care will all be dealt with in the reform proposals?
Helen Whately
Yes, I absolutely can. We know that cost is a real problem, but there is also a real variation in quality of care. In fact, we are already taking steps on that. That is one reason why the health and social care Bill introduces an assurance or oversight system of the provision of care commissioned by local authorities. Yes, the breadth of the issues that my hon. Friend refers to is being considered in our reform proposals.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
The 2018 Equality and Human Rights Commission report, “Housing and disabled people: Britain’s hidden crisis”, found that disabled people in the UK were not getting the support they needed to live independently. Three years on, we still have not seen any sign of the national strategy for disabled people which was promised this spring. Does the Minister agree that that is long overdue, and can she tell the House what her Government are currently doing to support people to go into independent living?
Helen Whately
One thing I am very aware of is that often the debate about social care reform is a lot about care for older people, but that we should also make sure we are thinking at least as much about care for those of working age with disabilities. I and the Government certainly do think about that. We are working on the national disabled strategy, which I have contributed to. It will be coming forward shortly.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Fed at Heathlands Village in my constituency is an amazing example of what care can and ultimately should look like, so I want to start by extending an invitation to the Minister to walk around The Fed with me to see what services really should look like. What can we do to ensure that The Fed is not just a torchbearer, but the norm?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation. I do my utmost to get out and about—at the moment, mainly virtually—but I am looking forward to being able to go on more visits in the weeks and months ahead. Absolutely, what I want to see is a high standard of care available for everybody across the whole country.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is nearly two years since the Prime Minister promised to fix social care. In the intervening period, we have had the false promise that there was a ring of protection around social care homes. The Government’s treatment of people in care homes, their families and the workers in that field of public service is appalling. This is a highly politically charged issue. We tried to fix it when we were in government and were attacked by the Opposition. The Government have had a similar experience. The only way forward on this is for the Government to have cross-party talks on how we find a solution to this problem. Will she commit to doing that?
Helen Whately
I would just remind the hon. Gentleman of the unprecedented level of support we have given to the social care sector during the pandemic, as I mentioned a moment ago. I know it has been extremely hard, but that is why we provided over £1.8 billion-worth of funding, free personal protective equipment, access to testing, and, of course, priority in the vaccination roll-out. On his point about needing to build a consensus around social care reform, I am already talking to parliamentarians across parties. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I had a really helpful session with the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues across the House.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
Will the Minister ensure that quality of care for the person needing it is central to the review? Can we learn lessons over the safe discharge of people from hospital into care settings? Will the NHS ensure that in future GP and nursing care, where needed, is available to support those patients on discharge?
Helen Whately
One thing I will say is that during the pandemic GPs and primary care in general have really stepped up to support those in care homes in particular, with every care home having a point of contact in primary care to ensure the support from GPs that those residents require. Yes, quality is at the centre of our proposals for social care reform.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
We all know that commissioning in social care is broken. The price paid for care is too low, the wages paid to carers are too small and there is a lack of training and professional development for carers. I would like the Minister to address the issue of home care being commissioned by the minute—it is the only publicly funded service commissioned or measured by time. Will the social care plans address that? She could do worse than look at the GMB’s ethical care commissioning charter to see a way forward.
Helen Whately
Some really interesting and important work has been done on commissioning, looking at the outcomes of care rather than being so focused on inputs, which sometimes leads to the situation described by the hon. Member. One of the opportunities of the oversight system that we propose through the health and care Bill is that it will shine a light on the different ways in which local authorities commission care and give more visibility to what works. Those ways of commissioning that do not lead to such good outcomes can therefore learn from others. We look forward to seeing an improvement in how care is commissioned and, therefore, the care that people receive.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Fixing our social care system is the biggest long-term challenge facing the country. However, for all the scale and complexity of the issue, fundamentally it comes down to money. We must find a way to fund our social care system fairly and sustainably. Will the Minister assure the House that she will work on a cross-party basis to bring forward reforms as soon as possible so that we can prevent the appalling situation in which people are forced to sell their home to pay for care?
Helen Whately
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend on that point. One of the things we are committed to addressing is the situation where people may have worked all their lives to purchase and own a home and pay off a mortgage but then find themselves faced with a care bill of a size that uses up the value of their home when, perfectly reasonably, they want to be able to pass something on to their family.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
When I was a care worker, I was lucky enough to work alongside care workers from across the world. We know the sacrifices that all care workers have made during the pandemic and how care home residents were put at risk by the Government’s covid response. There has now been over a decade of empty promises. When will there be a plan for social care that offers more for these heroes than just a badge, some bin bags for PPE and a failure of an NHS boss in waiting who does not value the efforts of overseas healthcare workers?
Helen Whately
I absolutely respect the experience that the hon. Member brings to this House, but I do not agree with quite a bit of what she said. We have done our utmost to support the more than 1.4 million members of the social care workforce during the pandemic, and our thinking about the care workforce puts them front and centre of the social care reforms that we are developing. That, of course, is because the quality of care is so much dependent on that fantastic workforce. I am determined that they continue to be front and centre of our work on reform. As I said, we will bring forward proposals for reform later this year.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
A world-class healthcare system cannot exist without effective and sustainable social care. The health and care Bill is an important step, but will my hon. Friend ensure that the social care reforms go further in integrating health and social care so that everybody who needs care can get the tailored support that they need?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposals in the health and care Bill are just a step on the road to reform, but they are an important step. That step includes the joining up of health and social care in integrated care systems and putting those on a statutory footing, and the oversight arrangements for social care provided and commissioned by local authorities. We will be building on those plans in our long-term plan for social care reform.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am sure the Minister will agree that the two conditions that people most fear getting at some point in their lives are probably cancer and dementia. Yet, if someone gets cancer, the NHS will take care of them and the taxpayer will fund their treatment; if they get dementia, broadly speaking that is not the case. As has been said already, surely the only way through this is a significant injection of money. That means being honest with the British people that, collectively, we will have to pay for it. Does she agree that we would be right to say to the British people that they should pay an extra penny on income tax for social care, so that people do not have to lose their home and their dignity if they lose their health?
Helen Whately
I would not want to upset the Chancellor by talking about tax policy at the Dispatch Box, but, as I have said to colleagues—and, in fact, as the Prime Minister has said—one of the things that we are committed to as part of our social care reforms is ensuring that nobody should have to sell their home to pay for their care.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
People across our country will have breathed a huge sigh of relief when the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and exclaimed that he had a “clear” and “prepared” plan to solve the social care crisis, but almost two years have passed and there is still no plan in sight. Indeed, the Minister has said today that the Government are still working on a plan. What is the hold-up? Who is obstructing the Prime Minister—or was he simply misleading the nation as usual?
Helen Whately
The hon. Member asks about the hold-up. As I have said quite clearly, we have had a pandemic, which has been an unprecedented challenge for our country, our Government and our social care system. In fact, all those working on social care in the Department have been focused on our pandemic response for most of the past 18 months— perfectly rightly, I think the House would say. Thankfully, as we emerge from the pandemic—thanks to the fantastic vaccination efforts across the country, meaning that a huge number of those in care homes and care workers have been vaccinated against covid—we are now able to focus our attention on social care reform. That is why we will be able to bring forward our proposals for reform later this year.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Despite repeated promises by successive Governments, our social care system has not received the attention it deserves, and my constituents want to see that attention. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will honour the promise that we made to the British people and deliver the long-term solution that the sector needs?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; reform has been talked about by many Governments. One of the challenges is that people say, “Social care is broken and we must fix it”, but different people mean different things. Some are particularly concerned about what are called catastrophic costs, including the problem of people selling their home to pay for their care. Others are much more concerned about care—and rightly so—for working-age adults and the increasing costs for those of working age with disabilities. For other people, it is about questions of housing or technology. We are hugely ambitious about our social care reforms and want to bring this all together into a long-term plan for social care.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
Instead of bringing forward plans to fix the social care crisis as the Prime Minister has promised, the Government intend to put in place a legal framework for a discharge to assess model, whereby NHS continuing healthcare and NHS-funded nursing care assessments can take place after an individual has been discharged from acute care, instead of before. The Government have told me that an independent evaluation of the implementation of the hospital discharge policy is currently under way, and that it is due to report this autumn. Will the Minister tell us why the Government are pressing ahead with this policy, despite not yet fully understanding the impact that it is having on patients and unpaid carers?
Helen Whately
I would not see this as either/or. We have said that we will bring forward proposals for social care reform. To the hon. Lady’s point about discharge, it is well known at that, particularly for an older person, spending a long time in hospital can be harmful to their prospects of recovering and living a good quality of life. I have seen that in my own family as well as knowing that it is a long-standing challenge across our health and social care system. It is absolutely right that we should take steps to support people to be discharged from hospital to home when they are clinically ready.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I very much welcome the plans for integrating the NHS, local authorities and social care providers. Can the Minister assure us that the plans will not lead to any more centralisation or bureaucracy in the system, and that, on the contrary, we will see more local flexibility, more choice and control for patients and, crucially, more support for the families and community groups that are so important in the delivery of social care?
Helen Whately
Yes, absolutely. One of the strengths of our social care system is its huge diversity, with the different forms of social care and the different ways it works in different communities. In fact, that has been one of the challenges for the Government during the pandemic, because we are reaching out to over 25,000 different organisations, but actually that diversity is a positive thing, so I will continue to support it in the years ahead.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Today marks 700 days to the day since, on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister told the nation that
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared”.
For clarity, this was before the global pandemic hit. I know, and the Minister knows, that the market has failed, and that that failure has been exacerbated by the pandemic, not created by it. Is it not time for the Minister to face the inconvenient truth that the only way to fund social care is through progressive taxation, with a diverse range of in-house services guaranteeing workforce standards and service user choice, under the umbrella of local government?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady is right to say that when we went into the pandemic, the social care system already needed reform. That was well recognised, and that was why the Prime Minister committed back in 2019 that we would bring forward social care reforms—[Interruption.] I am not going to talk about tax policy here, but I can reassure her that we are working on our social care reforms and will bring forward the plan later this year.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
The report of the joint Health and Social Care and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committees, of which I was a part, left open the possibility of insurance-type solutions for adult care funding, as successfully operated in many countries comparable to our own. That would have advantages of finance, focus and structure. Given how hugely ambitious my hon. Friend has said she is on this, can she confirm that both insurance-based solutions and an enhanced role for local government remain options for her and the other key decision makers when determining the way forward for adult care?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend for his involvement on the Health and Social Care Committee, whose reports I find really helpful; they provide great insight and contribute to the conversation. He alludes to the different models for paying for social care, and clearly there are many different approaches. We have been considering them, but I am not able to go into detail here and now. I will have to ask him to wait until we publish our proposals for social care reform.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
This pandemic has starkly demonstrated the unequal footing of social care alongside the NHS in this country. The Prime Minister’s announcement back in 2019 that he had a social care plan ready to go has been clearly shown to be untrue, and according to Age UK, 1.5 million older people are going without the care they need. People living in areas with a low council tax base, such as Newcastle, have seen their local council tax precepts rise because the Government have shifted the burden of paying for social care on to those who can least afford it. I agree with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), that the time for excuses is over, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary stop making empty promises so that we can start building much-needed cross-party consensus on this issue without any further delay?
Helen Whately
We are working on our proposals for social care reform, and we are working across the sector. As I have said, I am already talking to and meeting those across the sector—care providers, representatives and, in fact, users of the care and carers themselves. This is complex. There are reasons why there have been discussions about this for many years without proposals for reform being brought forward. We are hugely ambitious, and we want to get it right. That is why I make no apologies that we are taking some time, but as we have said, we will be bringing forward our proposals for reform later this year.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Across Sedgefield—from Hurworth to Thornley and Piercebridge to Bishopton—many people are concerned about the cost of social care and how they are going to cope with it. With property prices in my constituency at about 30% of London ones, any use of that property value to pay for care just becomes catastrophic. The average weekly cost of care is substantially more than average earnings, so I understand the concerns they all have. Can I press the Minister again on ensuring that we do not leave them in a situation where they have to sell their house to fund such care?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Care is expensive, and about one in seven people end up spending more than £100,000 on their care. Many people do not realise that care may cost them that sort of amount. It can take them by surprise, so people are not ready for that kind of cost. Yes, people who have worked hard and saved all their lives for their home can be devastated by the value of that home going on the cost of their care. That is why we are determined that this will be one thing that we address in our social care reforms.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
The 42,000 care home residents who have died of coronavirus during the pandemic are, sadly, just a recent example of how our social care system is failing. The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street 700 days ago and promised to fix the social care crisis. The bereaved families and everyone whose family depends on our wonderful social care workers deserve answers. Social care staff cannot do this on their own. Those who need the crisis to be fixed need certainty, not the ambiguity of “later this year”. So Minister, no more delays—give us a date. Tell us: when will the Government finally publish their plan and fix the social care crisis?
Helen Whately
Let me say to the hon. Member: we have said we will publish proposals for social care reform, and we will; we have said we will set out a long- term plan for social care, and we will; and we have said we will reform social care, and we will.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Residents in Blackpool spend a higher percentage of their income on council tax than those anywhere else in the whole country. Although allowing councils to implement the social care precept has brought in much-needed revenue, it has in some cases placed a disproportionate burden upon ratepayers. While the case for reforming social care is clear, does the Minister agree that we require a national funding model to meet the costs, and that they cannot fall disproportionately on councils in deprived areas?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend, and I recognise the situation right now. That is one reason why we are providing £3.8 billion in grants for adult and children’s social care this financial year, which has gone up from £3.5 billion in the previous financial year. Of course, looking ahead in our reforms, we do have to make sure that the way social care is paid for is fair across the country.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
I was a carer for my daughter Maria for almost 27 years, so I know the demands that carers face every single day caring for those they love. Does the Minister really believe that £67 a week carer’s allowance is a fair amount for round-the-clock care, and will this amount be raised under the Prime Minister’s “prepared” plan for social care?
Helen Whately
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for the hours, the love and the effort that she has put into caring herself. She knows, from her own experience, the experience of carers across the country and what it takes in time, physical effort and emotional effort.
Carer’s allowance is not intended to be somebody’s income; it is intended to support people with some of the costs of caring. It is primarily led by the Department for Work and Pensions, but I can say that I am committed to ensuring that there is support for unpaid carers and family carers, and, as I said earlier, ensuring that, as well as caring for and looking after others, those individuals should be able to have time for themselves to lead their own lives.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a Dilnot-style proposal would reward and incentivise people who had not saved or used financial planning to pass their assets and savings on to relatives or to trusts? A German-style social care premium would be a much fairer system. We would all pay a small amount to cover those who were hit by the catastrophic costs to which she has referred. When she makes proposals, will she include perhaps two or three, including a social care premium, so that we can have a proper debate on this important issue and try to achieve cross-party consensus?
Helen Whately
I do not on this occasion agree with my hon. Friend, but I do very much appreciate his consistency and his commitment to ensuring that we have an informed conversation about the funding options for social care, as well as his well-informed drawing on international examples.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
From providers to staff to those cared for, the sector really feels abandoned, and has been abandoned, by the Government during the pandemic. In Warwickshire, we have lost 347 people during the past year or so. We have heard that two years ago the country was promised by the Prime Minister an oven-ready plan. There was nothing. Globally, we are the sixth wealthiest country. Other, less prosperous nations have resolved the issue. Why cannot we, and when will the Government publish their plan?
Helen Whately
I remind the hon. Member about the unprecedented support we have given social care during the pandemic: extra funding of £1.8 billion, over 2 billion items of free PPE to providers, a new system of distributing PPE direct to care homes and other care providers across the country, distributing over 120 million covid tests to care providers, and vaccinating hundreds of thousands of care home residents and the care workforce. We have been supporting the social care sector to our utmost during the pandemic, and we will introduce our proposals for reform of social care.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) about the importance of hospital discharge and of assessment happening while someone remains in hospital? As one who has experienced this at first hand, I know that in taking care of a loved one it is important that accountability and pathway care structures remain in place. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time for action on adult social care reform is now, that we must be bold and courageous, and that we must put an end to the second-class service many disabled adults and elderly people are receiving right now?
Helen Whately
It is really important that discharge is carefully planned and that there is care and support at home for somebody when they are discharged from hospital, but it is also really important that we ensure that people are discharged when they are ready to leave. I saw that with my own grandmother, who ended up spending months in hospital owing to problems with her being discharged. Goodness, I wish that she had been discharged sooner—that would have been so much better for her. It is right that we support people to be discharged when they are ready to go home, and we should press ahead with doing that, although we must also ensure that support is there for people in their home.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If we are truly to see the full integration of health and social care, that will require us also to see the full integration of the funding of health and social care—free at the point of need, contributed by all. When the Minister brings forward her proposals, will she ensure that that is an option we can consider? Will she bring forward those proposals ahead of debating the health and care Bill, so we actually know what we are trying to debate in that piece of legislation before talking about social care?
Helen Whately
I cannot at this point go into the details of the proposals that we are working on for social care reform. I have tried to give the House today a sense of the breadth and scale of our ambition. As to the point on timing, the way I see it is that the health and care Bill is a step on the road to reform, including the statutory role of integrated care systems and the development of the assurance system. I do not see them tied together in the timing in the way she sets out. What I can say is that we will be bringing forward our proposals for social care reform later this year.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
First, I wish the Minister a happy birthday. Can she reassure the House that the focus will remain steadfast on patient outcomes and happiness as part of the health and care Bill?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his birthday wishes. I was not particularly planning to spend my birthday in this way, but it is a pleasure to talk about social care reform because I feel strongly about it and am clearly spending a great deal of time working on it. What really matters is making sure that the outcomes and the experience of care are better for people. What really matters is that people get to live their lives to the full, whether they are of working age or older, and get to live as independently as possible, as part of a community and with their own front door for as long as they can. It is the outcomes of care that really matter.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister’s responses today further confirm that social care and the millions who rely on it are simply not a priority for her or this Government. It was recently reported that the Minister leaned on Public Health England to alter its proposed advice to care homes in the pandemic, from ensuring that those discharged from hospital tested negative for covid to not requiring any testing of patients at all. That led to more than 30,000 deaths. Will she take this opportunity to apologise to those who lost loved ones?
Helen Whately
Actually what the hon. Member has just read out is completely untrue, completely misleading and does not reflect for a moment what has happened. I am very disappointed to hear her read it out.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
Rotherham Council is benefiting from the £120 million that this Government are making available to councils to boost staffing levels, which helps residents across Rother Valley to receive the best quality care. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we begin to work to build a world-class care system, ensuring care homes have the staff they need is a vital first step?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of care is the workforce. They are the individuals who are providing the care and who make the difference day in, day out for those who need their important care. Absolutely, I want to make sure that we have the workforce across social care. We need to ensure we have the training there and greater career progression opportunities for those who work in social care.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
It has been reported that the Prime Minister is in favour of finally implementing the cap on care costs legislated for in 2014. While that would be welcome, it would do nothing to support working age adults with a disability to live independently, nothing for the 1.9 million older people with unmet needs and nothing to improve pay and conditions for care staff. Does the Minister recognise that a cap on care costs alone does not go far enough, and can she confirm that further measures to deal with these other needs will be part of any reforms?
Helen Whately
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I am not drawn on specific models of funding or paying for care, but the Government and I recognise that we have on the one hand the challenge of catastrophic costs and the problems some people face of having to sell their home to pay for their care, which many Members have mentioned already today, but also we have the other part of the system, which is those who receive care funded by the state. Many of them are of working age, as well as there being older people. She is right: in our social care reform, we need to look across the breadth of the system.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses to the questions so far. As part of Warrington’s £22 million town deal, the town is launching an innovative social care academy, in partnership with Warrington & Vale Royal College, to tackle the shortage of trained carers, so that residents in my constituency receive the best quality care. Does she agree that initiatives such as that, which address an identified skills gap, will mean that both care homes and in-home care in Warrington will have tailored and targeted support? Would she like to come to see the academy when it is up and running?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend outlines a fantastic example: that is a really good use of town deal funding by Warrington. The academy—there are examples around the country—does an important thing in raising the profile of the social care workforce and developing their skills, which are so important. I absolutely support this initiative and, as and when the time is right, I would be delighted to visit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question, and I am suspending the House for two minutes.
UK Military Personnel Serving Overseas: Vaccination
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the vaccination of UK military personnel serving overseas.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
As soon as our hugely successful covid vaccination programme was launched, I wanted to ensure that our armed forces would have access to vaccines as quickly as possible, so we tasked the Department with ensuring that nobody would be disadvantaged by serving our country abroad. This means people would be offered vaccinations no later than they would have at home, and that those who needed to would be vaccinated before they left the UK.
Our critical outputs, including the continuous-at-sea deterrent crew and the quick reaction alert air crew, have rightly been prioritised. We have also in recent days completed 100% vaccination for our carrier strike group. I can confirm today that sufficient vaccines for all of our people in all overseas locations have now been dispatched. We are in the process of getting the few remaining people who are awaiting their vaccines their jabs. For those on active operations overseas, we have administered first doses of vaccine to 95% of those eligible and 61% of them have had their second dose. I can assure the House that every single eligible person across Defence, at home or abroad, will have been offered at least their first vaccine dose by 19 July, in line with the national programme.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for that reply but it does miss out a lot of detail. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever during Armed Forces Week, when we celebrate the military’s invaluable contribution to our nation, to raise this urgent question as to why we do not have a bespoke vaccination programme for our personnel who are deployed overseas.
In our national battle to tackle covid here in the UK, we have relied on our military from the start—in building Nightingales, driving ambulances, mass testing and, of course, running hundreds of vaccination centres across the country—and yet, when we ask them to return to their day job, those deployed overseas are not fully vaccinated. A reported outbreak of 80 cases in our recent UN mission to Mali illustrates the dangerous consequences. This outbreak would have devastated our operational capability and, indeed, the safety of the mission.
It is standard protocol to inoculate prior to deployment. If we protect our troops against yellow fever, anthrax, malaria, typhoid and a host of other infectious diseases, why not covid when we have these vaccines now? Our NATO allies are doing just that. The USA, France, Holland and Germany all have fully vaccinated their deployed troops, so why have we not? I understand that our NATO partners have in fact expressed concern that the Queen Elizabeth battle group departed without all personnel having received two vaccines and, indeed, our Gulf allies have also registered their concern that our personnel based in their stations abroad are without the vaccines.
This is an easy call to get right, but it is also an irresponsible one to get wrong and arguably a potential breach of the armed forces covenant and our duty of care to our valiant armed forces. However, the picture would be incomplete without registering the MOD’s internal attempts to address this. We must make that clear, but I hope that Whitehall is now listening, and I am sure that the country would want to see key worker status granted to all personnel currently overseas. That is what would resolve this issue. With this challenge now out in the open, in supporting this call, can I ask the MOD to fully vaccinate all our sailors, soldiers and air personnel as a matter of urgency?
James Heappey
I thank my right hon. Friend for asking the urgent question. I have not had any representations from NATO partners or Gulf partners sharing any concerns over our vaccination programme, so he may wish to share with me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any such representations that he has received so that we can discuss those with our colleagues in other Ministries of Defence. I am also slightly surprised that the MOD’s vaccination programme has become such a matter of urgent attention for him and others in the House, because we have had a series of parliamentary questions on this matter over the last six months, and in all of them, we have been very clear that the MOD’s position is that people would receive their vaccinations overseas in line with their age cohort here in the UK.
James Heappey
Whether that was right or wrong can be a matter of debate, but the MOD position has been very clear throughout. I happen to believe that it is the right decision, because there was no decision to prioritise other professions beyond those within the NHS—military medics, it is important to say, were all vaccinated as a matter of priority alongside their NHS colleagues while they were working in high-risk covid environments.
The other thing that I would just pick up on in my right hon. Friend’s response to my initial answer is his assertion that 80 people on our deployment to Mali had covid. That is simply not the case. The correct figure, as was answered in a parliamentary question last week, is that cumulatively, since the deployment began, 24 people have tested positive for covid. If you will indulge the detail of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, there were six positive tests in March, two in April and one in May for the Chinook detachment, and two in December, six in January, one in February and six in March for the long range reconnaissance group.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This is frankly shocking. Defence Ministers have failed in their first duty to our armed forces, which is to ensure that they are properly trained, equipped and protected when they are deployed overseas, especially in conflict zones such as Mali. Six months ago, when Labour called in this House for Ministers to ramp up testing and to set out a clear plan to vaccinate our troops, the Defence Secretary said:
“We are working on a list right now of who we can prioritise”.—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 189.]
Why was it not done? Why was top priority not given to troops sent overseas?
The Minister has just said it is only being done in line with the national programme. The MOD has been clearer, saying recently:
“UK personnel have been vaccinated in line with national priority guidelines…which saw vaccines rolled out to priority groups in order of age and risk.”
These are guidelines for civilians in Britain, not for troops fighting terrorists, 3,000 miles from home, in countries with jab rates among the lowest in the world— it is still at only 0.2% in Mali. I say to the Minister that that is wrong. How on earth did the Defence Secretary not stand up for the forces he deployed to Mali, Kenya, Oman, Afghanistan and elsewhere? These troops train together and fight together; they should be jabbed together.
How many and what proportion of UK military personnel deployed abroad, country by country, have contracted covid? How many have now been double jabbed, and when will all of them be done? Have all those deployed on core defence tasks, such as the continuous at-sea deterrent, now been double jabbed?
Will the Minister comment on the circumstances of HMS Defender in the Black sea today?
Finally, will the Minister now make full vaccination mandatory before overseas deployment? The Australians made that commitment in February, and it is high time British Ministers now did the same.
James Heappey
The detail of vaccines and positive tests by country is held, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not sure you would indulge me if I were to go through the spreadsheet. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would accept it if I were to write to him and place a copy in the Library, so it can be a matter of record.
The headline stat, as I said in my answer to a parliamentary question last week, is that 98.6% of people deployed overseas have had their first dose, and 56% have had their second dose. I accept that there could be a debate on all professions, whether they be clinicians in the NHS, teachers or members of the armed forces. We made a judgment that, where the medical facilities are sufficient to safely administer the vaccine in a deployed environment, those people would receive their vaccine in line with their age cohort in the general UK population. Where it is not possible to do that, such as with the continuous at-sea deterrent, they were fully vaccinated before deployment.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the activities around HMS Defender in the Black sea earlier today. No warning shots have been fired at HMS Defender. The Royal Navy ship is conducting innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters, in accordance with international law. We believe the Russians were undertaking a gunnery exercise in the Black sea and provided the maritime community with prior warning of their activity. No shots were directed at HMS Defender, and we do not recognise the claim that bombs were dropped in her path.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
While it is, of course, welcome that 98.6% of our service personnel overseas have been vaccinated, just for reassurance, of those men and women serving overseas and their families back here in the UK, can my hon. Friend confirm that it is now and will be a priority of the Ministry of Defence, if it is not already, to ensure that all those serving overseas in our name, for this country, have access to both their jabs as a matter of urgency?
James Heappey
First, let me just correct myself for fear that I have inadvertently misled the House: the figure for all overseas deployments is 95%; 98.6% refers to the deployment in Mali. I apologise for that inaccuracy.
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Given where we are in the national vaccination programme, one might argue that that is now the case, as everybody is within days of receiving their first jab. In fact, the way that the vaccination programme was administered whereby everybody over 50 received their jab in one go towards the front end of the priority groups at home meant that many in their 50s and 60s overseas—although in the defence population that is not very many—ended up receiving their jabs ahead of their age group in the UK. Likewise, for those under 40, jabs were effectively being rolled out in line with people in their 40s here in the UK. That means that many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen who were in their late teens or 20s were getting their jab well ahead of their contemporaries.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I think many of us are shocked to hear some of the Minister’s comments today. He seems proud of the numbers testing positive in Mali. We should not have any testing positive at all because they should have received a double vaccination.
When we are sending troops into a conflict situation, they must be given appropriate personal protective equipment, including vaccination against whatever the threat is, and clearly covid is a big threat at the moment. The Government have a duty of care to those in the armed forces to ensure that they are able to carry out their duties and that operations are not threatened by illness. There is a potential threat to national security as well. Why have the Government not prioritised the armed forces for vaccination, regardless of whether they are serving at home or abroad? Can the Minister assure me that from this point on, personnel will not be deployed overseas without receiving both doses of vaccine? How many Royal Navy ships have had to restrict their operations due to covid outbreaks?
James Heappey
First, I would like to challenge the hon. Lady: I am not sure that correcting the assertion that there had been 80 positive cases with the fact that there had been 24 shows pride in that fact; it is just correcting the record in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) in the first place.
It is certainly the case that everybody who is deploying on operations now has been jabbed. That goes without saying given that we are now at the stage where everybody under the age of 40 has had their jab. It is not necessarily the case that everybody has had two jabs and not necessarily possible to accelerate that. The Royal Anglian battlegroup, for example, who have just deployed to Mali, have had their first jab. They will receive their second when the appropriate period of time has passed between jabs. Otherwise there is no point in jabbing them because the effectiveness of the vaccination will not be as high as it should be. However, we have certainly reached a point in the vaccination programme where everybody who is being deployed has been vaccinated.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Clearly we must make sure that there is availability of vaccinations, and we must do everything we can to build public trust right across society, including our armed forces, in the effectiveness of the vaccinations. There has recently been some press comment about what the Government might do with those in the armed forces who refuse to accept the vaccine. I seek two reassurances from the Minister: first, that the maximum will be done to persuade them of the advisability of having a vaccination; and secondly, that they will not have their careers damaged because of their refusal to accept the vaccine.
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is not in our gift to order people to take a medication should they not wish to do so. Prior to deployments where we have been seeking to fully vaccinate beforehand, we have been having a conversation with those who have expressed concern to try to reassure them that the vaccine is entirely safe and that it is in their interest to take it. I can absolutely assure him that anybody who needs to be removed from an operational deployment because of their unwillingness to take a vaccine is not in any way career fouled as a consequence.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
The reports of events in the Black sea remind us of why families worry when they have serving personnel at sea or serving abroad. Can my hon. Friend reassure the constituents who have contacted me on this issue that the vaccine roll-out programme to our brave men and women is going well and will hit the targets he has outlined?
James Heappey
I certainly can. The second doses will all be deployed so that everybody overseas gets them as soon after their first dose as is medically advisable. Achieving that is not without challenge: getting these doses forward can require quite a logistical effort given some of the locations in which our people serve, but that has gone well and it is testament to military planners in the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Medical Services that that is the case.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is obviously deeply troubling, no matter how many service personnel who have been deployed have now got covid—whether the number is 80 or 28 or whatever the clarification the Minister has given—that there are also media reports that those personnel did not have enough test kits or enough space in order to self-isolate. Can the Minister clarify that he is doing all he can to get test kits out to those service personnel who are defending us, as it should be the first duty of Ministers to protect service personnel who are protecting us, and can he ensure that any troops deployed in the coming months on operations will have everything they need in terms of testing and space to self-isolate if, unfortunately, they contract covid-19?
James Heappey
We do not recognise the reports in the press about lack of access to testing equipment; I have been assured that testing equipment was available in all theatres. The article to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers was about Mali, and there was certainly sufficient testing equipment in Mali at the time the article refers to.
The ability to self-isolate is slightly more challenging in some military settings than in others; in submarines, for example, it is quite hard, but in many other deployments it is perfectly possible. We do our best to make such provision available, but obviously field conditions are at times a slightly austere environment, in which case that is not always possible.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I welcome the update on vaccinations for our forces. While the MOD has a clear responsibility to protect its people, does the Minister agree that our forces will always get on with the task in hand and will generally be comfortable with risk in the face of adversity, a lesson that can perhaps be extended more broadly to our fight against the pandemic today?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is right of course that people in our armed forces do accept a heightened risk. However, the risk that they offer to accept is ordinarily one that is posed by the enemy, and we in the MOD certainly do not assume that they are willing and able to accept a higher risk of infection from a virus. The judgment that was made was not around their acceptance of risk; it was made around the fact that military personnel are invariably young, fit and healthy, so when decisions were made about the prioritisation of vaccine it felt correct—and I stand by this now—to prioritise the vaccination of those who were more elderly and vulnerable at home rather than those who were younger, fitter and healthier and serving overseas.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
We are all aware of the rigid, dogmatic vaccination policies of the Health Department bureaucrats and the utter failure of the Health Ministers to inject some common sense—they really are hopeless—but the Minister’s pitiful response today shows that Defence Ministers have meekly gone along with this. So the real question is why did our Defence Ministers not show some backbone by standing up for our troops and insisting on vaccines before deployment, if necessary forcing a decision for the Prime Minister? Can the Minister explain that failure?
James Heappey
I think I have answered the question already. We made the case for priority vaccination for those whom we felt needed to be vaccinated because it was unrealistic to vaccinate them other than as a priority right at the start of vaccination programmes—the nuclear deterrent quick reaction alert aircrew for example. Thereafter it was perfectly possible to safely vaccinate members of the armed forces in line with their age cohort, and the correct judgment was made in prioritising those who were more elderly and vulnerable at home.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
We now have a clear position whereby two vaccinations are required, with a period of time obviously required between those vaccinations to maximise the efficacy of the vaccine. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that when we are vaccinating our armed forces, we are ensuring not only that the intervals between the jabs are maintained, but that we are allowing a period of time after the second jab is provided before our armed forces are sent on deployments, so that they are given the maximum possible protection from covid-19?
James Heappey
I cannot do that, because we have made sure that our forces have received their first jabs in line with or ahead of their contemporaries in the general population. They will receive their second doses at the appropriate time thereafter—once deployed, in the case of those recently deployed to Mali. I think that is an appropriate way of doing this. These are young, fit and healthy people, and they will get both their first and second doses well ahead of their contemporaries at home.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Can I say to the Minister that there is a clue in his title: Minister of State for the Armed Forces? It is about standing up for our armed forces. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), I find it astounding that the Minister has just followed Department of Health guidance, rather than saying that there is a priority need, as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said, for people to have been vaccinated before overseas operations.
Let me ask the Minister directly about the 28 personnel —or whatever the number is, because he gave me a different one in a written answer about Mali the other day. What operational effect did that actually have on our contribution to the multinational force that is out there, because that is the key test? I just find it unacceptable that we did not vaccinate people against covid before they went.
James Heappey
First, there is an important point of fact: the battle group to which the right hon. Gentleman refers deployed in December 2020, before any vaccine had been certified. It would have been impossible to have vaccinated the Light Dragoons battle group before they were even deployed.
James Heappey
It is true; they deployed in December 2020, and I believe that the first vaccination of a civilian in the UK was in December 2020. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman could expect that to have been the case. He also asked a question about operational output, which is the right question to ask. As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and others who were briefed by the commanding officer of the Light Dragoons last week will perhaps be able to reassure him, there was no impact on operational output.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Although this is a question about defence personnel overseas, it would be remiss of me not to take a moment to thank the members of the armed forces who have helped with vaccine roll-out at home, including those from Leuchars, based in my constituency. May I ask the Minister, what discussions did the MOD have with deployed military personnel—such as the British Armed Forces Federation and other associations for military personnel—before deciding on the strategy that has clearly been the subject of this urgent question?
James Heappey
I echo the hon. Member’s thanks to all those military personnel who have been involved not just in the vaccine taskforce, but in all other parts of the response to the covid pandemic, particularly those in her constituency. Clearly, decisions such as this are initially decisions for policy makers in Government. I think that I have been very clear about our willingness as a ministerial team to own the decision that we took; I think it was the right one. I know that the chain of command have every confidence that the vaccination programme that we have set ourselves to deliver is indeed delivering. There were no conversations beyond that with any of the agencies or organisations that she mentioned.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that there are a good number of British troops deployed in the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, training the peshmerga in their ongoing military fight with Daesh, and we know that Daesh seeks to capitalise on some of the chaos of the pandemic to make advances. I understand that our deployment in Iraq will be growing slightly over the next year, so will my hon. Friend assure me that anybody deployed there will be fully vaccinated, and that the troops who are training and who are still engaged in military operations have equal access to the vaccine?
James Heappey
I can reassure my hon. Friend that 96% of people currently serving on Op Shader—that will include those who are based in Cyprus as part of the aircrew—have been vaccinated, and 31% have had their second dose. I can assure him that they will receive their second doses as soon as it is medically advisable for them to do so. I cannot, however, tell him that it is policy to vaccinate the troops with whom they are partnering.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Will the Minister publish details of the risk assessment that was undertaken to determine why our troops were not fast-tracked for vaccine before deployment in high-risk areas?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Look, this is just wrong and the Minister should admit it. Our service personnel deserve full vaccination before deployment on overseas missions. When the US, France, Germany and others have fully vaccinated their forces, it does not seem right that we are behind the curve on this. He says that all personnel are now single-jabbed but there is no point in providing second jabs unless the required time has elapsed for them to be effective. I get that, but can he make it clear to the House whether that is the 12-week extended gap that the public have to wait for, or the three-week gap that the vaccine manufacturers recommend?
James Heappey
I will write to the hon. Gentleman if this is incorrect, but I believe that we are working on around a four-week gap.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for his reassurance that HMS Defender was not coming under fire earlier today in the Black sea. In Armed Forces Week, when we thank and celebrate our whole armed forces community, will the Minister join me in thanking all who were involved so invaluably in the vaccine roll-out in all four nations of the United Kingdom? Will he reassure me that, from the youngest recruit to those approaching retirement, all our armed forces will be prioritised for vaccinations?
James Heappey
I certainly join my hon. Friend in celebrating all who serve and have served in our nation’s armed forces, and in thanking them for doing so. She will have heard in my responses to previous questions that we are vaccinating the vast majority of the armed forces community, with the exception of those involved in nuclear deterrence and other niche tasks, in line with wider priorities. In reality, the way that delivery has taken place means that the vast majority of our armed forces, who are in their late teens and 20s, are being vaccinated ahead of their contemporaries in the general population. The decision was taken some months ago that we would not vaccinate the armed forces ahead of the general population, and that we would instead prioritise those who are more elderly and vulnerable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Oh, I am so sorry! How could I possibly miss out the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? I would never wish to do so.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I saw you looking around, and I wondered whether you would look for me in my usual spot.
We have so much to thank our service personnel for, and they put a lot on the line to serve, in terms of their family life. Those families back home have grave concerns about their service personnel who are serving overseas, and those who are serving overseas have concerns about their families back home. What has been done to assure the members of those families, both at home and away, that they will be safe and sound and will see each other again?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman was probably waiting for you to start the Adjournment debate before he intervened, Madam Deputy Speaker, as is his normal fashion. He raises an important point; as someone who served overseas on operations, I knew I was okay until I was not, but for those who are left behind—the families of our serving personnel—there is a daily worry about their safety and the threats they are facing. Indeed, many colleagues in the House have written to me on behalf of parents and loved ones of people deploying to seek reassurance about the vaccination programme, and we have made sure that that has been given to them, so that families understand that their loved ones will be vaccinated while in theatre. The families of our armed forces are as vital a part of the armed forces community as those who serve, and the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity, in Armed Forces Week, to remark on their steadfastness and the important role they play in maintaining the fighting power of our armed forces.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes the urgent question, and I thank the Minister.
Point of Order
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I would like to apologise to you and to the House. I was not expecting to be in the Chamber today and my attire is that of somebody who does not like the heat in London, so first I should apologise for that. I wanted to ask whether you could enable me to seek an apology from the Prime Minister—who has inspired me, in my attire, to come to the Chamber today—for referring today at Prime Minister’s Question Time to questions about the pitiful rape conviction rate in our country as “jabber”. When questioned about the falling rape conviction rate, the Prime Minister asserted that this was merely “jabber” and not something that sees, for every 60 people who come forward to say that they have been raped, one charge—and that does not even cover convictions.
I would also like to ask you whether you could help me correct the record on some of the other things that the Prime Minister said today at Prime Minister’s questions. He asserted that clauses 106 and 107 in the new Bill would increase convictions. They have absolutely nothing to do with that; they are about sentencing, and I speak as an expert in the field. He also stated that the Labour party had not supported the Domestic Abuse Bill. As one of the key authors of many of the clauses in it, I must say it was a huge surprise to me to hear that the Labour party had not supported the Domestic Abuse Bill, so I am not entirely sure why the Prime Minister asserted that. But more than anything, what I seek today is an apology from the person who is meant to keep our streets safe. Currently, if you are a woman or a girl in this country, the Government are failing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for giving me notice of her intention to raise it. May I also say that I greatly appreciate her apologising for her attire, which of course in places other than this Chamber would be perfectly chic, but she is right to note that there is a certain dress code for the Chamber, which it is important that we all observe. However, I fully appreciate that the hon. Lady was not planning to come to speak in the Chamber today, and there is always the exception that proves the rule.
As to the very serious matter that the hon. Lady has raised, she asked me if I can take steps to correct the record about what the Prime Minister said, and the answer to that is no; answers given and statements made by Ministers, or indeed by any other Member of this House, are not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Lady clearly has one opinion and the Prime Minister has a different opinion, and the purpose of this Chamber is to allow both of those opinions or evaluations of the facts to be freely expressed. The hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to put her interpretation of the facts and to point out that that differs from the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the facts.
The hon. Lady raised another matter which is of importance, and that is the use of language. It was so noisy in the Chamber today—I suppose that is refreshingly good in some ways, because at last we can have a significant number of Members present—that I certainly could not be quite sure exactly what was said at any one point, but if it is the case that the Prime Minister or, indeed, anyone else speaking in this Chamber is in danger of giving offence by the actual words that they have used, especially on a very sensitive subject—undoubtedly, the subject of rape and the prosecution of rape is the most sensitive—I simply encourage all Members to remember the words of “Erskine May”:
“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language”,
and that moderation should be observed at all times.
Having said that, the hon. Lady has made her point very well and I am sure that it will have been noted not only on the Treasury Bench but more widely. I thank her for that.
Bills Presented
Planning (Proper Maintenance of Land) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jonathan Gullis presented a Bill to make provision for increased fines for failures to comply with a notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 130).
Plastic Pollution Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Alistair Carmichael, supported by Ed Davey, Wendy Chamberlain, Wera Hobhouse, Tim Farron, Layla Moran, Sarah Green, Daisy Cooper, Jamie Stone, Christine Jardine, Munira Wilson and Sarah Olney, presented a Bill to set targets for the reduction of plastic pollution; to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy and annual reports on plastic pollution reduction; to establish an advisory committee on plastic pollution; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 131).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) say the 14th of February?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The fourth day. I have other plans for the 14th. [Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am glad to hear that—so do I.
I will now briefly suspend the House in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Armed Forces Bill
Wednesday 23rd June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 23 June 2021 - (23 Jun 2021)
17:18 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:29 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 354 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:39 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s seat, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, which is so much more comfortable and from which I can see better, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chairman of the Committee. The occupant of the Chair should, in Committee, normally be addressed as the Chair, rather than as Deputy Speaker.
Clause 1
Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.
Amendment 7, in clause 7, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide for charges of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape to be tried only in civilian court when the offences are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would ensure that the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter domestic violence, child abuse and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 8, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant government department;”.
This amendment, with amendments 2, 3 and 4, would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government and the devolved administrations as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
Amendment 39, in clause 8, page 10, line 2, at end insert—
“and
(g) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in England, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Decent Homes Standard.”
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that all service housing is regulated in line with the minimum quality housing standard which pertains to whatever part of the United Kingdom that housing is situated in.
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 11, line 18, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Wales;”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Government amendment 8.
Amendment 40, in clause 8, page 11, line 38, at end insert—
“and
(e) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Wales, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Welsh Housing Quality Standard.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendment 9.
Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Scotland;”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 41, in clause 8, page 13, line 9, at end insert—
“and
(e) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Scotland, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Scottish Housing Quality Standard.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendment 10.
Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 14, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Northern Ireland;”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Government amendments 11 and 12.
Amendment 42, in clause 8, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“and
(d) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Northern Ireland, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Decent Homes standard for Northern Ireland.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendments 13 to 15.
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 18, line 7, at end insert—
“343AG Section 343AF: report
The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed on how the powers in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) will work in practice.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces Covenant including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
Government amendments 16 to 23.
Clauses 10 to 13 stand part.
Government amendments 24 to 30.
Clauses 14 to 26 stand part.
New clause 1—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for serving or discharged member of the UK armed forces—
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68, after (11) insert—
‘(12) No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the UK armed forces, or their family members, applying for indefinite leave to remain under Appendix Armed Forces of the Immigration Rules.’”
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for any current or previously serving Members of the UK Armed forces, and their families.
New Clause 2—Duty of care to service personnel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in section 1(6) of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans Act 2021.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the duty of care standard under subsection (1) before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year—
(a) prepare a duty of care update, and
(b) include the duty of care update in the Armed Forces Covenant annual report when it is laid before Parliament.
(4) The duty of care update is a review about the continuous process and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—
(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;
(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel; and
(d) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) In preparing a duty of care update the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—
(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;
(b) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct: and
(d) meeting national standards of care and safeguarding for families of service personnel, where relevant.
(6) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—
(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;
(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and
(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(7) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.
(8) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.”
This new clause will require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations.
New clause 4—Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the number of people who have been dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—
(a) there is formal documentation citing sexuality as the reason for their dismissal; or
(b) there is evidence of sexuality or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must include recommendations of the sort of compensation which may be appropriate, including but not limited to—
(a) the restoration of ranks;
(b) pensions; and
(c) other forms of financial compensation.
(4) The report must include a review of the cases of those service personnel who as a result of their sexuality have criminal convictions for sex offences and/or who are on the Sex Offenders Register.
(5) The report must include discharges and forced resignations back to at least 1955.
(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.
(8) In this section, “sexuality or gender identity” includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.”
This new clause requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.
New clause 6—Duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 20(2)(d) insert—
‘(e) the person is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, alcohol or drugs.’
(3) After section 20(3) insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State has a duty of care to offer a specific pathway for support and treatment for current and previously serving service personnel who experience—
(a) a propensity to misuse, alcohol and drugs,
(b) alcohol or drug dependency, and
(c) gambling disorder.
(3B) The Secretary of State must include in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report—
(a) the number of people accessing treatment and support as set out in section (1), and
(b) the current provisions for rehabilitation facilities for Armed Forces personnel who are experiencing a propensity to misuse or have a dependency on alcohol, drugs and gambling.’”
New clause 7—Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth and Gurkha
members of armed forces—
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68 (10), after ‘regulations’ insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the UK armed forces, or in respect of any person who has served at least four years in the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”
This new clause will ensure that Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.
New clause 8—Armed Forces Federation—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 333, insert—
‘333A Armed Forces Federation
(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—
(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and
(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.
(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the Armed Forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.
(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.
(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.
333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or
(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—
(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;
(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;
(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and
(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.
(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to
members of the Armed Forces.’”
This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.
New clause 9—Investigation of allegations related to overseas operations—
“(1) In deciding whether to commence criminal proceedings for allegations against a member of Her Majesty’s Forces arising out of overseas operations, the relevant prosecutor must take into account whether the investigation has been timely and comprehensively conducted.
(2) Where an investigator of allegations arising out of overseas operations is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct to continue the investigation, the investigator must within 21 days refer the investigation to the Service Prosecuting Authority with any initial findings and accompanying case papers.
(3) An investigation may not proceed after the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the allegation was first reported without the reference required in subsection (2).
(4) On receiving a referral under subsection (2), the Service Prosecuting Authority must either—
(a) order the investigation to cease if it considers it unlikely that charges will be brought, or
(b) give appropriate advice and directions to the investigator about avenues of inquiry to pursue and not pursue, including—
(i) possible defendants to consider,
(ii) possible explanations to consider for the circumstances giving rise to the investigation, and
(iii) overseas inquiries and seeking the help of overseas jurisdictions.
(5) Where the investigation proceeds, the Service Prosecuting Authority must monitor and review its progress at intervals of three months and must on each review make a decision in the terms set out in subsection (4).
(6) On the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator must send a final report with accompanying case papers to the Service Prosecuting Authority for the consideration of criminal proceedings.
(7) After receipt of the final report, the facts and circumstances of the allegations may not be further investigated or reinvestigated without the direction of the Director of Service Prosecutions acting on the ground that there is new compelling evidence or information which might—
(a) materially affect the previous decision, and
(b) lead to a charge being made.
(8) The Judge Advocate General may give Practice Directions as he or she deems appropriate for the investigation of allegations arising out of overseas operations.
(9) For the purposes of this section—
‘case papers’ includes summaries of interviews or other accounts given by the suspect, previous convictions and disciplinary record, available witness statements, scenes of crime photographs, CCTV recordings, medical and forensic science reports;
‘investigator’ means a member of the service police or a civil police force.”
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Government amendments 31 to 38.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
It is a privilege to speak to the Armed Forces Bill before a Committee of the whole House. Indeed, it is fitting that the Bill should come before the Committee during Armed Forces Week, when we celebrate and commemorate Her Majesty’s armed forces.
Before speaking to the Bill, I want to express my gratitude to the members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, some of whom are here today, and to thank them for their rigorous and professional approach to the work of that Committee. I commend their published report.
In simple terms, the Bill’s primary purpose is to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006—
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I wanted to get in early to mention the armed forces covenant, which means a lot to me, as I will explain later.
We have many proud veterans in Wolverhampton who have given so much for this country, and the armed forces mean loads to them. When the diary permits, will my hon. Friend come to Wolverhampton to meet those veterans and hear at first hand what the covenant means for their lives?
Leo Docherty
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I would be delighted to accept an invitation to Wolverhampton. I acknowledge and applaud the magnificent work he does in Wolverhampton to support his veterans. I hope the Bill is well received by them, and we thank them for their service.
The Bill will deliver improvements to the service justice system and, most importantly, it delivers on our commitment to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. Unlike the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), I can say that I was delighted to see the Minister when he came to Northern Ireland last week. I am glad that Northern Ireland got ahead of Wolverhampton on the issue—no offence to my colleague.
Will the Minister spell out clearly at this early stage that veterans in Northern Ireland will be treated equally to veterans from any other part of the United Kingdom, and that no impediment will be allowed to get in the way of veterans being treated fairly and equitably across the United Kingdom, which they should and must be? Will he assure us that the legacy issues will be brought before the House before it rises for the summer?
Leo Docherty
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was very pleased last week to meet several veterans’ groups, both of home service and of overseas service, to hear about their experiences. The Government are committed to driving towards parity of provision for all veterans, whether they be of home service or overseas service. In terms of legacy issues, he will know that work is ongoing within the Northern Ireland Office, and the Government are absolutely committed—and full of resolve—to delivering the closure that our veterans need with honour and finality.
Ian Paisley
I really appreciate what the Minister is saying. He knows how vital this issue is. I do not underestimate the Government’s commitment, but I am concerned about the dead hand of officials and political activists in Northern Ireland. Will there be finality on this matter in July? Will a statute of limitations be introduced then?
Leo Docherty
I cannot get into the timing, and it would not be useful for me to do that at this time. I know that work is continuing apace and that it is a top priority for both the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Office. I share the hon. Gentleman’s sense of urgent desire to see this delivered.
The covenant was introduced in its current form a decade ago, and it has undoubtedly had an enormous and very beneficial impact for many within our service community. However, too often, the experience of the covenant depends on where someone lives, so more does need to be done. The Bill delivers for our service personnel and veterans by, for the first time ever, creating a duty for relevant public bodies across the whole of the United Kingdom to pay due regard to the principles of the covenant in the areas of housing, healthcare and education. The Bill represents a significant milestone and delivers on a key manifesto commitment to enshrine further the covenant into law.
In the area of housing, the duty will cover those bodies that are responsible for social housing, homelessness policy and the administration of disabled facilities grants, which can be vital for injured veterans. In education, we know that our service families sometimes face challenges due to their mobile lifestyles in accessing suitable school places for their children, including those with special educational needs. The duty will therefore ensure that the needs of service children are properly understood. In healthcare, much has already been achieved, but service families and veterans still sometimes experience disadvantage, often caused by their mobility or by healthcare requirements resulting from service. The duty will apply to all bodies that are responsible for commissioning and delivering healthcare services across the UK. Housing, healthcare and education are the essential areas, but to future-proof the Bill there is a provision to allow the scope of the duty to be expanded beyond those areas.
Mr Jones
When the Command Paper was launched in 2005 by Bob Ainsworth, we had cross-Government work and armed forces champions in Departments because it was about central Government standing up to help veterans as well. Why, therefore, does the scope of the Bill exclude central Government Departments?
Leo Docherty
It does not need to include Government Departments, because that provision is already made. There are Ministers in every Department holding the lead for veterans’ issues, and the Secretary of State is accountable in his annual report. Therefore, the provision for making central Government accountable is already in place.
Mr Jones
The Minister says that, but in effect it is not in place, because there is no redress. I must say that I am disappointed with the powers of redress in the Bill even in the areas where they are included. What are the powers of redress against Departments in respect of the covenant—not in respect of any other type of complaint there might be? How would a veteran ensure that the covenant was implemented by the Department of Health and Social Care at a national level, and what redress is there?
Leo Docherty
The right hon. Gentleman knows that, in terms of all national provision, Ministers are accountable, as I am being accountable right here, right now. What we are dealing with today is the local provision. If individuals feel that they have not had adequate provision and are disadvantaged, they could pursue the route of judicial review in the worst case. We believe that, at the local level, most local authorities want to get this right, and we are just laying out best practice examples for them to follow.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Leo Docherty
I will give way one last time before I make some significant progress.
Jamie Stone
Can the Minister give me the same reassurance when it comes to Departments in the devolved Administrations, such as the Scottish Government?
Leo Docherty
Absolutely I can, and I am very pleased to.
I turn to the technical amendments. Amendments 8 to 15 relate to the armed forces covenant, amendments 16 to 23 and 31 to 38 amend the service complaints provisions, and amendments 24 to 30 relate to the provision on driving disqualification.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Dr Murrison
Can the Minister confirm, before he gets technical, that the overriding consideration in all this is that servicemen, servicewomen and their families should suffer no disadvantage by virtue of their military service? There will be test cases arising from the guidance to which he has referred in which people say, “Look, I’ve been disadvantaged because I’m in the armed forces.” The acid test has to be what they would have got from the system if they had not been serving. Surely that is the guiding star in all this.
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is the fundamental basis of all this, and that is at the heart of the statutory guidance. We are confident that local authorities will bear that in mind in the way they afford provision in the critical areas that I have described, but of course there may be test cases and we will take note of them if they arise.
A number of Opposition amendments and new clauses have been tabled. I want to concentrate on the key ones that specifically relate to the service justice system and the armed forces covenant. Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that the most serious crimes are automatically tried in the civilian courts when committed by a serviceperson in the UK, thereby undermining the current legal position that there is full concurrent jurisdiction between the service and civilian justice systems. The amendment would mean that the most serious offences, when committed in the UK, could never be dealt with in the service justice system, even though the Lyons review recommended that the most serious offences could and should continue to be tried in the service justice system with the consent of the Attorney General.
The Government have a more pragmatic approach. We are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur, bolstered by improvements recommended by the Lyons review, such as the creation of the defence serious crime unit and improvement to the support to victims. The service police, prosecutors and judiciary are trained, skilled and experienced. Victims and witnesses receive comparable support to the civilian system, for example through the armed forces code of practice for victims of crime, which we continue to keep updated in line with civilian practices. The amendment would remove the valuable role of independent prosecutors in allocating cases to the most appropriate jurisdiction.
Clause 7 improves and strengthens the protocol between service and civilian prosecutors to determine where cases are tried. That improvement will bring much-needed clarity on how decisions on jurisdiction are made and will ensure transparency and independence from the chain of command and Government. To be clear, the aim of this approach is not to increase the number of serious crimes being tried in the court martial. The civilian prosecutor will always have the final say. I therefore urge the Committee to reject amendment 7.
Amendments 1 to 4 would create a duty on central Government and devolved Administrations. Clause 8, as it stands, covers public functions in healthcare, housing and education exercised by the local or regional bodies that are responsible for those services. Those are the key areas of concern for our armed forces community. Central Government’s delivery of the covenant is regularly scrutinised, as I referred to in my answer to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and the Armed Forces Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State for Defence to lay an annual report before Parliament. Devolved Administrations and other bodies are given an opportunity to contribute their views to that report. That duty to report will remain a legal obligation, and it remains the key, highly effective method by which the Government are held to account for delivery of the covenant.
Amendments 39 to 42 seek to ensure that all service housing is regulated in line with the local minimum quality. These amendments are unnecessary because, in practice, 96.7% of MOD-provided service family accommodation meets or exceeds the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s decent homes standard. The amendments would introduce an unhelpful disparity across the UK and would not achieve their intended effect, because local authorities that fall within the scope of the current duty are not responsible for the provision of service accommodation, so these amendments should be withdrawn.
The provision of high-quality subsidised accommodation remains a fundamental part of the overall MOD offer to service personnel and their families. Over the past decade, we have invested £1.2 billion in single living accommodation and another £1.5 billion will be invested over the next 10 years. Additionally, we are rolling out the future accommodation model to improve choice, and I am pleased to report that the forces Help to Buy scheme has helped more than 24,000 personnel to buy a new home over the past seven years.
New clause 9 seeks to introduce artificial timelines for the progress of investigations. These are operationally unrealistic. They do not take account of the nature of investigations on overseas operations and could put us in breach of our international obligations, including under the European convention on human rights, to effectively investigate serious crimes. The right hon. Member for North Durham will be aware, following my letter to him on 7 June, that the detail of this new clause has been provided to Sir Richard Henriques for consideration as part of his review into investigations, and I am confident that Sir Richard will consider this matter very carefully.
Mr Kevan Jones
I thank the Minister for his letter, but let us be honest, we are in this mess because of his predecessor, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who promised that the issues around time limits and investigations would be in this Bill. When I address my amendments, I shall read them out at length. I welcome the fact that they have been referred to Judge Henriques, but the question is: when will they then be implemented? Are we going to have to wait another five years for a new armed forces Bill before that happens? Otherwise, the Minister is going to have to find legislative time to implement them. There is an opportunity to do it now and, frankly, we should do it now.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I think we have to wait and see what Sir Richard Henriques reports. It is not appropriate to propose changes while his review is ongoing, so we will wait and see, and we will respond when he formally reports.
Leo Docherty
Yes, I would be delighted to give way before I crack on and make progress.
Mr Jones
I accept what the Minister is saying, but his predecessor promised, when he got into a real mess on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, that this issue would be addressed in this Bill. It is clearly not going to be, and has now been kicked into the review. My concern is the real issues that will leave members of the armed forces open to vexatious accusations for another five years. The only way to deal with that would be to find legislative time to bring in a new Bill, but I urge the Minister to just do it now.
Leo Docherty
We have to do it the right way round. We totally acknowledge the central importance of getting investigations right in terms of delivering for our people. We will not seek to reverse-engineer the schedule of work that is before us; we will wait for Sir Richard Henriques to report, then we will calmly consider the best way forward. What I will commit to today is an absolute resolve to deliver a rigorous and sound investigation system, because it is the lack of such provision that has bedevilled our armed forces people over the last 20 years. We do take this very seriously indeed.
Moving now to new clause 2, the Government take very seriously their duty of care for service personnel and veterans under investigation. This was debated at length in the other House during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, and I have engaged with Lord Dannatt, who tabled the original amendment. I therefore wish to highlight two brief points. First, service personnel are entitled to receive comprehensive legal support; and secondly, a full range of welfare and mental health support is routinely offered to all our people. This support is available both while someone is serving and through the dedicated support to veterans through the NHS’s Op Courage in England and its devolved equivalents. We are striving for a gold standard of care and the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement on 13 April details the significant progress made.
In the case of veterans, we continue to deliver further improvements through the veterans’ strategy, so new clause 2 is unnecessary and could result in unintended consequences. A duty of care standard risks becoming a one-size-fits-all approach, leaving personnel without the right support at the right time. The difficulties of drafting such a duty of care would inevitably mean the involvement of the courts and additional litigation. We are clear on our duty to provide the correct support to our personnel, both serving and veterans, and I urge the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) to withdraw new clause 2.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak from the Dispatch Box on this important legislation ahead of Armed Forces Day on Saturday. This Armed Forces Week is a chance to recognise and celebrate the service of our nation’s forces at home and abroad, past and present. Up and down the country, physical and virtual events will be held while the Armed Forces Day flag is flying proudly on buildings and famous landmarks around the UK. I was delighted to attend the flag-raising ceremony here in the House on Monday, where Mr Speaker set an example by signing the covenant. I look forward to events this weekend in my home city of Portsmouth, the heart and home of the Royal Navy.
Today is also Reserves Day, so I would like to take the opportunity to celebrate their contribution to our national defence and resilience. This year in particular has seen reservists contribute to the covid support force, providing medical and logistical support, as well as deploying skills from their professional lives. They remain a unique asset, the hidden heroes among us, balancing work and training. It is vital that they are better integrated into our forces.
It is timely that the Bill comes back before the House today. Labour supports our armed forces and welcomes the principles behind the Bill, which provides a rare opportunity for the Government to deliver meaningful improvements to the day-to-day lives of our forces’ personnel, veterans and their families. Its unusual legislative journey means that we have had a chance to consider it in detail and have a genuine cross-party discussion on how improvements can be made. That is the spirit in which Labour has approached the Bill. We have worked with service personnel, veterans, service charities and colleagues from across the House to get the very best for our forces in this once-in-a-Parliament piece of legislation.
I want to pay tribute to the local authorities, service providers, charities and voluntary organisations that are working hard to make the covenant a reality across the United Kingdom. I also want to thank those who served alongside me on the Bill Select Committee and the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for his leadership in the Chair. Despite that considered and expert input, however, the Government have consistently refused to hear and address fundamental concerns about the Bill. In doing so, they are missing an opportunity to deliver real improvements to the day-to-day lives of service personnel, veterans and their families. Labour’s amendments offer Ministers a fresh opportunity to get that right.
Turning to amendments 1 to 4 and 6, first, evidence from charities such as the Royal British Legion and those delivering services for veterans on the ground has reinforced Labour’s concerns that the Bill is too weak and too narrow. The Bill piles new and vague legal responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, but mysteriously they do not apply to central Government. In practice, this would create a farcical reality where a chair of school governors has a legal responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, do not. As the Legion itself has pointed out, many of the policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national Government or based on national guidance. Ministers must not be allowed to outsource the delivery of important promises in the armed forces covenant. Also, the Bill’s limited focus on housing, healthcare and education risks creating a two-tier covenant. This could start a race to the bottom on standards in other areas and will bake in the existing postcode lottery on access to services. Social care, pensions, employment and immigration are among the long list of areas we know will not be covered by this once-in-a-Parliament piece of legislation as it stands.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that that provision is vital? In the evidence sessions for the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act we heard moving testimony from Major Bob Campbell, who was reinvestigated over many years. One stark thing that he said was that he felt abandoned by the MOD. Supporting individuals who are going through these investigations is vital, and without what is being proposed, individuals such as Major Campbell will continue not to get the support that they deserve.
Stephen Morgan
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. He was a tireless advocate for the points that he raised in the Bill Committee and I know that we will continue to work together to make sure that the Government listen to our demands.
Ian Paisley
I am delighted that the shadow Minister will continue to pursue that matter. Will he ensure that the principle then extends to those who have served at home, to make sure that the commitments that have been made about resolving the legacy issues and addressing these vexatious issues that have arisen from some very contemptible people will be addressed expeditiously? Will he join me in encouraging the Government to get that matter on to the Floor of the House before the summer recess?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. I know that he has also been expressing these concerns for quite some time. It is unsatisfactory that we are still hearing from Government that they are thinking about this. We need certainty for those affected, and I hope the Government bring forward proposals as soon as possible.
New clause 4 would begin to repair the damage done by the previous treatment of LGBT+ veterans. The Committee will know that the ban on homosexuality in the British armed forces was lifted in January 2000 by the then Labour Government. During the ban, many were dishonourably discharged or forced from service, losing access to pensions and benefits. Some were also stripped of medals that they had earned during their service.
There are practical impacts from that discrimination, such as the loss of pension and the inability to wear ceremonial uniforms or medals. Those are all humiliations that should not be endured by anyone who has served our country. Some may still be on the sex offenders register, which is simply outrageous, but there will also be untold challenges for mental health and wellbeing. I therefore take this opportunity to thank Fighting With Pride for its compassion and courageous work to support those impacted by this issue and for working with us on the new clause. I also place on record my appreciation for the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on this issue.
In February 2020, the Government announced that former armed forces personnel who were dismissed from service on the basis of their sexuality could apply to have their medals restored. That is an important first step towards justice for those who were thrown out of the armed forces simply because of their sexuality. New clause 4 encourages Ministers to continue that work first by setting out the numbers affected, and then by considering the restoration of ranks, pensions and other forms of compensation that would be appropriate. Only then can we be appropriately honouring those who have served our country with courage and distinction.
Finally, new clause 8, titled “Armed Forces Federation”, would establish a representative body for the armed forces akin to the Police Federation. It would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. It has been clear for some time now that the armed forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses that came before us on the Bill Select Committee have reinforced that, and we continue to hear shocking stories of abuse within units. We have also heard that continued delays discourage the use of the service complaints system and concerns persist that careers will be under threat if personnel complain.
Most members of the armed forces have endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade. Given the renewed emphasis that Ministers appear to be placing on the value of people as assets to our national defence, the time has come to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay. The federation would not be equivalent to a trade union for the armed forces, in that it would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination with the armed forces. The federation would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It would also recognise the importance of the chain of command. Although the proposal might be seen as radical or dangerous by some, other nations including the United States and Australia already have similar models embedded in existing command structures. Our armed forces give their lives for us. Ministers should seize this opportunity to give them a real voice.
In conclusion, taken together, Labour’s amendments would truly deliver improvements for our forces personnel, veterans and their families. It would be the height of hypocrisy if the Government were to heap well-deserved praise on service communities to mark Armed Forces Week while voting against their interests in the Commons today. Labour continues to stand squarely behind our armed forces, and we take the delivery of the promises made in the covenant seriously. For us it is not about a performative show of support at a politically convenient moment, but an enduring commitment to honour the promises our society has made to those who serve. The Tories like to talk up their commitment to our armed forces, but it is Labour that is working with colleagues across the House to make sure we get the very best for them, for today and tomorrow.
During Armed Forces Week, this Government should not just celebrate and thank, they must also deliver for our forces communities.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is appropriate that this Bill has come back to the House in the week in which we celebrate Armed Forces Day. I add my thanks to members of the armed forces who are currently contributing to our fight against covid, and I pay tribute to them for their service. It was disappointing to hear earlier that members of our armed forces are still being deployed overseas without being fully vaccinated.
I take this opportunity to give a shout out to the team from Kayak 4 Heroes, who are currently undertaking a journey of 1,400 km from Land’s End to John O’Groats, by kayak, around the coast of the United Kingdom and along some of our canals and waterways. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing them the very best of luck in their endeavours.
I have made it clear throughout the passage of this Bill that it lacks the punch required to make a real difference, and the Bill’s commitment to the armed forces covenant falls far short of what it ought to be. Many stakeholders, including the Royal British Legion, have argued that the Bill should go further in strengthening the covenant in law, but many areas have been missed out, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel, pay, DWP issues and proper representation for serving personnel.
I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the group from Fighting with Pride, Caroline Paige and Craig Jones, for working so hard to undo some of the injustices of the past. Labour’s proposed new clause 4 is an opportunity to take this further. We have started to recognise that there have been injustices, and we know that many individuals who were convicted of sex offences in the armed forces lost their pensions and continued to have the label of “sex offender” in civilian life, for undertaking a consensual relationship with another person. There are real issues here that still have to be addressed.
Many people were also discharged from the armed forces following spurious allegations that were not related to their sexuality, although their sexuality was the real reason for it. It will be very difficult for us to capture the number of people involved, so I urge the Minister not just to take proposed new clause 4 seriously but to look at how we identify these individuals and put right the wrongs that have been done to them.
Labour’s amendment 7 addresses the service justice system, and the Minister has given us assurances this afternoon that he will be implementing many of the recommendations of the Lyons review. That is good, but I still argue that sexual assaults would be better dealt with in civilian courts, which have far greater experience of such cases. We do people an injustice by continuing to go through a military system, where that experience is not always present. While the Minister is implementing some of the recommendations of the Lyons review, I ask him to undertake an annual review of how it is operating in practice.
The Minister also gave us assurances on service accommodation, but these accommodation issues are repeatedly raised, year on year, by serving personnel. The recent National Audit Office report on single living accommodation describes a litany of neglect, and accommodation for families often falls far below the standards we would expect.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. Does she agree that those who are dedicating themselves to service should receive a cast-iron guarantee of decent accommodation?
Carol Monaghan
It seems totally obvious that decent service accommodation should form the absolute basis of any agreement and any expectation that personnel have, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
It is incredible that the Bill as it stands will not strengthen the accommodation offer. Our series of extremely modest amendments—amendments 39 to 42—asks that service accommodation matches the standards that are set for civilian housing in each of the four nations of the UK. This should be a matter of straightforward agreement across the House. We should not be asking service personnel to put up with accommodation that we would not ask civilians to accept. I therefore do not see this proposal as being in any way controversial, and I hope that Members will support it.
Many of the veterans and families who contact me do so because of a lack of support from the Department for Work and Pensions on pension issues, including widows’ pensions, but all these things are out of scope of the Bill. In fact, it seems that all the most pressing and difficult issues for veterans are out of scope. This really is a missed opportunity.
The SNP has for a long time advocated a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look at the examples of many of our NATO allies, which benefit from armed forces representative bodies that personnel can use to make sure that their needs are catered for. We are used to hearing arguments from Members on the Government Benches that we could not possibly countenance such a body as it could undermine the chain of command or encourage strike action. However, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) said, such a federation would be like the Police Federation. It would not allow strikes and it would not impact on the chain of command, but it would give a voice that, at the moment, is sadly lacking. When we are looking at ensuring that the covenant is properly fulfilled, such an organisation would substantively carry out that role. I believe, despite the Government’s arguments, that the real reason for resistance to this is that it would give our forces and veterans a voice. I am pleased that Labour has joined us in our position, and we will support its new clause 8 because it would go a long way towards addressing some of these issues.
The Scottish Government have taken a number of their own initiatives in areas that are covered in the Bill. On housing, they offer funding from affordable housing programmes to deliver homes for disabled ex-service personnel. On employability, service leavers are offered fixed-term appointments in the Scottish Government. On education, Skills Development Scotland is retraining Scottish veterans to address the skills gap, particularly in the nation’s cyber-security workforce. On health, the Scottish Government have committed to ensuring that all personnel and veterans can access the best possible care, and have provided funding to Combat Stress and Legion Scotland for mental health first aid training. Of course there is always more that we can do, but the UK Government should be looking to mirror these examples of good practice.
Jamie Stone
Giving credit where it is due, I am of a similar opinion that the Scottish Government’s move to offset the bedroom tax by their own hand—from their own money—has been of considerable help to veterans who might not be in the best medical condition, because a loved one can stay overnight and help them out. Would not all of us in Scotland agree that we encourage the UK Government to follow suit?
Carol Monaghan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the work that has been done around the bedroom tax. He will understand that it is often vital for veterans who have been injured in service to have an additional supposed “bedroom” that can actually hold equipment that is required for them to deal with their injuries and possibly help with their rehabilitation. Again, it seems a very easy thing to take on to help those who need this support.
We will also be supporting Labour’s new clause 7 on capping fees for Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans. There is great support across the House for this group of veterans. It seems grossly unfair that we should welcome these individuals into our military, ask them to put their lives at risk and then hit them with thousands of pounds of fees, because it is not just about the cost for themselves; if they have family overseas who they want to bring over to the UK, they are suddenly faced with fees of thousands and thousands of pounds. That is simply not good enough. I hope that the Government are learning lessons from things such as the Windrush scandal when looking at people who have come to this country to help and contribute, in whatever way that is. Given that there is such widespread cross-party support for the Commonwealth veterans, I urge the Government to accept the new clause.
The time and effort spent on this Bill should have been an opportunity significantly to improve our offerings to the armed forces, but I am doubtful. Without the ability to enforce—without the teeth it needs—the Bill will sadly fall short. If this is a once-in-five-years or once- in-10-years opportunity, many of us will be disappointed, but we will continue to engage with the Government and the Minister in the hope that we can make a real change for those who are serving. I think it is recognised throughout the House—this is one thing on which we can all agree—that we want to improve the circumstances in which our forces serve and the practical problems that they hit. I thank the Committee for listening and hope we can move forward in as consensual a way as possible.
Stuart Anderson
As many Members will have gathered now, I have a passion for defence, having served as a young soldier in the Army and spent most of my adult life in and around the defence arena. I have also been fortunate to sit on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee. I pay tribute to all Members across the Committee for the way in which we worked together for the good of our armed forces; it has been an enjoyable and eye-opening experience. Today I want to discuss the amendments relating to the armed forces covenant, which, as hon. Members will see, is very personal to me and I think will massively support our armed forces.
Prior to being an MP, I was an armed forces champion. I got to see the difficulties that regions could have in trying to put forward the armed forces covenant, and how much it would impact different people. Enshrining it in law is a massive step forward. I also have first-hand experience of the benefits of the armed forces covenant, and I think it is right to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I received treatment at one of the trauma units that were brought forward through the armed forces covenant.
I have spoken in the House in the past about when I was shot and the after-effects, which ended up in me wanting to take my own life. Having been told that I was no longer the Army’s problem when I had left and had to fund treatment myself, I was not in a good place.
The Committee can imagine, then, how happy I was to hear about the armed forces covenant. I felt that somebody actually cared. Sadly, it came too late for me, because I had to battle those demons for 15 years before I could get away from the problems that I faced. I thank God that I came through that dark period.
Mr Kevan Jones
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson)? He is a fellow member of the Defence Committee and always speaks with authority and passion. Do I agree with him? Yes, I do. I do not wish to make a party political point, but the genesis of the covenant was the Command Paper from the Labour Government in 2005 and the work that Bob Ainsworth— I pay tribute to his work on this issue—took forward, resulting in the covenant. It was sad that, in respect of one of the Armed Forces Acts—I think it was in the early years of the coalition Government—when we asked for the covenant to be put into statutory law the Government at the time opposed it.
I believe I have served on every Armed Forces Bill for the past 20 years, either as a Minister or as a Back Bencher. Like others, I pay tribute to the members of our armed forces, as we come up to Armed Forces Week. This is an important day in terms of saying thank you, but we should have in our mind every day the work they do for us to keep us safe.
I rise to speak to my new clause 9, and I do so with frustration and disappointment that this issue has not been addressed. I have spoken on many occasions to say that we need to make sure that our armed forces are not faced with these frivolous and vexatious claims, but the Government have made a complete mess of this.
We had the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act, a piece of legislation that was not necessary at all. The issues in it could have been covered in this Armed Forces Bill, but, as with the worst legislation we see in this House, it came out of rhetoric and election slogans and when it came into practice it did not do what it said on the tin. That was a missed opportunity.
When we took evidence in the Committee that considered the overseas operations Bill, it was clear, and not just from Judge Jeff Blackett, a former Judge Advocate General, that we stop frivolous and vexatious investigations and stop the torture—I will use that word—of reinvestigation that people such as Major Bob Campbell went through for 17 years by sorting out the investigation process. That is not—the Minister alluded to this in relation to my new clause 9—to say that we just ignore accusations or wrongdoing. We should not do that, but we have to have a proper managed system, which is overseen by judges, to ensure that there is timely investigation, and those investigations that are not found to be of any veracity should be dismissed at an early opportunity. We could do that through the proposals in my new clause.
I moved similar amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill—I believe they were new clauses 8, 6 and 7—which would have put time limits on investigations, as I say, not dismissing evidence, but making sure that the investigators need, after a certain period of time, to bring their evidence before a judge to see whether it warrants further investigation. That would have been a way forward. That Bill was oversold to a degree that was obscene at times, with people believing that the Bill would stop investigations and the ambulance chasing solicitors. It did nothing of the sort. It did not get to the root cause, which is investigations. As Judge Jeff Blackett said in evidence to that Committee:
“The Bill is effectively looking at the wrong end of the telescope.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 120, Q246.]
It was looking at the prosecutions—limiting prosecutions —rather than dealing with the investigations.
I am on record as saying that, like most Members of this House, I would not want members of our armed forces to face vexatious claims or investigations. However, when I moved those new clauses, the Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), said that those issues, which had been raised not just by Judge Jeff Blackett but by many other campaigners, would be dealt with in this Armed Forces Bill. This new clause today is an attempt to address those issues.
I think that it is worth recapping what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View said last November on Second Reading of the overseas operations Bill in response to the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who raised the idea of time limits. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View stated that
“time and again the issue of the investigations”—
comes up,
“but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 258.]
He then went on to accuse my right hon. Friend of being disingenuous for raising the matter. I ask the Minister today: when will these matters be addressed? A clear promise was given then that they would be included in this Bill. [Interruption.] Well, they were not, because the Government got into a right pickle. Having not addressed them in the overseas operations Bill, if that was where they wanted to do it, they then set up the Henriques review, which was a good civil service way, as we have seen over the years, of kicking things into the long grass, but it has left a gap. These issues were not addressed in the overseas operations Bill and they are not going to be addressed in this Armed Forces Bill either.
That leaves a real issue: when will that legislation come forward? These are sensible proposals, which were put forward in evidence to the overseas operations Bill by Judge Jeff Blackett and others. As I have said, those proposals would have ensured that we had judicial oversight of investigations to ensure we did not have a rerun of what we have had with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, or Operation Northmoor. Those allegations went on for years, which meant that armed service personnel who were being accused of torture, suffered, in some cases, long delays while their cases were being looked at. I suggest that Members read the evidence of Major Bob Campbell to the overseas operations Bill, because that poor man not only went through long delays, but reinvestigations, investigations and investigations. That should have gone at an early stage. My new clause would do that. We would have judicial oversight. May I just re-emphasise this point for anybody who is listening carefully? This is not about putting members of our armed forces above the law. The new clause is saying that these matters should be investigated. It is saying not that we should have no investigations, but that those investigations should be timely and dealt with.
We have now got into this mess where we have the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act in place, which does not deliver on most of the hype that went with it. We also have the Armed Forces Bill going through, but, clearly, the Government will resist putting anything in it about investigations as they have kicked it into the ongoing review. Again, we do not know when that review will report. As a veteran of the last 20 years of Armed Forces Bills, I know that they come round every five years. If I am still in the House in five years’ time, I shall no doubt be dragged into the next one. But five years is a long time for people to wait for this legislation. The only other option is that the MOD will secure Government time to bring in a specific Bill on investigations. You will know, Ms Winterton, that Government time is very precious and trying to fight and argue for a Bill will be very hard, so I do not see that this matter will be addressed for another five years. That is just not acceptable.
This leads me on to another issue that was raised earlier, which is the issue around Northern Ireland veterans. One of the worst things that we can ever do in politics is to make promises to people and then not deliver. What has happened both with the overseas operations Bill and the claims that have been made to our Northern Ireland veterans is a disgrace. It is clear to me that the Government will not bring forward a Bill before the summer recess; I struggle to understand how they are going to bring such a Bill forward. That is not just letting people down, but being completely dishonest with people. Brave service men, mainly, from ordinary working-class backgrounds across this country went to Northern Ireland to do their duty, to protect not only the citizens of Northern Ireland but those of the UK, and we are letting them go through this tortuous process. I would have more respect for the Government if they came out and said, “We can’t do it, so we are just going to leave it”, rather than what we have got at the moment.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
After that speech, who on earth would be a Defence Minister? It is a great privilege to speak during Armed Forces Week. We have a clear responsibility in this place to support Her Majesty’s forces, so the timing is neat. As Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I am familiar with the Bill. It is a good Bill, but may I commend to hon. Members the Select Committee report and the subsequent statement made in this House on 22 April? Both were fully objective and the result of painstaking analysis and debate within the Select Committee. Yes, we did not agree on every issue. In fact, we did not agree on many issues.
Mr Kevan Jones
It was remiss of me in my contribution not to thank the hon. Member for chairing the Select Committee. He got thrown in at the deep end at the last minute, but I think all members of the Select Committee thought he did an excellent job and ensured that everyone had their say. May I put on record my thanks, and I am sure that of other Members, to him for the way in which he chaired the Select Committee?
James Sunderland
I thank the right hon. Gentleman —my friend—for those kind words. It was a real pleasure to chair that superb Committee. The report was pretty good. I believe it to be a framework for what lies ahead and perhaps even a template for what we do with this standing legislation in five years’ time. We are progressing all the time, and the future looks good.
I want to discuss two areas: the statutory guidance and the latest amendments to the Bill. First, I thank the Minister for his written response to the Select Committee report and for the draft statutory guidance, which we have now got. We must acknowledge that the covenant is already with us. It has been signed by the vast majority of councils all over the UK, including in Northern Ireland. In fact, it has its 10th birthday at this point in time, so what better present could there be than to bring it into statute?
The door is already open for the statutory guidance, and it is a good bit of work so far. I welcome the fact that it places a due regard on the placeholder, that it recognises rightful outcomes, that it reflects the unique sacrifices and obligations on HM forces and that it places a legal obligation on the delivery of health, accommodation and local support from councils. It also provides examples of good practice and pragmatic guidelines on how that is to be provided.
I note that prescriptive performance targets are still absent, but it may be that it is impossible to apply any meaningful metrics and tools to this area. I do not believe that councils are in any doubt about what is expected of them after 10 years, but—it is a big but—it may be that guidance is still needed on how they will be held to account if they do not meet their obligations. I read with interest the line in the guidance that:
“Covenant duty does not mandate public specific delivery outcomes or advantageous treatment of the Armed Forces Community. It only mandates that consideration takes place…when exercising certain functions”.
That worries me, as the local authority complaints process does not cut it in terms of what I believe is still needed. Simply inviting disaffected personnel to contact their MP fills me with horror. I urge the Minister to please look again at this, dig deeper and do the right thing.
I turn to the amendments. I am comfortable with what the Government have tabled, and I want to talk to a handful of the others. New clause 1 would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for any current or previously serving members of the UK armed forces. Similarly, new clause 7 provides that foreign and Commonwealth veterans applying for indefinite leave to remain following four years of service will pay only the unit cost of an application.
I am clear in my mind that the Government have this key issue in hand, and I welcome the consultation recently announced by the MOD and the Home Office. I personally wish to see an amnesty for those F and C personnel who slip through the net, and I agree that it is right to abate the cost of visa fees as a function of time to incentivise longer service. As a former commanding officer of the largest and most diverse unit in the British Army, I say that is the right way to go, even though it may set a precedent for other Departments.
New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standards in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel. The MOD takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans, and over the years it has established a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support for service personnel and veterans. We have come a long way from the early days of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with which I am very familiar. The covenant has also been enshrined in law, so I think that the new clause may be redundant at this point.
New clause 3 would require the Government to publish a report on changes to personnel numbers across all services and to detail the impact of reductions on operational capabilities. However, none of that is a closely guarded secret. The MOD recently published its Command Paper “Defence in a competitive age” and noted that the size of the Army would be reduced. I believe that that new clause is also redundant; the information is out there.
New clause 4 would require the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who are dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces due to their sexuality and make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation. Restorative justice is difficult due to the policies that were legally enforceable at the time, but I am comfortable, for now, that the Government are making strides to tackle this, not least by restoring medals and engaging much more broadly with the LGBTQ+ community. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
As for new clause 6, the duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders is already there. It is called good leadership—and also the covenant, which is being enshrined in law.
Lastly, new clause 8 is laudable, but we are not there yet. The new clause would create a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. The Government have not been persuaded at this point that there is a requirement or a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested.
The interests of armed forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least, again, the chain of command. Furthermore, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides impartial scrutiny of service complaints made by members of the UK armed forces regarding any aspect of their service life. However, for the Minister’s benefit, I would, in this case, welcome an independent body to provide additional rigour for service complaints. In my experience, service complaints are very awkward, and it may just be that taking them out of units and out of the chain of command is the right thing to do.
To conclude, one of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it does not go far enough, but as an ex-serviceman I refute that. Any new legislation has to be deliverable, proportionate, pragmatic and responsible, and has to attract the necessary due diligence and analysis, for it needs to consider the effect on those it relates to, and no Government can write cheques they cannot cash, as they have to maintain the fundamental ethos and integrity of the organisation itself. Our armed forces are pre-eminent in their field and must be afforded the autonomy they need to do their job. So this is about evolution, not revolution, and I believe that we will get there in due course through what the Select Committee has recommended.
I say to those who wish to turn this unique organisation into what they would wish it to be by clipping its wings, softening its operational capability and ignoring its hard edge or negating the importance of the chain of command: please be careful what you wish for.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), and I was privileged to serve on the Armed Forces Bill Committee; he was an excellent Chairman of it and it was a really worthwhile exercise. There are a couple of issues that I took an interest in and hope to talk a little about today. I am also looking forward to joining the armed forces community in Liverpool on Saturday.
New clause 4 seeks to right an historical wrong. Some 21 years ago, the ban on homosexuality and LGBT+ personnel serving in the armed forces was lifted. That ban inflicted staggering cruelty on those men, and some women, who had stepped forward to serve their country. Between the mid-1950s and 1996 the men of our armed forces who were thought to be gay were arrested, searched and questioned by officers trained for wartime interrogation. In many cases that went on for days before they were charged, often without legal counsel or support, and on many occasions arrest was based on little evidence. Heterosexual men were falsely accused by service police officers, losing careers and in some cases homes and families. And after harrowing investigations these men were led away to military hospitals, where they were subjected to degrading and shameful medical inspections conducted in accordance with confidential Defence Council instructions held by every unit of the armed forces. At court martial, in the moments before those convicted were sent down, operational medals and good conduct badges were ripped from their uniforms. They typically served six months in prison for the military criminal offence of being homosexual, and it is staggering that that continued until 1996, and that the administrative dismissal of LGBT+ personnel continued for a further four years, until January 2000.
As these members of the armed forces walked from prison they were dismissed in disgrace with criminal records as sex offenders, which from 1967 had no civilian equivalent. As they left through the main gate they were commonly given letters instructing them to never again use their military rank or wear items of uniform, for example in remembrance at the Cenotaph, and they continued to obey those letters. Their names were erased from the retired lists of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force as though they had never existed. They were cast out of the armed forces family, outed to their own family and friends, and lost their homes and their financial stability. Their service record cards had the top corner clipped and were marked in red pen with the annotation, “Dismissed in disgrace”, causing many a lifetime of employment issues. And in the past, in their moment of need they were shunned by military charities—something that has now changed.
However, there has been no such remedy from Government or the Ministry of Defence. The Committee heard at first hand from the charity Fighting with Pride—I believe the Minister has met them—accounts of those affected, and how they live today amidst the ashes of their former service careers.
LGBT+ veterans are scattered across the UK, often away from military communities and living a life starkly different from the one they hoped for when they joined the forces. In the 21 years since the ban was lifted, nothing has been done to support those individuals. As Canada, Germany, the United States and other nations prepare, assess, make reparation and put right a shameful wrong, it is long overdue for the UK, which persisted with the ban for longer and implemented it more zealously than many other countries, to do the same.
Those men and women deserve an apology on behalf of the nation from the Prime Minister in Parliament. They must be supported on the pathway to royal pardons, be restored to the retired list and have their medals returned. Prohibitions on their use of rank and on the wearing of berets at the Cenotaph must be revoked. They need resettlement support, which we offer to all other members of the armed forces, and they must be fairly compensated and have their pension reviewed in recognition of their service and the hardships they faced then and now. Until that is done, this will remain a matter of national disgrace, and it will stand in the way of the Government’s stated wish to be a global exemplar for both LGBT+ and veterans’ communities.
New clause 4 would place a duty on the Ministry of Defence to find out where those veterans are and how they have fared, and to make recommendations to Parliament on what must be done to right this wrong.
My own new clause 6, which touches on issues around addiction treatment, would place a duty of care on the Secretary of State. Just this week, it was reported in the Daily Mirror that more than 8,000 UK troops had needed medical support with respect to alcohol in the past six years. Here, I want to thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) because I know that his talking so openly will help many people who are listening to him.
We know that rates of addiction among the armed forces population are much higher than those among the general UK population. The unique demands of military life, and the serious trauma, violence and loss, make that no surprise. A culture—I say this without judgment—in which harmful drinking rates are considered normal, where vulnerability is a weakness and seeking help is seen as failing to meet the demands of service makes treatment and recovery even harder. Too many veterans end up in mental health crisis, homeless, in prison or committing suicide.
The charity We Are With You provides specialist services for veterans through its Right Turn programme. The majority enrolled in its programmes are those who left service many years earlier, which poses the question for the Government, what more can be done to increase early intervention? For many people, asking for help with alcohol and drug use, however necessary, is incredibly difficult. Denial, fear, pride and shame stop people seeking the specialist support they need, and that is no different for our service personnel, veterans and their families. If anything, those barriers are all the more difficult to overcome.
I met with Adfam—a charity that supports family members of those with substance use problems—and we discussed its 2020 research report, produced in collaboration with the University of York and funded by the Forces in Mind Trust. Families shared the impact of the heavy-drinking culture in the armed forces, with many describing the use of alcohol as frequent, heavy, expected and normalised, and used as part of, and in response to, all situations and occasions. That normalisation means that problems with excessive drinking are not seen as problems.
Aside from the heavy-drinking culture, those families shared their experiences of another culture—the culture of silence. Families say that their loved ones were expected to be stoic, strong and infallible. Veterans and their families are too often left feeling further isolated and vulnerable.
A small number of charities provide specialist support to those veterans and their families. Tom Harrison House in Anfield, around the corner from my office, is the only residential veteran-specific treatment centre in the UK. I have got to know veterans there. I have heard of their experiences and their struggle to get the support and understanding they need. Many have co-occurring mental health diagnoses and complex needs, and have been struggling with addiction for many years. I have not met one person there who has told me that the support they got came with any help from the armed forces.
One veteran told me:
“From the Army, I went straight to prison and did a long spell there. I then went home for a year. I then lived on the streets for 12 years. During that time I was using drugs and drinking, I couldn't stop drinking and became an alcoholic.”
Another veteran told me:
“I gave my life to service, I was trained to lack empathy; conditioned to survive; asking for help was a weakness; encouraged to drink and when there was nothing left for me to give, I was discharged, without any re-conditioning, no support; completely alone.”
Peer support is key in addiction treatment and key to the success of Tom Harrison House, and veteran-specific services are having great successes.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words earlier. I want to stand with him on Tom Harrison House. One of my friends with whom I served was literally at death’s door and it saved his life. Now, he is helping other people with addictions and the problems that he went through. Credit for having it in your constituency; it is an amazing organisation.
Dan Carden
I am delighted to hear that and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the effort to let us know that in the Chamber.
Armed forces charities provide life-changing services, particularly for those with substance abuse problems, but access remains a postcode lottery. I think it is wrong that the state takes so little responsibility for ensuring that veterans receive the treatment they need. Requiring public bodies to give due regard to the principles of the covenant is not enough. The Bill was an opportunity to set measurable national standards that would end the current postcode lottery through the armed forces covenant. Once personnel have left service, they rely on the NHS and local authorities, and of course on the UK’s third sector organisations which provide excellent help and support. Their work is fantastic, but the MOD has a responsibility to those men and women that it has shirked for too long.
For too many veterans, their service to this country has come at a devastating cost. Drink and drugs are often an escape; a way to cope, a way to manage or medicate mental health conditions and past trauma. One of the worst failings of the system is that many drug and alcohol services simply do not have the competencies to deal with mental health issues in-house and many mental health services are not able to offer support if a patient presents with substance use disorders. Being bounced between services effectively prolongs people’s suffering for longer and longer.
James Sunderland
I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman talking about veterans. I will make two points if I may. First, of course, not all veterans are mad, bad or sad. The picture you paint is very negative. The vast majority of veterans in this country live very successful, happy, fulfilling lives. My second point is this. I visited Veterans Aid yesterday in London, which is a very impressive organisation focused very much not on alleviating symptoms, but on outcomes. Do you agree that outcomes is the right way to go?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I just offer a gentle reminder that we speak through the Chair, rather than directly.
Dan Carden
I take the hon. Member’s second point and I would not want to be painting a negative picture. I am speaking on behalf of the people I have met in my constituency who have come through Tom Harrison House and elsewhere, who have suffered a great deal in their lives.
I will finish on some points made by Dame Carol Black in her independent “Review of drugs: phase one report”. She says:
“The number of residential rehabilitation services have reduced significantly, removing a core treatment component for those that need it to support their recovery”,
and:
“Some areas are starting to ‘ration’ treatment, setting higher thresholds for those who can access it and/or just offering a minimum service due to workers having such large caseloads.”
The question for the Government is: if mental health services are failing the general population, what use is a law that gives due regard to service personnel and veterans? Regardless of people’s training or dedication to their duty, mental health disorders, including addiction, do not discriminate, and I simply want the MOD to take greater responsibility for and interest in these issues.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
Thank you for calling me, Dame Rosie. I am sorry not to be able to contribute to this debate in person, but laryngitis means I have to stay at home in Breconshire, and I apologise if my voice does not last the duration of this speech.
Like many others, I want to start by congratulating the business managers on the timing of this Bill, but in reality every week should be Armed Forces Week. Honouring those who have served as well as those who continue to serve should not be a one-off event. I am excessively proud of the UK armed forces, but in particular of those based in my constituency at Brecon barracks, Sennybridge training area and the Infantry Battle School—not least the soldier I live with, and here I declare an interest in that my partner is a serving member of the British Army.
Like so many this weekend, I will be joining Armed Forces Day events in the constituency. I am looking forward in particular to meeting the daughter of a true British hero in Builth Wells on Saturday. Violette Szabo initially joined the Women’s Land Army when war broke out and the Auxiliary Territorial Service in 1941. She worked for F section in the Special Operations Executive, but during a mission in France she was captured and imprisoned by the Nazis. She was executed in Ravensbrück concentration camp, and she was posthumously awarded the George Cross—the highest honour given to civilians. Walking along the Embankment in London, hon. Members will see a statue of Violette, one of the very few military women to be commemorated. I am deeply excited to be meeting her daughter, who now lives in Cilmeri in my constituency, and to have the opportunity to pay tribute to her mother and to all those who have served and continue to serve.
There is much to welcome in this Bill that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of serving personnel and veterans. However well intentioned they may be or however thoughtfully suggested by the same focus groups that advised the leader of the Labour party to start valuing the military, I will not be supporting the Opposition’s amendments.
I particularly want to single out clause 8 of the Bill, which strengthens the commitment to the armed forces covenant. The covenant is 10 years old this year, and it is something we should all hold dear. I must also declare another interest in that my partner’s mum is the chief executive of the Armed Forces Covenant Trust. His is something of a military family.
Clause 8 compels public bodies to have due regard to the covenant, and I would urge my local authority—Powys County Council—and the Labour-run Welsh Government to pay close attention to it. At present, Powys County Council is proposing to close Llanbedr school, which is a thriving primary school in my constituency. Along with my colleague in the Welsh Parliament, James Evans, I am deeply opposed to the closure of the school, but it is largely because a number of military families will once again find themselves displaced. That is deeply wrong. I spoke to a mum whose partner has recently started a two-year posting in Brecon, and if Llanbedr closes, they will be forced to find yet another school for their three children.
In campaigning against the school’s closure, I have tried to learn more about the Welsh Government’s plans for military families. I was directed to a specialist website, which does not work. People simply cannot find out what the Welsh Government want to do for military families who are searching for a consistent education as they move around the United Kingdom and even abroad. I know the Minister is powerless to keep the school open, but I would be keen to meet his officials to learn more about how the UK Government and Welsh Government could be working together to ensure that military families can rely on an uninterrupted education.
I cannot let the Minister escape without yet another plea for the decision to close Brecon barracks to be reversed. His colleague the Minister for Defence Procurement has kindly heard me a number of times and knows I warmly welcome the commitment to keep 160th Brigade in Brecon itself, but I will have to continue to bang on until this nonsensical decision is reversed. Brecon barracks is an integral part of the defence estate in Wales. It is the home of the Army in Wales and it deserves a permanent home—one that is fit for the future and that honours its history.
The Minister was in Wales this week and I am deeply grateful to him for his visit. It shows his commitment to the armed forces across the Union and his willingness to ensure that Wales is not left behind. However, with the number of service personnel and veterans living and working in Brecon and Radnorshire, I am concerned that the Welsh Government are content for them to be left behind. We have a large veteran population in Wales—around 140,000—but we are still the only nation in the UK not to have a dedicated commissioner for veterans. During this year’s St David’s day debate, the Secretary of State for Wales confirmed that he was actively exploring ways in which the UK Government could establish Wales’s first veterans’ commissioner. However, the ball is now in the Welsh Government’s court, and since February nothing has happened.
In Wales, we have eight armed forces liaison officers, who do fantastic work, but without one overarching commissioner there is no one to ensure that mental health provision, for example, is as consistent for those who live in Ystradgynlais as it is for those who live in Wrexham. At this point, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has done so much work on this issue. I urge the Minister to continue his engagement with the Welsh Government and to get them to put the interests of veterans in Wales above the need constantly to frustrate the Conservative Government in Westminster.
I was incredibly moved to see a large parade of veterans streaming through Brecon a few weeks ago. They were there to support the former soldiers who face prosecution following their service in Northern Ireland. Although I could not join them in person on the day, I give them my full support. These vexatious prosecutions must end. Without any new evidence, there is no justification for the continued harassment of former soldiers.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, this morning heard from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who confirmed that he will be bringing forward a Bill shortly, but shortly is too slow; we cannot waste any more time. It was not appropriate to include Northern Ireland veterans in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 for the very obvious reason that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but there must be no further obstacles to this legislation. All serving personnel should be treated equally and it is more than time that the Government righted the wrongs done to those who served in Operation Banner.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), and to speak in support of several amendments that would improve the welfare of serving soldiers and former service personnel.
As we are in Armed Forces Week, I would like to pay tribute not only to the tireless campaigning of organisations such as the Royal British Legion, but to veterans in my constituency of Ceredigion. I pay particular tribute to the efforts of the Ceredigion armed forces community covenant partners, especially to Captain Colin Jones MBE and his work with the Ceredigion armed forces veterans hub. Together, they run regular breakfast clubs across the county and have organised a series of events to raise money for good causes, the most recent of which took place just last Saturday. Colin climbed Yr Wyddfa, the highest mountain in Wales, blindfolded, in aid of Blind Veterans UK—a feat that was followed in the evening by a friendly but very competitive football match between the old boys of Aberystwyth FC and the old boys of the Royal Welsh Regiment.
I support new clause 1, which would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the unjust fee levied on current or former serving members of the UK armed forces and their families when they submit applications for indefinite leave to remain. Such a measure would cost very little. It has support on both sides of the Committee and would have a profound impact on those it affects. It would also, of course, signal the support of this place for service people and their families.
Furthermore, I welcome amendments 1 to 4, and particularly amendment 2, which would require the Welsh Government to pay due regard to the armed forces covenant. This amendment is crucial in ensuring access to housing and other sources of wellbeing for veterans in Wales, while respecting the devolution settlement. It is important because although the armed forces are clearly a reserved matter, many aspects of their care, from housing to healthcare to education—matters that have been discussed by other hon. Members this afternoon —are devolved, with responsibility for implementation lying either with the Welsh Government or at a local authority level.
It is therefore essential to establish what expectations the Bill places on the Welsh Government and local authorities. With that in mind, I hope the Minister will inform us of what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government to streamline access to these services and ensure parity across the four nations, particularly given that not all armed forces charities and support networks have as strong a presence as we would like in some parts of Wales.
Equally, I ask the Minister to respond to the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill and its recommendation that amendments should be pursued requiring the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers before issuing or revising guidance under proposed new section 343AE of the Armed Forces Act 2006, as well as before making regulations under proposed new section 343AF. That is particularly important given that the Government are no longer seeking a legislative consent motion from the Senedd. If he is able to refer to those points in his summing up, I would be grateful.
I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends in the SNP that would require accommodation provided to service people in the respective nations of the UK to meet certain standards. It is appalling that, while the Government oversee procurement disasters, trumpet budget increases and laud the sacrifices made by our armed forces, they are still to commit to providing basic standards of accommodation for our service people. These amendments would address that, and I urge the Government to support them.
Finally, I note my support for new clause 2, which would establish a duty of care standard for legal, pastoral and mental health support for service personnel in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations. Establishing a duty of care in these instances is the responsible and right thing to do.
The new clauses and amendments I have addressed today would make a meaningful impact on the lives of current and former service personnel. They are all considered amendments and have been tabled in good faith, and I hope the Government will use the good will apparent on both sides of the Committee to ensure that the Bill works with the devolved Governments to improve the standards of care and support received by our armed forces community.
Jamie Stone
It is interesting how, when we listen to a debate, our own speech changes according to what we have just heard. To give credit where it is due, the description provided by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) of what it was like to be homosexual and serving in the armed services rang a very strong bell with me.
My father had a much-loved cousin—he is dead now —who rose to a fairly high rank in the armed forces. Of course, all his life he was a homosexual. I remember him describing to me, not long before he died, what it was like to live a lie, because he did not dare come out or admit to his sexuality. He eventually came out in his 80s and had a partner before he died, and it was great. That always sticks with me, so I compliment the hon. Gentleman.
What the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said about indefinite leave to remain, which has been mentioned many times in this debate, is very important. New clause 1 stands in my name, and I want to take it as far as possible. I hope the day will come when interpreters or anyone who has served Queen and country, and frankly risked their life, will be afforded the most assistance to become a permanent part of our country.
I have mentioned this several times in the past, and I want to make a point that I do not think other Members have touched on. In doing this sort of thing, word gets back to the countries these people originally come from, and that generates good will. Recruitment is the theme of my speech, and that good will helps us address a problem that I have heard about over and again in my four years in this place: that we are not recruiting the numbers that we need. We should never underestimate the importance of good will when it comes to recruitment.
I would be obliged if the Minister would pass on my thanks to his colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), who kindly hosted a most interesting briefing about Mali. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), was there as well. When we heard what was being done by our services personnel in Mali to ensure peace and to do good in the world, it really did sound very good indeed and was very encouraging.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly on Reserves Day and ahead of celebrating Armed Forces Day on Saturday. It is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches, particularly that by my Welsh colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones).
The passage of the Bill through Parliament this year is particularly important because it will put the armed forces covenant into legislation. Of course, the covenant is not new, but has been in operation in its current form for nearly 10 years. During that time, significant progress has been made to improve the lives of armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. More than 6,000 organisations and every local authority in the UK has pledged to support it.
However, the covenant is still just a pledge and individual members of the armed forces community still suffer disadvantage when accessing public services. This is often because of a lack of awareness of not just the covenant but the unique contributions that our service personnel make. The Bill will impose a legal duty on relevant bodies to have due regard to the three principles of the covenant. This is our promise to those who are serving or have served: they and their families will be treated fairly.
I come from a service family—my grandparents met in the RAF. I have RAF Valley in my constituency, and I am proud to be on the RAF section of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I understand that going into the armed forces is a unique career choice. People hand themselves and their family over to the service of their country, with all that that entails.
I am fortunate to work closely with RAF Valley. Group Captain Andy Turk’s whole force team at the base is a very close-knit and supportive community, and I hold regular meetings with the service personnel and the private sector organisations based there, including Babcock, BAE Systems and Affinity. I represent both civilian and service constituents and their concerns are my concerns. RAF Valley is one of the largest employers here on Ynys Môn and I am consistently pushing very strongly, both informally and formally, how important these skilled jobs are in my constituency. Indeed, I had a meeting today with the Minister for Defence Procurement, which included an invitation to visit RAF Valley over the summer.
What strikes me most about the whole force team at RAF Valley is not what they do for the country, but what they do quietly in the background for the local community. Yes, training our future fighter and helicopter pilots is what we shout about, but it is their commitment to Anglesey that makes them truly part of our island. The station is as much part of Anglesey life as Anglesey life is part of the station, so my message today is this: when people think of the armed forces covenant, they should not think only of the contribution that our forces make to our national security; they should remember also the huge contribution that they make to our everyday life.
With RAF Valley here on Anglesey, the community enjoys so many benefits. The team helped us to secure hosting of the 40th anniversary of the Island games. They have provided critical skilled volunteers for our Royal National Lifeboat Institution, mountain rescue and local first responder groups. They host award-winning youth outreach programmes such as the Jon Egging Trust, support the learning and mentoring Profi project and partner with Careers Wales and STEM Cymru projects. They provide local junior football and tennis camps, on-site science, technology, engineering and maths activities and events for local schools. Padre Michael Hall of the station charities committee raises vital funds for a range of north Wales charities and organises a Santa drop for the children staying in Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital over Christmas. They run beach cleans, they are custodians of a stretch of our beautiful coastal path, and they do so much more.
The armed forces covenant is our country’s thank you. It is a thank you for all that our armed forces do, and I take this opportunity to say personally diolch yn fawr—thank you—to RAF Valley for all that it does. I am proud that this Government are enshrining the armed forces covenant in legislation, so that our services personnel and their families receive the recognition that they deserve for their courage and years of commitment to us.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
First, let me put on record that my thoughts are with the crew of HMS Defender as they go about their job with the usual dedication and skill today. Let me also say that despite what certain news agencies may have said today, Crimea is in Ukraine, and all on the Scottish National party Benches hope that the Russian Federation ends that illegal occupation as quickly as possible.
Today’s reminder that those members of our armed forces do a job like no other is pertinent and the opportunity that we in this House have through this legislation is a solemn duty, which I do not doubt all who are speaking today approach with the requisite seriousness. That does not mean, however, that we all share the same optimism about the Bill. While the idea of bringing the armed forces covenant into law is a welcome step forward, I still feel that there is going to be little in the Bill that will be genuinely transformative for the lived experience of armed forces personnel and veterans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and constituency neighbour has already spoken about her amendment on armed forces housing and I will not add much to that, other than to say that it is the type of small change that could make a real difference to the home lives of personnel wherever they are on these islands. More substantively, it is an amendment that makes an important point about how we should see the armed forces personnel not as a special class or caste of a group of our societies that seeks to defend that societies’ values. They cannot do this in substandard housing. The very least we should offer them is that which is available to the rest of society and, in this case, make sure that they are housed safely and warmly. I am determined to say every time these sorts of debates come up that those of us here would do well to think of our serving personnel less as heroes, and more as human beings, with the same needs as the rest of us: fair pay and conditions, the right to private and family life and ready access to secure accommodation. That is taken for granted for every other type of public sector employee, so why is it not for armed forces personnel? In fact, come to think of it, despite being to the best of my knowledge the only group of public sector employees to have a dedicated legislative session every five years, armed forces personnel have demonstrably poorer outcomes on almost every scale. How can that be?
There may be a metaphor in here. We are told that the Armed Forces Bill meets by convention as a Committee of the whole House before Report and Third Reading. Given that the Bill Select Committee was rushed through in a few short weeks, I cannot understand why we are now inserting another stage or, indeed, why the amendments that the Government are bringing today could not have been brought to the Select Committee.
I note with particular puzzlement yesterday’s statement from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). He is a fellow Docherty, with roots in Donegal and Glasgow and with whom I enjoyed working on the Defence Committee. He stated that further scrutiny would
“delay the Bill’s passage, placing undue pressure on the deadline to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 27WS.]
I would certainly like to think that the next time an armed forces Bill whizzes through the House, we get a wee bit more time to discuss the really important issues at hand.
As the arcane workings of this place continue to baffle both Members and personnel alike, we avoid being able to discuss the type of wide-ranging changes that could make a real difference to the lives of personnel, although that is probably the way that the Government and the Ministry of Defence like it. Maybe I am just being cynical.
My final points are in regard to the Opposition amendments relating to the service justice system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) will be supporting. From my work on the Defence Committee, it is clear that the service justice system needs a radical and profound overhaul, and not just the modest changes proposed in the amendment. With the next armed forces Bill, it is time that we think about bringing together all the service police forces, streamlining the processes and ensuring a more robust service justice system that works for all.
I conclude by thanking all my colleagues on the Bill Select Committee for their work over the past few months —especially the Chair, the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), because I know it is the first time that a Bill has been considered in a hybrid way—and the Clerks and those in the Public Bill Office who have helped us navigate this legislation. We owe it to service personnel, in whose name the Bill will be enacted, to make it more straightforward in the future.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate on the armed forces, but particularly this week, as we recognise the huge contribution they make, today on Reserves Day and Saturday on Armed Forces Day. I also take this opportunity to thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. Through the scheme that it runs, I have been able to see almost every week the incredible work that our armed forces do day in, day out.
They say an organisation is only as good as its people, and nowhere is that more true than in the armed forces. Through the Bill, not only do we maintain our armed forces on paper, but it means that the hundreds of thousands of men and women who serve in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, the British Army and the Royal Marines can continue to serve Queen and country. They are the best, the brightest and the most courageous among us.
As we debate clause 1, we must consider why we need the armed forces and why they are still relevant in today’s world. In my view, the argument is stronger than ever before. Turning first to our domestic need, in the fight against covid-19, defence has supported literally hundreds of requests from citizens, the NHS, local authorities and Government Departments. In Lancashire, we have seen that through testing, vaccine deployment, planning, logistics and so much more. They have made a huge contribution, often behind the scenes and always without fanfare. However, this domestic demand has never come at the expense of their core activities. Only last month, we saw HMS Queen Elizabeth set sail as part of the carrier strike group—a huge tasking of personnel from all the services, not just those on board the carrier itself but on the frigates, destroyers and submarines, as well as the aircrew, that go with it.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I pay tribute to the men and women who serve our nation in uniform and our veterans who have selflessly sacrificed so much to protect this great nation. They deserve our utmost respect, gratitude and thanks. I also give thanks to the armed forces and veterans breakfast club in Bury where people work to help veterans, their families and service personnel, bringing the entire community together and reducing social isolation. They meet throughout the week. This should be commended and I put my thanks on record today.
I warmly welcome this Bill. I have the utmost confidence that it will ensure that veterans are treated fairly when accessing key public services, as well as improving the service justice system. As chairman of the all-party group on alcohol harm, I make particular reference to new clause 6 with regard to alcohol disorders. Although I appreciate the reasons that the Government are not bringing forward a measure at the moment, it needs to be explored further so that we do our utmost to ensure that anyone who has a disorder, a dependency or a need—whether they are a recent recruit, still serving or a recent veteran—can be given the help they need throughout their life.
In particular, the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law, increasing awareness among public bodies of the unique nature of military service and improving the level of service for members of the armed forces community in regard to their healthcare, housing and education. I imagine that every Member of this House is aware of veterans out there who have been unable to access help and services that they desperately need, so I warmly welcome the covenant being enshrined in law.
However, our veterans deserve more than the appreciation of a grateful nation. They have protected and built our country, and they deserve our tireless commitment to advancing their opportunities. We must build a brighter future worthy of their sacrifice and that of their families. That is why I welcome the funding announced in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in support of veterans welfare. An additional £10 million will be invested in the armed forces covenant fund in 2021-22, which will deliver charitable projects and initiatives to support veterans’ mental health. This latest funding is in addition to the annual Government contribution of £10 million to the covenant fund.
I welcome the funding announcement, but the veterans community in Bury needs more support. There is currently very little provided for them. Since my election to this House, I have been working with other leaders in the borough, with the council and with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), to try to bring our own veterans hub to the town of Bury. We are proud of our military heritage; we are a regimental town, looking after the Lancashire Fusiliers. The veterans hub would seek to deliver housing and employment skills, further education, family support and health and wellbeing.
I have visited numerous veterans hub operations across the surrounding areas, and I pay tribute to the services in Wigan and also in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham). The positive impact that a local veterans hub can have is clear to everyone. Can the Minister tell me what we can do to ensure that veterans receive the support that they need, no matter where they live, and what funding would be available from the MOD to help set up a veterans hub locally in Bury? We must reaffirm our fundamental promise that, just as the military leaves no one behind on the battlefield, we will leave no veteran behind when they come home.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and an honour to speak in this debate in Armed Forces Week and on Reserves Day, especially because I am proud to have the Royal Marine Reserve headquarters in my constituency. Ahead of Reserves Day, I visited them last week and was able to thank them personally for their service. They put in a hard day’s work all over the country, then travel to their reservist centre to train for the Royal Marines, no less. They offer amazing service to our country, and I am very proud of them and grateful to them.
There is much to welcome in the Bill, which will support our armed forces personnel and their families. I echo the words of colleagues on both sides of the House in recognising and celebrating the work of our armed forces and their ongoing efforts to make our country and the world safer. We cannot put a price on safety. Only when our own safety is compromised, or when we do not have it, do we realise how important it is to us every day. I worked with aid workers in Bosnia during the war, and I have seen the difference it can make to a whole community not to have that safety, so I value it very much.
Our armed forces have had to adapt all their work and all their training at speed during the pandemic, and I commend them for that. I am also thankful for the work they have done to support frontline efforts to tackle the pandemic. They really have stepped up when we have asked them to. It is for this reason that, while I support the aims of the Bill, I think it is a huge missed opportunity and could have gone further. It needs to go further if it is to deliver real improvements to the day-to-day lives of our service personnel and veterans and their families.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
As a fellow member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could have gone further in addressing mental health provision for veterans, given the fact that they have to wait 37 days to receive a face-to-face appointment for mental health services, compared with the Government’s own target of just 14 days?
Fleur Anderson
I agree with my hon. Friend: this Bill could have gone further both in putting all aspects of the covenant fully into law, and in its scope.
The Bill does not fully enshrine the armed forces covenant in law. It seems to absolve central Government from responsibility for delivering the covenant, as has been outlined by my colleagues. It does not make sense to place new responsibilities on a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, to deliver the covenant, but not to include central Government. Does the Minister agree that the Government are effectively outsourcing the delivery of these important commitments and also evading their own responsibility on issues such as pensions, social care and mental health services? For that reason, I support amendments 1 to 4. They would place the same legal responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant on central Government and the devolved Administrations and remove that glaring discrepancy.
My second point is that the Bill is just too narrow. Service charities are rightly concerned that this Bill contains nothing specific on issues such as service accommodation, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed. Our armed forces personnel and their families should not suffer disadvantage in any area. By setting a legal standard that is below existing voluntary commitments in some areas, the Government risk creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on services for forces’ communities where we should be providing the gold standard.
The Bill, as it stands, does not cover all the commitments made in the covenant, or all the public bodies responsible for delivering them It contains powers for the Secretary of State to expand these, so why not include them? Will the Minister clarify how and when these powers might be used? These issues are why I am supporting amendment 6 this afternoon.
This Bill does nothing to address the shameful scandal of visa fees for Commonwealth veterans. I know that there is support in all parts of the House for addressing this, so I urge Members to vote for the new clause. The Government’s long-awaited proposals, currently being consulted on, will help just one in 10 Commonwealth veterans. We know what the Commonwealth veterans want, need and deserve for their service, so why not just put it in the Bill? The proposed changes do not apply to family members of those who have served or who have been medically discharged, meaning that it will help only a minority of those affected.
Commonwealth service personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country for which they have potentially laid down their lives. They have served with courage and distinction, and we thank them and then do not give them the rights that they deserve. The Government’s long-overdue proposals are insulting to those personnel and will continue to prevent non-UK veterans from living in the country for which they have fought. Moreover, the proposals will reduce retention and recruitment rates, as has been outlined.
Under new clause 7, Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans who have served four years would pay cost price—they would pay just over £200 instead of £2,389 for an indefinite leave to remain application. Those with families will have to pay nearly £10,000 to apply for a right to remain. We did not ask them for that when they potentially laid down their life for us and for our country. We ask far too much of them, and put far too high a barrier for the indefinite leave to remain application. This is a move that the Royal British Legion and organisations such as Citizenship for Soldiers have long campaigned for, and I pay my respect to them both for their campaigns and for speaking up for so many people. I urge all hon. Members to support the new clause.
The Government like to talk up their support for our service communities, and rightly so, but they are not delivering. It is time for Ministers to deliver the promises of the covenant in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. I often think that our armed forces personnel lose out because they are not allowed to wear their military uniform out and about, and I absolutely understand the reasons for that. None the less, in countries such as America, armed forces personnel are thanked everywhere they go. They are given special treatment and respect for their service to their country, and rightly so. But our armed forces personnel often do not feel that respect; they cannot because they cannot wear their uniform. The covenant goes a long way to saying how much we respect our armed forces personnel and their families, but it could go a bit further to achieve that. The Opposition’s reasonable and constructive amendments are designed to get the very best for our forces from this legislation, so I urge hon. Members from all sides of the House to support the amendments.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division. On the motion on the conference, November and Christmas Adjournments, the Ayes were 567 and the Noes were three, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the assurances he provided from the Dispatch Box in his opening remarks. I also pay special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for the diligence with which he conducted the Bill Select Committee. I must also pay special tribute to my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). Whenever he recollects and provides details of his experiences, he never fails to move me and, I know, many other Members in this Chamber. Thanks are also clearly due to the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, particularly given the efforts it has put in, and, of course, all the military establishments that have continued with the armed forces parliamentary service during this difficult time of restrictions due to covid. It has been invaluable to me to be a member of the scheme, even with all the constraints that covid imposed.
One of the key messages that I take away from the last 18 months is that our military all do their job with a conviction that I find difficult to equal elsewhere. In fact, calling it a job is probably wrong: it is in fact a way of life. It is not a life of luxury. Indeed, it is not a life with many of the things that most of us take for granted. It is a life that they know might one day put them at risk. I thank all of them and their families and pay tribute to the veterans from my constituency of Dudley North and beyond.
Before I entered Parliament, I chaired an armed forces covenant committee in the Black Country, where I saw at first hand the difficulties faced by our brave personnel and their families—if they had any family—simply because of the nature of their jobs. At that point, the covenant was a voluntary commitment, with inconsistencies across the country. I am therefore delighted that this is being enshrined in law so that the support somebody receives in Dudley will be the same as that given in Portsmouth and, indeed, perhaps in Dover.
While I was chairing the covenant committee, I was never able to find the answer to one simple question: how many people had we helped and were we actually helping? I am a very outcome-focused person, and while I could not doubt the well-meaning and positive intentions of all the partners supporting the covenant—the local council, the local NHS trusts and so many more—I had a hard time quantifying the benefit, even though the covenant is clearly a great step forward. My plea to Ministers is therefore to seek ways to evidence what impact the covenant is having on veterans and their families. That will help partners to improve their offer together and demonstrate the great value in the armed forces covenant.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. I wish to speak in opposition to new clauses 1, 2 and 3.
I thank my colleagues who served on the Select Committee for the Bill, which was so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). The Bill as it stands will protect our armed forces not only while they are serving, but once they have completed their service, delivering on the manifesto commitments on which we were elected.
It is fitting that we are debating the Bill during Armed Forces Week. Only this morning, on Reserves Day, I was privileged to attend a flag raising ceremony here in Darlington, attended by veterans, reservists-and youth trainees, in recognition of their service and to express the thanks of the people I represent. In my Second Reading speech, I reiterated the words of those armed forces veterans in Darlington, who support the Bill. The Bill will impose a legal duty on UK public bodies and local authorities to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, ensuring that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged because of or by their service when accessing key public services. I am satisfied that, with the Government new clauses, this Bill will right the wrongs of the past to provide the protection our armed forces personnel and veterans need and deserve. That being said, I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that more can always be done.
With regard to new clauses 1 and 7, the Government have already stressed that they are aware that the current system places financial liability on non-UK service personnel and are currently consulting on a policy to waive fees for personnel at the conclusion of their military service. I look forward to the consultation’s end next month. Similarly, in regard to new clause 2, the Government have already set out their desire to provide gold standard provision for veterans and I am glad that Ministers have stressed the importance of that duty of care. In regard to new clause 3, the Government have outlined at length how the armed forces are adapting to new challenges that we face across the globe.
This Bill enshrines the armed forces covenant in law and impacts veterans in all our constituencies. I am proud to be supporting the Government this evening in delivering an important promise to those who are serving and those who have served us so well.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to all serving armed forces personnel and veterans, thousands of whom are based in my Stockport constituency and across Greater Manchester. We all owe a debt of gratitude to them.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for tabling new clause 7, which deals with
“Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth and Gurkha members of armed forces”.
It is vital that we recognise the sacrifice that these brave men and women make for our country, and they should be recognised and rewarded accordingly. The very least the UK Government can do is forgo the cost of remaining in our country. I also pay tribute to all Gurkhas, as well as to the work of the all-party group on Nepal and the efforts of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who has tirelessly campaigned for justice for the Gurkha community.
I am especially grateful to Mr Peter Millns from the Stockport veterans breakfast club for all his work in supporting the veteran community in my town. He has a long and distinguished career in the military, including a tour of Bosnia while serving in the 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment during the conflict in 1993. The work he and many like him do is crucial to providing the support and camaraderie that many serving personnel and veterans need.
There are 2.5 million veterans living in the UK, and it is vital that they are not simply forgotten about once they have served our country and put their lives on the line for it. Veterans such as Mr Millns in my constituency require funding for community services such as a veterans hub in Stockport town centre, a place where serving and former personnel can receive support for housing, employment and public services such as healthcare. That is vital in helping many integrate back into society after tours of duty and once they retire. In order to do this, they need Government support in the form of a fair funding package to all local authorities so these hubs in support of our veteran community can be rolled out across the nation. Voluntary organisations do incredible work, but it should not be left to them to make up the shortfall in Government support. Too often, the armed forces covenant is not upheld and the promises made do not match the reality experienced by our service communities, from substandard housing to poor veterans’ mental health and social care.
Earlier this year, a highly critical report by the National Audit Office revealed that tens of thousands of troops live in substandard accommodation, while the Ministry of Defence refuses to pay for £1.5 billion-worth of repairs, meaning that half the rooms in MOD barracks would fail to meet the current building regulations. That is no way to treat those who have put their lives on the line to keep our country safe. The Government also need to reduce the waiting time for access to affordable and social housing and improve the existing armed forces housing stock, much of which is dilapidated and has often fallen into disrepair. The Bill places a legal responsibility on councils to deliver on the covenant in the areas of housing, healthcare and education, but, crucially, without providing any extra funding to do so. The Government must therefore implement the armed forces covenant fully in law and increase its funding.
As I have alluded to already, Commonwealth military veterans who have served with the UK military and put themselves in harm’s way for our nation should be afforded the exact same privileges as British nationals. However, the Royal British Legion has warned that they are facing a “desperate situation” due to visa fees of thousands of pounds for those who want to stay in the UK following discharge from the military. This situation must be urgently rectified, and the visa application fees for military personnel from Commonwealth countries must be abolished urgently. Failure to do so would leave many facing deportation.
The UK aims to recruit 1,350 people from Commonwealth countries each year, up from its previous target of 200. We now have more than 6,000 Commonwealth personnel who currently serve in the armed forces.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that those individuals have a huge contribution to make post their military career to British society, whether it be the NHS or other public services, and that by not doing what he says, we are missing an opportunity for the experience that they gained in their service to this country to be given back to the country?
Navendu Mishra
I fully share my right hon. Friend’s views. These people could be invaluable in our society, contributing to all sections of the community, and the Government should urgently resolve this matter. Many of these people are exempt from immigration controls during service, but that is removed immediately on discharge. That is no way to thank them after years of loyal service for our country. We should be rewarding them rather than penalising them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the chance to contribute to this debate on an issue very close to my heart. Let me put on the record how pleased I am to see the Minister in his place. He has been a good friend of mine over the years—a good friend of us all—and we look forward very much to hearing what he has to say.
I declare an interest as a former part-time soldier, having served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army Royal Artillery for 14 and a half years. That may have given me my interest in this issue, but the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which other Members have referred to, has given me a greater overview of what happens. It has given me an opportunity to see what the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy do, and to have a more strategic overview of what it all means, so it really has been good to do that.
New clause 3 refers to a report on personnel numbers in the armed forces. I have to put on the record, as others have—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to it—my disappointment that the personnel figure for the forces has dropped. In 2004, under Labour—that was long before I came here; I was in the Assembly at the time—there were some 207,000 personnel. That has dropped dramatically.
I worry that, as others have said, we have come to the stage where viability becomes a key issue and there is a question about whether we are able to respond to all the places in the world where there is conflict. We have heard reference—it may have been from the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on the SNP Front Bench—to Mali. We know that British soldiers have a key role to play there and elsewhere in Africa. The level of terrorism in central Africa—Gabon, Nigeria, Mali and other areas in that part of Africa—is rising, and we have a role to play. We have a role to play in the far east as well. I do have great concern about that.
In Northern Ireland over the years, we have been very fortunate to have had a good level of recruitment. We never needed conscription in Northern Ireland, because people volunteered in great numbers in the first and second world wars and in every conflict since. Perhaps Ministers—maybe not this Minister, but another Minister or the Secretary of State—would confirm that the number of TA personnel has been increased in Northern Ireland. The recruitment of TA personnel in my constituency of Strangford and in Newtownards, the town where the two regiments are located, shows great improvement.
Moving on to the amendments that have been selected, I support my colleagues who brought forward new clause 1 regarding waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for serving or discharged members of the UK armed forces and, similarly, new clause 7. We have much to be thankful for historically because those Commonwealth members who joined our ranks served with courage and dedication. Many paid the ultimate price in the service of democracy and freedom while wearing the uniform in service to our royal family and to Queen and country.
Carol Monaghan
Although I said that fees were the biggest issue, we have heard from a number of Commonwealth veterans that they were not made aware of the requirement to apply at the appropriate point and that they have found themselves in a difficult situation over their immigration status. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an awful lot of work to be done here, particularly when veterans are discharged from the armed forces?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and wholeheartedly agree that there are things to do. I hope the Minister will respond to her, and also to me, because I endorse what she has said. It is obvious to me that whenever issues are brought to the attention of Ministers and the Ministry of Defence, things do happen—for instance, the status of the Afghan translators has been changed owing to perseverance and lobbying inside and outside the House—and I suggest that if there is an anomaly to be addressed, we should do that. The way to do it is for our Minister to respond, and I hope he will do so.
Let me return to the fee, which stands at £2,389 per person, despite the unit cost to the Home Office of processing an application being just £243. I always try to be respectful in the Chamber, but when I see figures of £243 and £2,389, I wonder to myself, “Where’s the money going?” For a family of four, the fee would be £9,556. People do not move on their own; they move as part of a family, so I believe consideration should be given to all the family.
I agree that the Government have found some way to acknowledge the debt in that they have proposed dropping fees for personnel who have served more than 12 years, but that does not include any provision for the families, I understand. If the Minister is able to reassure me on the matter, I will be more than happy to respect that.
This must change, and I fully support new clauses 1 and 7 with respect to those who fight to protect these shores. We cannot refuse entry by way of fees, which could take years to save, and perhaps more years to pay off. This small step could change lives and bring working families to enjoy what they have served to uphold. When someone serves, it is not simply their life that is changed; it is the life of the entire family. That is the issue. During the urgent question on vaccinations earlier today, I made a point about families to the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). It is not just one person who is involved, but a family, and often a family of four or more. The immediate family must be part of the equation at all levels.
I welcome some of the work that has been done in relation to veterans. I have a deep interest in veterans owing to the service rendered by my Strangford constituents. Many people have joined over the years and some have lived with the problems of post-traumatic stress disorder. I see the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) in his place. I thank him for his recent report, which has gone some way to addressing those issues.
I want to make a point about a charity called Beyond the Battlefield. It started 10 years ago in my constituency. There are many charities, but I want to speak about this one. Last year, it looked after 850 veterans. Whether it is benefits issues, social housing, health issues, family issues or legal advice, the help that it gives is incredible. Many people that the organisation helps are those who have fallen under the radar; other charities do not pick them up and they face real problems. In particular, I commend Annemarie Hastings and Rob McCartney for the work they have done through Beyond the Battlefield.
The charity organises a walk at the end of May called “A Big Dander”. If someone goes for a walk or a long run, somewhere at the bottom of that is what we call a dander—just take it at your leisure. Connor Ferguson and Ian Reid covered 430 miles in two days, crossing seven peaks and raising some £15,500. I commend them for that. Beyond the Battlefield survives on contributions and volunteer charity events like that one, and it does tremendous work.
I turn to the armed forces covenant. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) referred to her wish—it is my wish as well—to have the armed forces covenant in situ, not just here on the mainland, but for the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and in particular Northern Ireland.
In the background information, I see that the Committee “welcomed the Bill’s proposals” and referred to
“the areas of housing, healthcare and education in the last 12 months…the effectiveness of the legislation and comment on future scope…a memorandum to the Defence Committee two years after the legislation is enacted to enable the Defence Committee to conduct post-legislative scrutiny into how the Act has worked in practice.”
I want that covenant for my constituents in Strangford and all those across the whole of Northern Ireland who have served Queen and country in uniform, so that they have the same rights as they would here.
In the same spirit, I lend my support to amendments 39 and 40 on the standard of housing in the armed forces. Family units sacrifice to serve and it is vital that we do right by them. How can we expect a man or woman to serve with focus if they are worried about the housing in which their family reside back home? How can they serve with focus if they are concerned that their child’s asthma—this is one issue that has come to my attention—is worsening because of damp in their housing? The answer is that they cannot. It is their duty to sacrifice for us and they do so willingly. We in this House must do the same for them and address the issue of decent housing for families. It is sad that we need to legislate in this way, but the fact is that some Army housing is not fit for purpose and funding must urgently be allocated for those family homes. I am coming to the end of my contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In my constituency, I have an Army couple—one person from Northern Ireland and one from England—who refuse to put their five-year-old into Army housing, so they private rent. It is not because they want to be better than anybody else. It is because the rented accommodation that they were offered just was not suitable for their child or for them; indeed, I would suggest that it is not suitable for anybody. Given that they have had to private rent, their decent wage is taken up almost in its entirety by rent and childcare.
When we ask people to serve, we take them away from the support of siblings and parents who might be able to mind their children, yet—with great respect—we do not provide enough for them to live comfortably when doing so. It is little wonder that many families choose to split their time by keeping a base in one town to which they travel on weekends and when on leave, and another only for work. One step towards a good working family is providing housing that is fit for purpose that families can live in together and save the money that they can while working on base, and doing away with the use of very costly private rentals.
I am immensely proud of our armed forces, as we all are in this House. We stand in awe of those who serve in uniform, whether in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or the Army. We are so proud of what they have done for us, and I believe that we in this House have to do our best for them, with gratitude for their service and for their families, who are part of that service. We need to give them the best; unfortunately, we are not there just yet.
Leo Docherty
I thank all Members who have spoken today for their thoughtful and sincere contributions, and I wish to put on record again my gratitude for the effective chairmanship of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) for the constructive tone of his remarks today. He rightly spoke at some length on the historic hurt suffered by those dismissed from military service purely for their sexual orientation—this related to new clause 4. We also heard welcome remarks on that from the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), who made a moving speech, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). So I want to put clearly on the record the fact that the historical ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong and there was horrific injustice as a consequence of it. We will go all out to address that injustice. We are resisting new clause 4 today because we believe that if we accepted that, it would complicate our efforts to address at pace this injustice. But getting after this historical hurt and delivering justice for these people is at the heart of our veterans’ strategy, which I will be announcing later this year. I have met Fighting with Pride already to that end. So we will address this injustice with compassion and deep urgency.
Many Members mentioned settlement fees in relation to new clauses 1 and 7. New clause 1 stood in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, but other Members spoke to it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who also mentioned the cases of Afghan interpreters. I am pleased that they are now coming to our country for the sake of refuge. Let me be clear again that the provisions for settlement fees are out for public consultation, which will conclude on 7 July. I cannot pre-empt what it will find, but I am optimistic and expectant that we will deliver a good and honourable result for those who serve and deserve to be able to settle without exorbitant and unjust fees.
The right hon. Member for North Durham returned to the familiar theme of investigations, and I am pleased to confirm to him this afternoon that Justice Henriques will report by the end of the summer, at which point we will consider with sincerity and rigour the recommendations within that report. I have no doubt that we will communicate further on this subject.
Mr Kevan Jones
I have been a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, so will the Minister just clarify what he means by “the summer”, because there is a big difference between what we all know as the summer and what the MOD knows as the summer? Is he referring to what we recognise or will it be later in the year?
Leo Docherty
I am pleased to confirm that that means summer this year, not summer next year.
I was pleased to hear from a trio of Welsh MPs: my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), the hon. Member for Ceredigion and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). The hon. Member for Ceredigion questioned whether or not we should have had a legislative consent mechanism in relation to this Bill. I am happy to confirm to him that that is not required—we have taken legal advice on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to my recent visit to Wales, when I was very pleased to meet veterans and members of the armed forces and to hear about the very important work of armed forces liaison officers in relation to the local delivery of the armed forces covenant. We had discussions about whether or not there is a need for a veterans commissioner for Wales, and I would hope that all three Welsh Members who spoke today would support that notion, because it would, in addition to the armed forces liaison officers, deliver some value for our defence people and our veterans. I urge the Welsh Government, as I will do in future meetings, to look at that very seriously.
We were pleased also to hear from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who brought his usual good cheer and sincere interest in defence affairs to the Chamber virtually. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred, quite rightly, to the valued work of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, through the trust. He spoke about the centrality of people to everything we do in defence, and I thought that was very apposite.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) spoke about the breakfast club in Bury, and about the challenges faced by veterans and servicepeople when it comes to alcohol. I have noticed a discernible shift in the drinking culture in the armed forces: it is becoming much less of a thing. During my visit to Wales, I met serving members of 1 Para, who said that the gym is the new bar. That is quite interesting, compared with my experiences as a young soldier 20 years ago. Of course I spent a lot of time in the gym, but I was also committed to time in the bar. I think that culture may be shifting. I will be happy to support my hon. Friend’s efforts in Bury South—if he was in his place, I could give him that personal commitment—and the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) to support veterans at the local level.
The hon. Member for Putney made a fitting tribute to the magnificent Royal Marine reserve unit in her constituency. I can confirm that if she comes to Aldershot, she will see a lot of armed forces personnel cutting around in public, in the garrison and in Tesco. She would be very welcome to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) also mentioned the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and the hon. Member for Stockport mentioned the valuable work that veterans do to support their local communities.
I think we were all moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). His moving testimony of his personal experience of the armed forces covenant, both as someone in despair following service and then as an armed forces champion, caught the House’s attention and was very welcome.
Ten years ago, the covenant was relaunched to set out our nation’s promise to honour the immense contribution and commitment of our armed forces people. Ten years on, we are going further still. Anyone who has served their country knows that they should never face disadvantage because of their service. Today, we honour our servicepeople and our veterans. This Bill delivers, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Reserve forces: flexibility of commitments
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 8, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant government department;”—(Stephen Morgan.)
This amendment, with amendments 2, 3 and 4, would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government and the devolved administrations as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
“1A | a sentence of detention under section 224B (special sentence of detention for terrorist offenders of particular concern) | two-thirds of the term imposed pursuant to section 252A(5) of the Sentencing Code by virtue of section 224B(4) of this Act (the appropriate custodial term)” |
“4A | a serious terrorism sentence of detention in a young offender institution under section 268A of the Sentencing Code by virtue of section 219ZA of this Act (serious terrorism sentences) | the term imposed pursuant to section 268C(2) of the Sentencing Code (the appropriate custodial term)” |
“6A | a serious terrorism sentence of imprisonment under section 282A of the Sentencing Code by virtue of section 219ZA of this Act (serious terrorism sentences) | the term imposed pursuant to section 282C(2) of the Sentencing Code (the appropriate custodial term) |
6B | a custodial sentence in respect of which section 244ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies to the offender | two-thirds of the sentence |
6C | a custodial sentence not within any of the preceding entries in respect of which section 247A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies to the offender | two-thirds of the sentence” |
Business without Debate
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (24 JUNE)
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
DELEGATED LEGISLATION (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY)
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
English Wine Week
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to talk about the success story that is English wine in English Wine Week, but I am happy to expand the designation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My constituency, Arundel and South Downs, has one of the largest collections of vineyards in the United Kingdom, with a combined 309 hectares. Vineyards making up that hectarage are among some of the best in the country, including Nutbourne, Redfold Vineyards, Coldharbour, Tullens, Stopham, the Wiston Estate and Woodmancote vineyard. In that respect, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or, more accurately, the lack of any entry. With the summer months now upon us, I am always happy to volunteer myself as a professional consumer of their products.
I am also the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for wine of Great Britain, of which I see a number of members here this evening. I am pleased to announce that it has 53 Members from across the House. Through my role as chair, I have had the pleasure of working closely with Simon Robinson of Hattingley Valley, who sadly informed us that he will be stepping down as chair of WineGB in August. I pay tribute to him for his work, but I also welcome his successor, Sam Linter of Bolney Wine Estate. I am sure that we will have a great time promoting English wine together.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I first thank my hon. Friend for his leadership of the English wines group and for his expansive way of making it for all this country?
One of the issues raised by English wine producers, and in particular by producers of sparkling wine, where we are doing really well, is that we ought to be able to bring in half-litre bottles. [Interruption.] Forgive me; I am being asked to go to the pub. We can sell still wine in half-litres and some English wine growers suggest that, now that we are free of EU rules, it would be a good idea to do the same for sparkling wine.
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for that eminent suggestion. As we know, the only thing better than half a litre of English sparkling wine is a full litre, but why would we seek to deprive choice to the consumer? Perhaps the Minister and her colleagues will pick that up when she responds.
Wine, as we know, has a long history on this island, having been introduced by the Romans. By the time of the Normans, who indeed chose Sussex to land, more than 40 vineyards were listed in the Domesday Book—one of the earliest censuses on record—proving that their produce has always attracted the attention of the taxman. There was healthy growth in the wine industry in the late medieval and early-modern period, with 139 vineyards recorded at the time of Henry VIII’s coronation. Indeed, to this day, just over the road, there is a legacy of Henry’s prodigious taste for wine in the form of his personal cellar, now buried—or so they claim—under the Ministry of Defence. English wine has done exceptionally well in recent years and is now repeatedly recognised as a contender among some of the world leaders in the industry, with England winning more gold medals in the Sommelier Wine Awards than France.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. Does he not agree that British goods of a high quality, such as English wine, should be available for sale in each corner of this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that Greenfields wine, which I think he omitted to refer to, should be promoted in my constituency of Strangford just as Echlinville gin, made in Kircubbin in my constituency, should be promoted in Arundel?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the importance of the single internal market. I would be delighted to promote his Echlinville gin to my constituents in Arundel and South Downs.
I was talking about awards and the quality of our English products. In recent months, Nyetimber—another vineyard in my constituency—won four awards at the 2020 Champagne and Sparkling Wine World Championships. Closer to home, we should not forget the excellent work done by Trevor Clough and Jason Humphries at Digby Fine English—also in my constituency—who have been awarded the contract for the House of Commons gift shop’s first ever official sparkling wine, meaning that every visitor to this House can leave with a genuinely sparkling souvenir. It is happening not only in my constituency but across England, and it has been a pleasure to hear from hon. Friends about a wealth of other first-class wine estates.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Right across England, and indeed even in North Yorkshire—which might sound very northerly for a wine—there are the wonderful, award-winning Ryedale vineyards that produce the fantastically named Yorkshire’s Lass and Yorkshire’s Lad white wine. It really is top-drawer and worthy of that award. Does my hon. Friend think we might push the Treasury to introduce some incentives for our smaller wine growers—cellar door relief, for example, or perhaps small vineyards relief—which would encourage more tourism to our lovely constituencies as well as more wine sales?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. I look forward to consuming Yorkshire’s Lass or Yorkshire’s Lad. We should certainly support our small producers in what is, as I will go on to say, a growing industry in the United Kingdom.
A number of other colleagues have joined me to talk about the wine estates in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) has mentioned the Chafor vineyard in his constituency, and I see on the Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who plays host to Bolney, and Kingscote in East Grinstead.
English sparkling wine has had a very busy year despite the pandemic. With the current trend to stay local and to buy local due to the pandemic, the industry has adapted well to current restrictions. WineGB data suggests that the industry saw an increase of 30% in 2020 on the previous year, with 7 million bottles sold, and we have a great deal more to look forward to. Dermot Sugrue, winemaker at Whiston Estate, wrote recently that the 2020 harvest is
“in a word: Superb. Best…since 2003 & 2011.”
Peter Gladwin, the proprietor of the Nutbourne Vineyards, told me that he believes in some ways covid restrictions have helped the UK wine industry. Buying local, staycations and the multitude of good publicity have all boosted direct-to-consumer sales.
Wine tourism has also seen an increase in the lockdown, with more visitors than ever heading to our UK vineyards and wineries for their holidays, enhancing—and this is a very serious point—the rural economy and much-needed employment. A recent report commissioned by the South Downs National Park Authority, which itself does an excellent job at promoting English wine, estimated that we have seen 33,000 visitors coming to our 51 vineyards and 11 wineries.
If the authors of a recent report on climate change—another very serious topic—are to be believed, the South Downs wine harvest will only grow. Today, just 0.4% of agricultural land is currently used for viticulture, whereas the report estimates that up to 34% of land could be suitable in the future. This potential is already apparent in the wider country, as 2021 has seen 1.4 million vines planted, and over 5,000 acres have been planted over the past five years.
With restrictions easing, we cannot stop here. We must continue to try to help this great industry grow, and one way to help is through taxation. Wine Drinkers UK explained to me that currently excise duty on a bottle of still wine is £2.23 plus VAT, while excise duty on a bottle of sparkling wine is £2.86 plus VAT. There is literally a bubble tax. Maybe it is the forerunner of a broader tax on carbon emissions, but I have to say it does seem like a really odd place to start.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a very good point there. It is absurd of course because if it is a tax to prevent people from drinking more alcohol, the alcohol content of sparkling wine is rather lower than that of still wine, so it is actually even more healthy for people to drink sparkling wine than still wine.
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement of the health benefits of sparkling wine, and I am sure he himself is a sparkling example of that as well. In the long term, I am confident that such a change in taxation would be a good deal for the Chancellor.
Another current issue that the wine industry in Britain is facing is the lack of seasonal workers able to come over and help with the harvest. There is currently only one UK college I am aware of that promotes the very highest level of viticulture course, and that is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), which is Plumpton College. Its principal, Jeremy Kerswell, is very engaged in expanding this space and stepping into that opportunity. I believe that, together, we can find a happy balance between gaining seasonal workers, but also encouraging more British people to take up the wonderful career opportunities offered in viticulture.
On the subject of Government hospitality and patronage of home-grown wine, I have tabled a number of written questions in this House, from which I learned that in March of last year English wines made up only 10% of the Government wine cellar. However, I am delighted to report that Government are busy rectifying this oversight. In 2018-19, 49% of wines purchased for Government hospitality were English or Welsh, and that has improved this year to 73%—a commendable direction of travel and one we should really celebrate in English Wine Week.
Since I became chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for wine of Great Britain, the members and I have been pushing the Government to promote English wine as much as possible. It is something I will continue to champion, and I was grateful for the commitment given in this Chamber last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), as a Foreign Office Minister, that he will encourage all British high commissions and embassies to stock their cellars with home-grown produce. This would help, support and encourage the growth of the English wine industry on a global scale. Boosting exports is a major cause for optimism. Today we drink far more Australian wine than the Australians drink English wine, so there is an opportunity to redress that imbalance thanks to the new outline trade deal agreed by the International Trade Secretary. Such opportunities will be firmly on the agenda, or the menu, at the SussExport event to be hosted by Wilton Park this July for all export businesses in Sussex.
English Wine Week is also an outstanding opportunity to celebrate the community institutions that serve our local English wine—the great British pub. Pubs provide a warm welcome and a safe place to enjoy company, perhaps a glass of English sparkling wine, and often delicious food. Many are cherished and characterful buildings used for hospitality over the centuries.
To help our hard-pressed hostelries, I have launched a South Downs pub guide to encourage my constituents and visitors to the South Downs back to the booths, benches, beer gardens and bar stools of these local favourites. From the Foresters Arms in Kirdford, to the Thatched Inn in Hassocks, to the Holly Tree in Walberton to the White Horse in Graffham, all points of the compass in Arundel and South Downs are well served by an array of local pubs. I am thankful to Squires garden centre and Harwoods Land Rover for making this guide a possibility. It is not yet quite, as they say, available in all good bookshops, but copies will be available in time for unlocking on 19 July. In the meantime, it is at southdownspubs.com.
I believe that it is important to celebrate and support this growing British industry in any way that we can, from promoting it on the international stage to ordering a bottle or two occasionally for ourselves. It is successful, sustainable and with plenty of room to grow.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate given that we have a little more time due to the previous business finishing early. I really congratulate my hon. Friend, and neighbour, the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) on securing it. I am very covetous of his constituency because it includes the best vineyards in the country in the county that has the best vineyards in the country. It is with great pleasure that I endorse everything that he has said about English wine.
I speak with some long-term experience. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as a vacation job, I used to work at the English Wine Centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) in the village of Alfriston, where I grew up. In those days, English wine was an altogether different beast. It had been reinvented by Guy Salisbury-Jones down at Hambledon in Hampshire, the home of cricket, and was largely an occupation taken up by retired colonels and the like as a sideline and hobby.
The quality of English wine in those days was somewhat questionable, so we had to think up imaginative ways of trying to promote it. One of those we came up with was having an English wine festival; it was rather more down to quantity than quality, which appealed to those who came. Then, in 1984, we founded the great English wine run, which mimicked the Beaujolais race bringing the new Beaujolais across to the UK. Instead, we took English wine across to a bunch of unsuspecting Parisians, ending up at the George V hotel in Paris. About 100 teams took part. Some were dressed up as famous English generals who had conquered the French in battle; of course, there were many that fitted that bill. We had double- decker London buses, surfboards, helicopters and vintage Rolls-Royces. We appeared, each of us, with our two bottles of English wine that we delivered to the finishing point at the George V hotel to the unsuspecting French who did not really want to drink it.
But today English wine is an altogether different beast. Forty years on from when we had those English wine runs, which we did for four or five years, we can now, with huge pride, hold up a bottle of English wine and it will hold its own with the best the French champagne industry can throw it. As my hon. Friend said, we now have countless vineyards that are winning in blind tastings internationally across the globe against the French, who thought they were the masters of producing sparkling wine. English sparkling wine is better. We have benefited from climate change, we benefit from the same latitude as the champagne district and we benefit from a similar terroir, particularly on the south downs, where the 51 vineyards in the South Downs national park have that chalky terrain that makes the best grapes to turn into English sparkling wine. So it has been a great success story, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the odd drop has passed your lips occasionally in the past.
We need to celebrate the industry, and the Government need to get behind the industry a little more. We are now producing 7.1 million bottles on 10,000 acres across the country, mostly in England but some in Wales and apparently on a vineyard in Scotland—with a certain whisky tinge about it, I should think. We have 800 vineyards —and growing—employing many thousands of people and, really importantly, encouraging wine tourism as well. In Sussex, we have something called Sussex Modern, which was invented by the proprietor of Rathfinny, which is probably going to become the largest English vineyard and is a great success story. Sussex Modern combines vineyards with cultural and artistic sites for people coming to have a holiday in Sussex, just as they might go down to the south of France, to Bordeaux or wherever. They can take in some vineyards and some culture, history and heritage as well, and they can do it all in the United Kingdom, regardless of pandemics and everything else.
This is a really important, quality industry, and we want help from the Government. It is more expensive to set up a vineyard in this country, owing to the cost of land, when you are starting from scratch, so some more generous capital reliefs as part of agricultural aid might be something the Government would like to consider rather more generously. It is absurd, now that we are no longer constrained by taxation rules from the EU, that we are paying such a high tariff of tax on English wine. The equivalent tax in France is simply pennies—or euro cents—whereas here it is a much bigger chunk of the cost of the wine. It is also absurd, as I mentioned earlier, that we are paying a higher rate of tax on sparkling wine when it has a lower alcohol content—usually 11% compared with still wine at around 13 or 14%.
I know that, when the Minister replies, she will celebrate this industry—I have seen her taste much of the stuff in her years in this House—but will she have a word with her ministerial colleagues in the Treasury as well? This is a huge success story. It is part of Britain is GREAT, it will help to sell the UK around the world, and it would be nice to get that recognition from the Government with some financial advantage. In the post-common agricultural policy world in which we now live, the world is the English wine industry’s oyster and much of the south downs still can be developed under vineyards in the years to come. Thank you very much for this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to hearing great things from the Minister. We can all then retire to the bar and have a sparkling wine from England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) for organising this refreshing debate. It has been a really enjoyable end to today’s proceedings, but it has also raised some important matters, which I will endeavour to go through.
English Wine Week gives us a really good opportunity to come together to celebrate all that is good about English wine, and it is true that the growth in the sector has been phenomenal, with growth of 150% in just 10 years. Other sectors can only dream of such growth.
We have more than 3,500 hectares under vines at the moment, located on 770 vineyards spread across the country. It is great to have representatives of some of them in the Chamber this evening, and not just of Digby and Nyetimber, with whose products many of us are now familiar, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who talked about Yorkshire’s Lad and Yorkshire’s Lass, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who represents so many great growers, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who represents Bolney and Kingscote, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who was here earlier.
It was great to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is also a very experienced wine drinker. It was good to hear his experiences of the great English wine run. I think it is fair to say that, in his lifetime and mine, the reputation of English wine has rightly changed enormously, and he made that point extremely powerfully.
The growth is impressive, but this is very much just the beginning. WineGB predicts that, by 2040, we will be producing 40 million bottles a year and as much as 70,000 hectares could be under vine. Large champagne houses, including Pommery and Taittinger, are working with vineyards and wine producers here, for the climatic reasons that have been rehearsed by my colleagues.
The industry anticipates that, by 2040, the wine sector will account for up to 30,000 new jobs. A significant part of this new economy is tourism, with 150 British vineyards now open to the public. There was a very useful article about that in the Telegraph yesterday, suggesting where people might visit on their summer holidays.
Our excellence in education is also significant. The quality of wine education at Plumpton, which was mentioned, is rightly recognised around the world. I was pleased to talk earlier to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex. She told me about a very exciting scheme: the DWP is working with Plumpton on a sector-based work academy in viticulture to produce and train up the workers we need for the future of this sector.
I met WineGB recently to discuss what more the Government can do to support the sector. We continue to work on the application for a new geographical indication for Sussex wine; of course, that is where the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs is. That application is being processed within our new domestic GI scheme, and it is progressing well.
My hon. Friend mentioned the excellent report from the South Downs national park. The writers of that report are prepared to countenance a truly massive expansion of viticulture in the region. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials are taking the report very seriously and will be meeting the report writers next month to discuss how we can take the practical issues forward together.
It is also important to discuss marketing. We are truly a wine-loving nation. The trade is very important to us. By volume, we trade more wine in this country than anywhere else in the world. A fifth of our food imports by value are wine. English consumers clearly love wine, but—I should bring us down to reality—99% of the wine we drink currently is not produced here. We need to come together to boost sales among local consumers, which very much fits with our mantra this year of “Buy British, buy local, buy sustainable”.
I will look at the regulations post Brexit to ensure that they work in the best possible way for this industry. The points about taxation will, I am sure, have been heard by Her Majesty’s Treasury, and it is right that we are looking at how future farming schemes can fit this sector in a way that the common agricultural policy just did not.
We also need to ensure that English and Welsh wine benefits from our work on exports. At the moment, 10% of what we produce is exported, and the food and drink element of the GREAT campaign has made real progress in China, the US and Japan. We will continue to showcase excellent English wine. My hon. Friend and his APPG are right to challenge us on Government hospitality, and I will continue to work with him on that.
I am pleased to say that, in December last year, the UK joined the Organisation of Vine and Wine, which should help us shape the rules around winemaking on an international platform. We are very grateful to both WineGB and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association for working so closely with us on both that and other issues.
I encourage Members across the House to raise a glass this evening to this flourishing sector. I look forward to the day when, as a treat, we no longer have a glass of champagne but we can together have a glass of Sussex.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Zarah Sultana |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Hywel Williams |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon ( North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Hywel Williams |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) | Hywel Williams |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Zarah Sultana |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba) | Neale Hanvey |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Zarah Sultana |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Hywel Williams |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives)(Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Zarah Sultana |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Deferred Divisions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Draft Customs Safety and Security procedures (EU exit) regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or they are exempt. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. The statutory instrument has been introduced as one of the steps that the Government are taking to support businesses affected by covid-19, and it works by extending the staging in of customs control, specifically in relation to safety and security declarations. In this country we follow the World Customs Organisation’s SAFE framework in order to ensure that goods entering and leaving the UK do not threaten our safety and security. Customs authorities following the SAFE framework collect and risk-assess goods data before those goods arrive in or depart from their customs territories. The EU implemented that through the Union customs code, and those provisions have been retained in UK law following the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020.
The EU, as the Committee will know, forms a single safety and security zone. While the UK was part of the EU, only goods entering or leaving the EU were required to submit safety and security declarations. After the end of the transition period, to give businesses more time to prepare for new customs requirements, the Government announced that the requirements would be introduced in stages. As part of that, the Government have waived the requirement for safety and security declarations on goods imported from the EU and other territories from which such declarations would not have been required before the end of the transition period. The waiver runs from 1 January 2021 until 30 June 2021.
In December 2020, the Government also introduced a statutory instrument that granted the commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs time-limited powers to waive or alter the requirements for safety and security declarations on goods exported from Great Britain by issuing a public notice. Since 1 January 2021, there have been public notices in place for two categories of exports, waiving the requirement for safety and security declarations on those movements. The first category is roll-on, roll-off movements where an exit summary declaration would otherwise be required. The second is movements of empty pallets, containers and modes of transport being moved under a transport contract where such movements did not attract the safety and security requirement before the end of the transition period.
In March, in response to feedback from stakeholders about the challenges that they were facing, the Government announced their intention to extend the staging in of customs controls. To support that, this instrument extends for six months until 31 December 2021 the waiver from a safety and security declaration requirement for goods imported into Great Britain from places where such declarations were not required before the end of the transition period. Safety and security declarations will be required for those imports from 1 January 2022. The instrument has no impact on the safety and security declaration requirements for goods imported from the rest of the world where declarations will need to be submitted pre arrival.
As has been the case since the beginning of the year, Border Force will continue to undertake intelligence-led risk assessments of imports into Great Britain. There is no significant increase in the security risk to the UK as a result of this waiver. The instrument also extends until 30 September 2021 the waiver for the requirement for a safety and security export declaration for the two categories of movement where those requirements are currently waived by public notice. The powers under which HMRC commissioners issued those public notices are time limited and cannot be used to alter or waive safety and security export requirements after 30 June 2021. The Government are therefore extending the waiver by statutory instrument.
The two categories of movements covered by the waiver are the same as those covered by public notice waivers since 1 January 2021. These are roll-on, roll-off movements where an exit summary declaration would otherwise be required and movements of empty pallets, containers and modes of transport, being moved under a transport contract where such movements did not attract a safety and security requirement before the end of the transition period.
For most exports from Great Britain, a full customs export declaration is submitted, which contains information that is risk-assessed for safety and security purposes. The two categories of movements where full customs declarations are not required normally therefore require a stand-alone exit summary safety and security declaration. Border Force will continue to undertake intelligence-led risk assessments of exports from Great Britain. As such, there is no significant short-term increase in risk to the UK as a result of this waiver. Those temporary waivers of safety and security declaration requirements strike an appropriate balance between supporting businesses affected by covid-19 and maintaining security standards within Great Britain. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these draft regulations.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this statutory instrument on behalf of the Opposition. As we heard, the instrument introduced by the Government seeks to waive administrative reporting requirements on certain goods moving in and out of the UK. Specifically, it provides an extension to the existing waivers on certain requirements to provide exit summary declarations until 30 September 2021, and pre-arrival safety and security entry summary declarations until 31 December 2021.
We do not oppose this instrument, because British businesses need support following the exit from the EU. We want to do all we can to support British businesses facing difficult times. However, the fact that we are back here discussing these waivers raises important questions of this Government’s approach. The Minister will be aware that he sat in a Committee on 10 December 2020 and debated this matter with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). On that day, the Committee agreed to waive requirements for pre-arrival safety and security entry summary declarations and exit summary declarations for six months until 30 June 2021.
In his speech last December, the Minister assured the Committee that
“the Government would use these powers only where absolutely necessary to preserve the smooth flow of goods at the border and after due consideration of any risks arising from their use.”—[Official Report, Fourteenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 December 2020; c. 4.]
My right hon. Friend pressed the Minister on whether we would be sat here again, debating a further extension of waivers. The Minister said:
“we certainly do not anticipate extending the regulations. They are specifically designed to be a contingency tool to be used in specific circumstances, for specific purposes, and for a time-limited period.”—[Official Report, Fourteenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 December 2020; c. 8.]
Yet here we are again. As the Minister rightly put it last December, contingency tools should be used in specific circumstances for a time-limited period. He did not anticipate extending the regulations last December, so something must have changed. Could he explain what has changed since last December? Why did he not anticipate extending the regulations then, yet today he is asking us to? How many more times does he anticipate having to extend the regulations?
In December, the Minister also noted that “due consideration” would be given, and the Government conceded that the regulations presented a trade-off with the risk to border security. The explanatory memorandum states that
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because the provisions are in force for less than 12 months.”
Surely, waiving the requirement on pre-arrival safety and security entry summary declarations for six months and then extending that waiver for a further six months means that they are, in fact, in force for 12 months. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether that is the case and give us his view on whether an impact assessment should have been prepared.
The Minister previously referenced conversations and consultations taking place with the Home Office to mitigate the risk to border security. Will he update the Committee on what measures the Government are enacting to prevent smugglers and traffickers from bringing contraband into the country? At the time of the last debate on the regulations, the Minister said that data gathering on EU trade did not take place as the United Kingdom was still part of the single market. Could he update us on what data gathering arrangements are in place, so that we can have better oversight of EU trade and the associated border security risks?
I look forward to the Minister's reply. I would be grateful if he addressed all the points I have raised, and assure us that we will not be back in three or six months to seek a further extension of these time-limited contingency tools.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his support of this statutory instrument. He asked a series of questions; let me first say how delighted I am that he has been subjecting my previous speeches to the appropriate level of rabbinical scrutiny. I hope that they were worth it. The care and attention that he has given to what I have said so far suggests a diligent and effective intelligence.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights my remarks when we first debated the regulations. I pointed out that they were a contingency tool, time-limited in nature and intended to be as such, and so they are now. It is therefore appropriate to ask what has changed. It is fair to say that we are living in a world that has seen considerable change, even since December. At that point, of course, it was not at all clear what the reaction of trade would be to the change in circumstances created by Brexit or what the EU’s reaction would be on the ground. The further developments of the pandemic and the response to it—including, most recently, the new variant of concern—highlights the amount of change that has taken place. It is appropriate to recognise the concerns that continue to be shown by stakeholders about this legislation, and we have done that.
As I said, we do not plan to extend the regulations further; I mildly underline the words “do not plan”, but I do not think it appropriate to rule something out entirely. We could not have foreseen, for example—no one did, in fact—the emergence of the delta variant of the virus. We cannot pretend that we have omniscience now as to what the future will bring. However, it is absolutely not the plan that the regulations should be further extended, and we send that strong and firm signal to international neighbours and industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about security and vulnerability to potential criminal behaviour. He will understand that criminal behaviour is a target for the safety and security declarations. Separate arrangements are put in place for the customs system that accommodate the lawful transfer of objects, but here we are considering the nature of consignments and what they may have in them. It is noticeable, and has been certified by Border Force and HMRC, that there is no discernible security risk arising from the continuation of this waiver. I commend that thought, based on their expert judgement and advice, to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman asked about data gathering. As he will be aware, the changes made in this instrument are not fully comprehensive; data will continue to be gathered, particularly on non-covered export categories, by HMRC and Border Force. It has been an important part of the overall rationale that we continue to build that data set as the trade evolves and changes. We will continue to do so and I am sure there will be long-term value from that process.
James Murray
Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, will he address the point about the impact assessment? The explanatory notes state that
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because the provisions are in force for less than 12 months.”
However, extending the pre-arrival safety and security entry summary declarations for six months, and a further six months, surely means they are enforced for 12 months. Could the Minister explain whether that is the case? Is it his view that an impact assessment should have been prepared?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question. No, it is not the Government’s view that an impact assessment should have been prepared, because the regulations maintain the existing status quo in which the declarations are waived. In that sense, nothing has changed. However, I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is important to reflect that the Government always wish to be cognisant of the impacts of legislation that they pass, and that will continue to be true elsewhere in our legislative package as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Beauty and Wellbeing Sector Workforce
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me remind hon. Members that there have been changes to the normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically—that is all but one this morning—and virtually that they must arrive for the start of a debate and remain for the entire debate. Members participating virtually must leave their camera on for the duration of a debate, so that they will be visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, please email the Westminster Hall Clerks; the email address is westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk.
Members attending physically—[Interruption.] Good morning, Mr Shannon. We will allow you the minute’s grace. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. There are no Members attending and waiting to speak, so the next bit does not really apply. Members who are not on the call list but wish to intervene can do so only from the horseshoe, and those on the call list have priority for spaces on the horseshoe. Members wishing to intervene should not prevent a Member on the call list from speaking.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the beauty and wellbeing sector workforce.
May I say what an honour it is to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Sir Roger? As co-chair, alongside my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), of the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, I am well aware of the struggles that the people working in the industry have faced during the past 15 months. Uncertainty around closures and the absence of financial support, coupled with lack of respect for the industry and those working in it, have hit the sector hard. We have seen businesses failing and those that have survived facing an uphill struggle as the country slowly begins to open back up.
This industry has always contributed greatly to the UK economy and supported a substantial workforce. A British Beauty Council report, “The Value of Beauty”, published in 2019—before the pandemic—determined that the industry was worth up to £30 billion a year and supported 50,000 businesses. Figures from the UK Government’s “COVID-19 Response”, published in February 2021, show that in 2019 the industry provided more than 560,000 jobs, 85% of which were done by women, many of whom were working flexibly.
The pandemic has decimated this multimillion-pound industry and has had a devastating impact on the workforce and businesses. On average, businesses in the sector were closed for 250 days during lockdown—far longer than in any of the other, often male-dominated sectors, and too long for them to survive with no income and inadequate support. The knock-on effect of the extended closures has been severe. A recent report from the National Hair and Beauty Federation on the fate of the industry estimated that by the end of this year, businesses will on average have lost £40,000 of revenue. That has led to job losses, with employment in the industry down by 21% from pre-pandemic levels. In addition, 62% of businesses say that they have had to cut staff hours, and 14% say that they are being forced to make redundancies.
Even now that businesses are able to reopen, continued restrictions mean that many are still struggling. Large events, weddings and holidays being scaled back or cancelled has caused a huge deficit in demand, and salons are still operating at only 70% capacity to observe social distancing requirements. While demand for hair appointments and beauty treatments has declined, demand for wellbeing services such as massages and holistic therapy has grown significantly, which is hardly surprising given the increased stress levels that we have all experienced over the past year. Figures from wellbeing platform Urban show that demand for services are now 30% higher than pre-covid. Sadly, however, there are not enough therapists to meet the demand. Some 35% of mobile therapists have not returned to work since the first national lockdown lifted—those skilled therapists have taken on work in other industries due to a lack of income during extended closures. So we have a situation where customers are ready and able to book, but no appointments are available because the industry and those who work in it were unable to survive the long closures without financial support.
As someone who has used massage over the years as a therapy to maintain my mental health, I completely understand why people are seeking those services. I find it sad that because of the pandemic and, in all honesty, the failure of the Government to take the industry seriously and support its workforce, the services are just not there. The gap seems set to continue, as the closure of training schools during the pandemic and limited opportunities to gain workforce experience means that the number of newly qualified professionals entering the sector is significantly lower than normal. Recent data from the National Hair and Beauty Federation paints an equally bleak picture going forward, with only 11% of salons planning to recruit new apprentices in the next three to six months. This once thriving industry is suffering and needs support urgently. In a survey undertaken by the National Hair and Beauty Federation on the state of the industry, half of businesses say that they cannot rule out redundancy when furlough comes to an end, and more than a third are unsure whether they will survive the next few months while social distancing remains in place.
The all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing has already launched an inquiry into post-covid recovery for the sector, looking at how businesses recoup can their losses and how the highly skilled workforce can be retained. There are so many risk factors for the industry that Government support is key to combating them. Financial support for the sector during the pandemic was woefully lacking compared with that given to other customer-facing industries. The Government must now ensure that support is available to businesses for as long as social distancing measures are in place, given their effect on how many staff and customers can be in salons, and therefore on profits.
Promotion of the industry is also needed to encourage young people to follow this career path so that there is a full and flourishing skill base. Beauty and wellbeing practitioners play a vital role in supporting our physical and mental health, and many people use the treatments instead of visiting a doctor or to complement their medication. Figures from the Federation of Holistic Therapists 2021 members survey show that 75% of practitioners have clients who are using their treatments to support long-term health conditions, and 63% of clients use them to prevent poor health. I will give a plug here to the menopause and say that that is a condition where holistic therapy is invaluable.
If the industry is given the support that it so deserves, businesses will begin to thrive again and we will have a growing workforce who will be able to offer treatments to ease the burden on our already overwhelmed NHS. We entered the pandemic last year with a beauty and wellbeing industry that was thriving, that boosted the UK economy and that supported families up and down the country by enabling the huge, mostly female, workforce to work flexibly, yet throughout the pandemic, that loyal workforce has been undervalued and under- appreciated, overlooked for financial support and even ridiculed in the House of Commons Chamber. As we begin to emerge from restrictions, the future of the industry hangs in the balance, and key to its survival is the workforce. The industry needs help now more than ever to ensure that it can support jobs, provide a much-needed wellbeing boost to its customers and once again be a key contributor to the UK economy.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to see you back in the Chair, Sir Roger? You have been much missed.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her phenomenal work, both as chair of the APPG and in repeatedly highlighting the hair and beauty sector in the main Chamber, emphasising, as she has done again this morning, the particular challenges that it has faced during the pandemic. She has also given us a really healthy reminder of what a strong sector it has been, which is important to reflect on.
We went into the pandemic with somewhere in the region of 300,000 employees in the sector, the vast majority of whom were women. Hon. Members would expect me, as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, to emphasise that we are talking about a sector that employs women, but it does not simply employ them; it trains them and gives them opportunity. Many of them will do years of training in college or an apprenticeship, then move into working in a salon or studio. They might then consider taking the plunge and going self-employed; that is always a risk, but many of those brilliant and brave women do exactly that. After a few years of being self-employed, perhaps on a mobile basis, they rent their own salon—an enormous financial commitment, involving business rates and rent. For all of them, it is about risk and a cost-benefit analysis. They are brave and ballsy—as I have previously said and established, that is not unparliamentary language—women, who go out, take the risk and benefit from it, and in turn they become employers of other women. That is a model that we should absolutely be encouraging, celebrating and promoting.
I will tell a little anecdotal story. As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I get all sorts of interesting panels with fascinating people, including one gentleman who is one of the leading educationalists to whom the Government turn when they are looking for advice and interesting reports on everything to do with education. He talked to me about the veterinary profession and said that the veterinary profession was full of clever white girls. Then, he said, “But when educationalists find not-so-clever bright girls, they shove them off just into the beauty industry,” at which moment I had one of my moments of rage. Through the medium of Zoom, he undoubtedly got the famous death stare, because the reality is that the beauty and wellbeing industry is not “just” anything. It is a fantastic, thriving industry that provides training, employment and the opportunity to go off and become an entrepreneur.
Over the course of the last 12 months, I have been blown away by the stories I have heard from young and not-so-young women who have told me how their boyfriends, fathers or brothers have regarded them as “just” beauty therapists. I have always gone back to them and said, “You are not ‘just’ anything. You are an entrepreneur, and you know what? This country thrives on the entrepreneurial spirit of people like you, who have the guts to go off and become self-employed, to set up your own business, to rent your own studio, and to contribute to the economy in myriad ways.” I have got that off my chest, and I feel lot better about it.
The hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned that the industry sometimes gets ridiculed and people laugh at it, which makes me really angry, because they are laughing at the hard work of women who have skill, ability and the determination to give back to others the confidence that some of them may have lost. I know there is nothing more boring than somebody who stands up in this place and says, “When I was a Minister,” but I am will say it. When I was a Minister, I spent a very happy year at the Department for Work and Pensions. We talked about the challenges of getting women back into employment, perhaps after a long career break, and the thing that was missing from so many women was confidence. I would speak to women in jobcentres up and down the country, and I learned that they did not have the confidence to go back into the workplace; they felt their skills were lacking and they were old and past their sell-by date. These were women of 40. For the record, let me say that no woman in her 40s— I declare an interest—is past her sell-by date. It is crucial that we look at this sector, which can give the female workforce confidence.
The hon. Lady mentioned some of the services that can be provided, but I always highlight services such as ayurvedic facials that help with migraines, or the ability of specialist—indeed, brilliant—cosmetic tattooists, who put eyebrows back on people with alopecia or tattoo nipples back on women who have had breast reconstruction surgery. All these things give people the confidence to go back into the workplace, go back to work and take up a productive and useful role in society, in the community, and of course—I would say this to a Minister at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—in the economy. That is crucial, because ultimately these are people who will pay tax and help the rest of us to recover from the hideous fiscal crisis caused by the pandemic. I recognise and want to reinforce the comments made by the hon. Lady about the promotion of the sector. This is not just “hair and beauty”; it is a really important sector, worth £28 billion, which can give women back their confidence.
I have a specific plea, which I hope the Minister will listen to and act on. The thing that struck me after talking to the National Hair and Beauty Federation and the British Beauty Council, among other organisations, and perhaps specifically after talking to individual providers of beauty services both large and indeed very small, including one-woman-band enterprises, is that they talk about the VAT break that was given to hospitality. Treasury Ministers always say that it was very easy and straightforward to do that because hospitality was on a separate VAT code and could be easily and distinctly hived off from other sectors, but the same does not apply to the beauty sector. Well, it should, and it would not be difficult to give it a separate VAT code. Will my hon. Friend the Minister undertake to have a conversation about that with the Treasury? We do not know whether covid will be back, or what the next pandemic is coming over the hill will be, or indeed what future financial challenges will arise. I think that it would be of benefit to the sector to have a separate VAT code, so that we will not be in the same situation in the future.
This is a very competitive, enterprising and determined sector, and one that is phenomenally good at self-promotion. What is lacking is regulation. We need a way of making sure that people are accredited, that training is understood and recognised, and that we can understand who is providing what to whom. I remember having a fantastic conversation with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on this subject. He rang me on a Sunday to talk about it and I explained to him there and then that he and I could set ourselves up as a pair of beauticians with absolutely no training, no accreditation and no regulation—although we would not survive in business very long, because we would be very bad at it. The reality is that there is not the sort of oversight that one might expect for an industry that uses, in some instances, interesting and even challenging chemicals and machinery, and all sorts of products that need to be used by expert hands, particularly in services such as cosmetic tattooing. I say that because we can all open the Daily Mail’s Sidebar of Shame and see some of the horrors that have been carried out on people’s faces.
Fundamentally, it is vital that the Government recognise that, as we come out of the pandemic, there is a challenge in female employment. My Select Committee, the TUC and the Women’s Budget Group—a range of experts, up and down the country—have reflected upon the fact it is predominantly women who have been employed in the sectors that have been locked down longest and hardest. The hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned the fact that the beauty and wellbeing sector has rightly had to put in all sorts of provisions to prevent covid spread, but increased gaps between chairs reduce capacity, and businesses must have 15-minute breaks between customers so that facilities can be wiped down and disinfected, taking hours out of a day that could instead have been productive, income-generating hours.
We have seen the same in retail. We know that 58% of non-essential retail workers are women, and my horrific prediction is that when furlough comes to an end, we may well see a massive increase in the number of women being made redundant. That will have a consequential impact on the work of the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that interesting, challenging and sustainable opportunities are found for those women in the future. It is crucial that we look at our recovery and how we build back better in a feminine way.
I will leave the Minister with that thought. When we look at how we build back, we have to make sure that we do not forget the female workforce, who are so vital in the hair and beauty sector, and indeed in other sectors.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing the debate.
In many places, including my constituency, beauty and wellbeing businesses are the lifeblood of the high street. Of course, it is an industry predominantly run by women, for women and employing women, and prior to the pandemic it contributed up to £30 billion to our economy. However, it was harder hit than most sectors by coronavirus restrictions, and it was hit particularly hard in places such as Bradford South, which faced even tougher measures for much longer than anywhere else. Business owners and the workforce can be said to have been well and truly rocked in the past 15 months. Businesses have closed, skilled therapists have been forced to find work elsewhere, and fewer newly qualified professionals are joining the industry.
Despite those challenges, there can be a bright future for the sector, as the services that it delivers are increasingly valued by people after they have got through such a tough time. I thank all the practitioners up and down the country for their work, because much of the industry delivers excellent services in a safe and highly professional way. One business owner in my constituency told me how she donated her stocks of personal protective equipment to frontline workers when her business was forced to close in lockdown. That is typical of an industry that contributes so much. Then there is the work of Beauty Banks, a charity that supports those living in poverty by providing essential hygiene products.
However, the lack of regulation around the ever-growing list of treatments available means that consumers cannot have confidence that their treatment has been administered by someone who is appropriately trained. A certificate hanging on the wall is just not good enough. Getting standards across the board to match best practice requires regulation that ensures that a consistent level of training is delivered to medical and non-medical practitioners.
The APPG on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, which I co-chair with my good and hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, held an inquiry into non-surgical cosmetic procedures, which found a growing prevalence of short qualifications—often as short as a day—for non-surgical procedures such as injectables. That is alarming for consumers, as that type of advanced aesthetic procedure cannot be taught well in a single day. To ensure that standards are lifted for the entire industry, the Government need to strengthen regulation and training for non-surgical cosmetic treatments for medics and non-medics alike. It is what the public expect, and it is what the Government need to deliver.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate, and for all her dogged campaigning with my equally hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on behalf of the beauty sector over a year of enormous challenges.
I put on record my support and admiration for all the hair, beauty and therapeutic businesses in Newport East, which, like many businesses out there, have been hard hit at this extraordinary time and have had to adapt and innovate very creatively in lots of instances in the pandemic. I pay tribute to business owners such as Lynne Palmer of Friends salon in Maindee. She has run her business for decades in the heart of the community—I will come back to that point—and has helped me to understand just how challenging it has been to adapt. She has marvellously adapted to adhere to the rules and to keep giving her customers the wonderful service she provides, but she has also helped me to understand how challenging that has been. I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East about entrepreneurial women in small businesses and about the guts it takes to set up and run a business and employ others.
As has been said, the hair, beauty and products industry is a serious economic powerhouse, contributing more than £30 billion to the economy and employing more than 500,000 people in thousands of salons, nail bars and beauty salons up and down our high streets, forming a real linchpin in local economies. In 2018, the industry generated £7 billion in taxes, and accounted for around 1.3% of GDP. As has been said, the National Hair and Beauty Federation report released last month makes for stark reading on how the industry has suffered through the pandemic. In 2020, salons were shut for 140 days. Turnover fell by 45% compared with 2019, and the average cash loss to a business was £17,000, with those over the VAT threshold taking a bigger hit.
In Wales, there has been welcome help from the Welsh Government, including the freezing of business rates, the small business rate relief package and the £650 million the Welsh Government offered to help businesses with operation costs up to the end of March. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) highlighted at Prime Minister’s questions last week, unlike in England, where business rate relief is being withdrawn at the end of the month, the Welsh Labour Government are extending that rate relief for a year and providing new support for those affected.
Furlough has been welcome, but salons in my constituency and across the UK have called on the Chancellor to take action on the reduced 5% VAT rate to put businesses in the beauty sector on a level playing field with other sectors, such as hospitality. Many businesses in my constituency have signed that petition, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s response. Without comprehensive support, many businesses may close.
National Hair and Beauty Federation research shows that there are more hair and beauty businesses in the less advantaged parts of the UK. Throughout the pandemic, communities in less well-off areas, as well as women and young people, have been disproportionately impacted. That is highlighted in Wales by Chwarae Teg in its report “Covid-19: Women, Work and Wales”, which was published last October. The effect of the sector’s shutdowns, business closures and unemployment is falling disproportionately on women, who are more likely than men to have lost their jobs due to covid-19. There are clearly challenges around female employment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East said, a recent survey of 5,000 salons found that 62% were not sure if their business would survive beyond the end of the financial year, with 18% sure they would close. Six out of 10 salons started the year with no cash reserves, and many businesses are now described as acutely vulnerable to failure. Those are businesses that generate much for the Treasury. They pay tax and they are vital employers in our community. As my hon. Friend said, it is also important to remember the impact of the cancellation of events, weddings in particular, on the hair and beauty industry.
Finally, the value of the beauty sector cannot be measured in economic terms alone. I hope parliamentary legal counsel, Daniel Greenberg, who is a regular contributor to “Thought for the Day” on Radio 4, will forgive me, but I would like to quote from one of his thoughts last year. He talked about how the restrictions imposed during national lockdowns taught us to distinguish between two types of essential:
“There are things that I need to remain physically healthy: food, medicines and healthcare services. But there are also things that I need to remain mentally healthy, and those go far beyond what might be regarded as the formal mental healthcare sector…Lockdown may have taught us to reclassify as luxuries some things we thought of as essential, but perhaps it has also shown that some things that are luxuries in one sense may be essential to people’s wellbeing…Nail salons and other beauty sector services aim to help people to feel better about themselves, and to make customers generally more cheerful and well-disposed…Perhaps we can see more clearly post-lockdown that these services are in what might be called the frontline of the well-being sector, and that they deserve society’s recognition, gratitude and appreciation.”
I and a great number of my constituents would totally endorse that sentiment. Thanks again to all those beauty and hair businesses in Newport East. On a few occasions over the past year, flippant comments from those on the Government Benches have been unfortunate. The beauty sector needs to be put on a level playing field and supported as a key player in the UK Government’s economic and health-centred recovery from the pandemic. Hon. Friends are here to speak up for the industry, and I hope the debate has underlined the importance of doing so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Sir Roger, I am pleased to see you back in person in Westminster Hall and the House. It is good to have personal contact with you again face to face. I wish you well. It is also nice to be here to support the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and her contribution.
In my contribution, I will support her and all the other speakers, but it is fairly obvious from the top of my head that I very rarely have to visit the barber or indeed anywhere else. In the morning, I do not need a comb; I just need a shammy. That takes care of my hair texture and so on. I am here because I want to speak up on behalf of my sector back home, and I want to give some examples. The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) gave some examples of businesses in her constituency and how covid has affected them, and I want to do the same.
I am delighted to serve in the most beautiful constituency in the Province—I say that unapologetically, although others may disagree. It is made up of large urban towns and small villages. Something that every village across my constituency has in common is its own beauty salon. We have quite a few spas as well, so a lot of time is spent in those places. Those who start the businesses have a lot of entrepreneurial spirit, and there is certainly demand and need for them. In this busy world, people need an hour to themselves—an hour to not think of anything else, other than to completely relax, have some space and time to themselves and soak their weary muscles. It is something to cheer and rejuvenate them.
I can only really speak for my wife and the girls who work in my office, but whenever they go to the hairdresser or the beauty salon, it lifts their spirits and wellbeing. That is why the title of this debate refers to the beauty and wellbeing sector. I cannot encapsulate the wellbeing that people get from going to the hairdresser, but I can say that for my wife, and indeed for the ladies in my office, the appointment with the hairdresser or at the beauty salon lifts their whole day. Many get wee treats at a place just across the road from us in Newtownards. They can have all the treatment they need from head to toe. I know how much my staff and other friends look forward to that.
However, this industry has been hit hard by the restrictions. It has been unable to work, and even with the doors open it has had fewer clients in due to the restrictions. It is one of the industries that needs continued support, and I echo the calls of the hon. Member for Swansea East and others who said that. We are very fortunate to have a Minister who believes that to be the case, understands the arguments and points of view that we are putting forward, and is keen to help and assist in response.
I had a young girl in my office who had just started her own business. I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North: the people who start these businesses are highly intelligent, and they have massive skills and the brains and economic and business acumen to take their businesses forward. This was that young lady’s first business. She needed a wee bit of extra cash to get it going, so the bank of mum and dad probably helped out. That is where she was.
I had come in at a time when covid was just starting to take grip—about March, April and May last year. She was in tears in the office. I remember this very well. She said, “You know, Jim, I can really make this work. I just need this chance. I need this opportunity to get it over the line and continue it for the months ahead.” She definitely had the ability and the talent, and we were very keen to help her. She had not been open long, which of course meant that, when it came to the grant process, furlough and everything else that was necessary, she was under some pressure. She had contracts signed with the rental agencies and the suppliers, and she had many other overheads. We were fortunate in the scheme that the Government were able to offer, not just here in the UK mainland but replicated in the regions, and I thank the Ministers for all their help for those businesses. I have absolutely no doubt that this Government’s support enabled those businesses to survive.
We were able to source funding to see my constituent through, but only after a prolonged look at the criteria and how they could apply. I thought of so many other businesses that have not felt comfortable, or even considered, going to their elected representatives, and whether those businesses have survived. I hope and pray that whenever we come to the end of furlough, those businesses will be in a position to continue. Covid-19 restrictions have reduced customers, with new regulations requiring 15-minute intervals, but these businesses can work. I have seen them working in my constituency, with the beauty salons just in the street close to my office, never mind across the whole of the constituency.
The hair and beauty sector contributes £9.2 billion annually to Britain’s economy. Some 288,160 people work as hair and beauty practitioners in salons or in a self-employed capacity in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There are some 44,800 salons in the UK registered for VAT and pay-as-you-earn, generating £5.4 billion annually and employing some 190,000 staff. Of this, £3.35 billion in turnover is generated by 12,300 VAT-registered salons, which in turn employ some 95,000 staff. The reason I give stats is that they remind us all of the importance of this sector: the jobs it creates, the money it generates, and the way it benefits the economy, as well as the tax system and the PAYE system. It generates approximately one third of the tax take for HMRC as a proportion of sales.
These valued practitioners and business owners have none the less received very little, or no, specific financial support from the UK Government, despite being closed for longer periods and having to make more significant adjustments to service delivery than many other retailers, small businesses and the hospitality sector. The costs of additional safety, hygiene and PPE products have been piling up, on top of all the other overheads that these businesses have. I recently read that, in a survey of salon owners, up to 56% were considering closing. That comes back to what others have said about the future, when furlough ends. In summing up, maybe the Minister can give some indication of what would be available whenever furlough comes to an end. It is really important that, when it does, the Government are on stand-by to ensure that we do not lose a lot of businesses, whether in the beauty sector or in other sectors.
The Save Our Salons campaign group found that nearly four out of five salons will recruit no apprentices this year. It has been highlighted that any closures would harm the finances of women the most, as this profession enables flexible working patterns that support family life. This flexible working is very important, as is increasing economic opportunities and entrepreneurship for women: 88.6% of the sector’s workforce are female. A while ago, the Government had a project through which businesses that took on apprentices received financial assistance, so could the Minister tell us what we can do for the salon and beauty sector? If we can keep apprenticeships going, we will prepare for the next generation. Our duty today is to make sure these businesses are retained, but we also have a duty for tomorrow—to ensure that there is a flow of new recruits to that sector to take us forward.
For those reasons, I support the call of many in the hair and beauty industries for a VAT reduction, because of the hard times they are having. These services do not have huge profit margins, and a VAT reduction could encourage those considering throwing in the towel to instead pick it up and continue their jobs, playing a part in the lives of other people and helping them to feel more confident. How important it is to feel confident—to feel strong in the morning and strong for the rest of the day! That can only be a good thing, so I very much look forward to the Minister’s response—as I often do—and I am sure that he will be able to answer some of the questions I have asked, and give that sector the security it needs.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for having secured today’s debate, and for the work that she and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) have done and are doing in the beauty and wellbeing sector. I declare a 50-year interest in that sector.
During the pandemic, all of us MPs recognised the hardship that the beauty sector and wellbeing industry workforce have had to deal with. In particular, the timings of financial support information from the UK Government in initial covid-19 lockdowns, the details of furlough, and the support to business owners—including on how to support their staff mentally—were woefully inadequate. I have to say that financial stress owing to the delayed announcements about self-employment grants in many cases caused salons to close or cease trading—basically, to shut up shop.
Employers felt pressured to immediately try to foster a pastoral care role for their staff outside the salon, and to many employees, that contact with their employer was of paramount importance for their wellbeing. The support required for that role well exceeded normal employer duties and experiences. For example, in normal times, there might be one employee at a time with an issue to deal with, but this was absolutely different—it was all the staff at one time. Thankfully, for many, support was found on Facebook, social media forums and industry-led webinars where thousands of beauty salon owners sought information and one-to-one support. I attended many, hearing at first hand the stress, confusion and anxiety that all parts of the sector were going through.
Along with other MPs we have heard from, I supported calls for a temporary VAT cut for personal care businesses, in recognition of the unique challenges that these salons faced with covid. Although not all salons are VAT-registered, this temporary cut would have made a huge difference to all those salons that are, and would have been a crutch for a recovery period after opening. It is simply easier to keep people in employment and to support the businesses that already employ, thereby ensuring continuity, rather than starting new pilots, projects and incentives for already damaged, struggling businesses that probably cannot afford to take on any incentive schemes.
For certain, controlling the virus is key to keeping the economy open, and proper advice is needed for all workforces when moving forward into the recovery from the impact of the virus. The UK Government’s last-minute turnarounds on furlough did not and do not help; certainty was and is required wherever possible. Imagine the stress levels for employers and employees as deadlines approached for furlough payments to stop—they went through the roof. Yet again, there was little reassurance and no information on what would happen next. The constantly changing furlough regulations were difficult enough for accountants doing payroll to deal with, never mind for salon owners completing their own applications. This was yet another cost and burden for salons to bear in ensuring that furlough was completed correctly.
Close-contact businesses such as those in the beauty and wellbeing industry are known to carry increased risk of transmission due to proximity to the client, particularly to their face. As the Minister will know, the talent pool for massage therapists has been absolutely decimated, meaning fewer qualified professionals will enter the profession at a time when demand will surely exceed supply. The beauty industry has now returned in Scotland, but new, more transmissible variants mean continued adherence to effective mitigations remains highly important to protect clients and the practitioners themselves. It is pleasing to note that the vast majority in this sector know and take seriously and professionally their responsibilities.
We recognise just how difficult the restrictions have been for the beauty and wellbeing workforce; the Scottish Government have worked to provide all the support they can, but in recognition of the greater risk of exposure to covid, restrictions were necessary to protect clients and the workforce. Research shows that more than 10% of Scottish businesses in the industry had ceased to trade by December last year, and that number has obviously grown. As has been said, in April, across the UK, 46% of respondents to that consultation were unsure whether their business would survive until the end of social distancing. Salons were simply not earning enough to cover outgoings such as rent, stock, overheads and staff costs. The research also found that only 38% were just about breaking even. On the whole, two in five businesses across the entire hair and beauty sector were making any kind of profit. I will read from an email from a salon owner in Falkirk:
“No VAT reduction. Delayed and last-minute changes to financial support. No PPE cost support. No UK Government awareness of the huge impact on business i.e. you losing 200 clients from your business may set you back two years in growth and achievement. To sustain your current business cost, you must find a way to replace these lost clients within six months or you will be running at a loss. I am not sure the support is there for these scenarios and not in six months’ time when businesses will not have the buffer of the re-start grants and potentially most salons will close or staff will be let go. There is an urgency to support the reopening and sustaining of businesses trying to keep going. Appreciation of the business owners’ efforts in these times of extreme business difficulties is absolutely paramount.”
In Scotland, we recognise this serious problem. Therefore, in addition to furlough, retail beauty businesses with premises were supported by the strategic framework fund. The mobile and home-based close contact services fund supported those not eligible for the UK Government’s self-employment income support scheme, and alleviated business rates. Additional restart grants were available for those that got the strategic framework fund. Fellow MPs and I have worked with the Save our Salons campaign, calling for a VAT reduction in the March Budget. As others have said, that the UK Government did not take that easy step or listen to the sector’s suggestions was a body blow to their self-worth and value.
Controlling the virus is key. Scottish Government officials are working with local authorities and other regulators to renew focus on ensuring that workplaces are operating and reopening in a safe and compliant way. We recognise that each workplace is different and individual organisations work with trade unions or workforce representatives to determine how best to apply safe workplace guidance to meet all relevant requirements. Guidance is reviewed on a regular basis with the priority of containing the spread of the virus, saving lives and safeguarding the NHS. This partnership working is key to establishing a shared confidence in the safety of returning to workplaces, protecting public health and supporting Scotland’s recovery.
For all workforces, proper advice is needed. The UK Government’s last-minute turnarounds on furlough have added to the uncertainty. The furlough scheme is due to end on 30 September, but from 1 July the Government are due to pay 70% of the wages, with employers obliged to make up the remaining 10%. From August, the Government are due to pay 60%. Around 3.4 million people are still on furlough—a tenth of the workforce—and 553,000 fewer people are in payrolled employment. Now is not the time for the Conservative Government to withdraw support. Business trade federations and trade unions alike have urged the Chancellor to extend furlough. All last summer we urged the Chancellor to extend furlough and give firms the chance to plan. Unfortunately, the UK Government did not heed us, which led to another last-minute reversal. There is no reason to suggest that they will act faster this time.
The Chancellor should now invest in recovery and employment by providing the £350 billion to firms, and allow those who have already borrowed to convert the debt into grants or equity to avoid the debt time bomb and investment recession. The self-employment income support scheme still excludes 3 million people from any support at all.
This industry is undervalued, under-consulted and often overlooked by the UK Government. Financial uncertainty for this unique sector’s future cannot continue. The UK Government should value the sector, as Scotland does, and bring some peace of mind to all parts of the beauty and wellbeing workforce.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetic and wellbeing, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). I congratulate her on securing this debate and on her excellent opening speech on the lack of sufficient support for the beauty and wellbeing industry through the pandemic. She talked of the challenges it faced, many of which were echoed by other hon. Members who have spoken. I thank those who have made contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and others who contributed in discussions with us who were unable to speak today.
Many important points have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East spoke about the support provided by the Welsh Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North highlighted that this is a women-led sector—as well as, in many ways, a BAME-led sector—that employs women and serves men and women, young and old, across the country. It is one industry that serves almost everybody in the country at some point. She outlined the arguments, as others have done, for a reduction in VAT. That point was also made by former hairdresser Maria Evangelou in an article on PoliticsHome before the Budget this year.
The hon. Member for Strangford made a powerful point about the sector being highly skilled, but it is often not seen as such. That is the same stereotype we seem to apply in our minds to women-led sectors—to see them as low skilled—which is often connected to them being low paid. We have to check and challenge ourselves.
There is nothing greater than the contribution of lockdown to understanding that point. We saw the rise of lockdown haircuts—I, too, had to learn how to use a barber set—and we really appreciated how much skill goes into making us all look and feel as good as we can and should. The point was made that it is very important to appreciate the industry for its wider contribution to health and wellbeing. I hope that the House will take that on board and we will see that in future debates.
The contribution of the beauty and wellbeing sector must not be overlooked, as I think we have all come to feel that it has been during the last year by the Government. The sector contributes so much to our wellbeing, but it also contributes economically to our high streets, to our communities and to our economy. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South used the phrase the lifeblood of the high street, which is powerful and no understatement.
A report by Oxford Economics found that the beauty industry, which employs around 600,000 and has done so for some time, contributes about £28 billion to UK GDP annually and supports £7 billion in UK tax revenues. That is equivalent to the combined salaries of 250,000 nurses and midwives. The numbers speak for themselves. This is a vital industry for our country,
As we have heard, the sector—hairdressers, salons, barbers—makes a huge contribution to our personal wellbeing and mental health, as well as to our community spirit. If someone wants to know what is going on, or wants to share their stories, we should look at how much people do that at the hairdresser. We all have that experience of a moment away from frenetic, everyday life and I think we underestimate that social contribution.
During the pandemic, the industry has certainly been one of the most acutely hit by the restrictions, because it is a close-contact industry. The product is often a one-to-one service. One stylist does not serve 10 clients an hour, which might happen in a restaurant. That has been very much affected by social distancing. There are also the extra costs involved in maintaining safety for staff and customers.
There has been a sharp increase in permanent closures of hair and beauty businesses—around 20% have had to shut their doors so far. The numbers employed as hairdressers or in related services have also fallen by 20%. Of those, more than 60% were self-employed. We have heard in the debate about how people who are employed go on to be self-employed and then become owners of businesses and employers of others. They take the risks themselves, every step of the way. Many have experienced issues accessing the self-employment income support scheme. Being self-employed is often a journey to becoming an employer. We need to understand the issues that are faced in that context, too.
Looking ahead, the future remains far from certain for the industry, which is one reason why it is an important time to have this debate. I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East who said that six out of 10 salons started this year with no cash reserves, and many businesses are now described as acutely vulnerable to failure. Sixty-two per cent. of salon owners surveyed by the National Hair & Beauty Federation were not confident that they will remain solvent by the end of this year. There are also projections of further redundancies of over 15%.
Luke Hersheson, a globally renowned hairstylist backing the Save Our Salons campaign, said earlier this year:
“In March this year my salons will have been closed for 260 days out of 365… running a business for more than two thirds of a year with no income at all is incredibly challenging. When the tap is turned off salon businesses are still paying landlords, they’re still paying utility bills, insurance costs and subsidising furlough pay. It’s a huge strain on the entire industry.”
Although barbers, hairdressers and beauty salons have been allowed to open since 12 April, huge concerns remain about the gap between the revenues they can generate and their overheads. Our principle since the start of the pandemic has been that public health measures must be matched by fair economic measures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer once promised that he would do “whatever it takes”, and Labour’s position continues to be that these businesses must be supported so that they can recover and thrive after the pandemic.
The furlough scheme has helped so many, but we know that employers still have to pay national insurance contributions, and beauty companies have been paying full rent during lockdown, despite making little or no income. They still have fixed insurance costs and utility bills to pay while revenues are depressed.
I therefore ask the Minister why the Government will not delay the increased employer contribution to furlough, given that most of the 1.8 million people remaining on furlough are employed in sectors affected by the ongoing restrictions. On business rates relief, why will the Government not learn lessons from the Labour-led Welsh Government, who have given the vast majority of businesses 100% business rates relief for this financial year? Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of business rates costs for those in the hair and beauty industry? Finally, on debt repayment, where is the Government’s flexible plan to help businesses pay back their loans in a sensible way when they are generating profit and back on their feet?
There currently appears to be no credible strategy to ease the burden of debt that affects many businesses across the country, including in the beauty and wellbeing sector, which have racked up debts due to the long periods of closure. Forcing businesses to start making debt repayments—whether they are profitable or not—will squeeze the amount that they have to invest, to grow, or to take on new staff. For some, it could mean complete closure.
Campaigners say that their salons typically operate on a wafer-thin 2% to 5% profit margin in normal trading conditions. With social distancing requirements still in place, the average salon can often operate at only around 50% of their previous capacity. That is why Labour would give businesses flexibility to repay debt they have taken on during the crisis and link it to what they are making. Such measures would be invaluable to helping beauty businesses to survive.
There have been clear warning signs that the sector is in difficulties. Further closures would have a far greater impact on women’s income, as almost 90% of those employed in the industry are female. We also know that women have experienced a worse economic hit throughout the last year across all sectors. It is important to know from the Minister what further steps are being taken to ensure that those in the beauty sector do not continue to be disproportionately affected by the economic impact of this pandemic.
I pay tribute to the hair and beauty salons across our country. They play an enormous role, as has been mentioned, at the heart of our communities; I have seen this in my constituency of Feltham and Heston. I have also seen a large proportion of black and ethnic minority communities in my constituency affected—for example, BAME-led hairdressers such as His & Hers Beauty Salon run by Israr Rao and family that is at the heart of Hounslow West. When we go along the parade and talk to the shop owners, they come out and say how much they are still struggling. As we think about the economic recovery we face, that voice is still not heard sufficiently. I thank them for what they continue to do and for continuing to share their stories with us all.
It is right that there are new grants available as part of the restart grant scheme, but we have no idea how well these are supporting the beauty sector. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Department released a breakdown of the restart grant funding allocations and payments, but it does not hold sector-level data. As the Government point to the restart grants as a key support measure for the beauty industry, will the Minister now publish how much of the spending is reaching beauty and wellbeing businesses?
On skills, we know that there have been almost 30% fewer apprenticeship starts in hair and beauty in the first six months of this academic year, compared with the last. The Save Our Salons campaign group estimates that nearly four in five salons will not recruit any apprentices this year. If the salons struggle to take on new trainees and to hold on to staff who are leaving for other sectors, how will the Government ensure that they retain the skill sets needed to thrive in the future?
These businesses make a vital contribution to our economy. We know the Government’s approach to the crisis has failed to appreciate the importance of the sector and provide support to the extent needed. Businesses have done right by our country during the crisis and the Government must now do right by them. The health, wellbeing and beauty sector is a skilled and creative sector at the heart of our communities that absolutely deserves our support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the chair, Sir Roger, and to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing today’s important debate, and I congratulate her and others, including the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and other members of the APPG, on the work that they are doing in support of this important sector.
Today’s debate is important because the beauty and wellbeing sector is so important. It is important because of its contribution to the economy, its pivotal role in high streets and communities in every corner of the UK, its showcasing of female entrepreneurship, as we have heard, and its role in improving our health and wellbeing. We have heard a little about high streets. We have to remember that high streets are an ecosystem. It is not just about retail, hospitality or the beauty and wellbeing sector; they all work together to make our high streets vibrant. It is important that we protect all of that as we reimagine the future of the high street.
I was keen, as we looked to the end of this lockdown and at the Prime Minister’s road map, that we should secure the reopening of the beauty and wellbeing sector at an earlier stage than last time. The sector was last to open after previous lockdowns, but among the first to open this time. That is testament to the appreciation that we were able to get across to the Government and the understanding that people’s wellbeing is so important, as well as the economic situation and the recovery. Today’s debate has highlighted the key role that the sector plays in our economic society and I hope it will go some way to strengthen the perception of the sector as highly skilled, entrepreneurial and accessible.
As we have heard, the personal care sector consists of over 280,000 businesses employing about 561,000 people and adding £21 billion to the economy. Over 95% of the businesses are small or medium sized. As for levelling up, 30% of all hair and beauty enterprises are based in local authorities that fall into the ninth and tenth deciles of multiple deprivation. Although its economic contribution is significant, what is arguably even more valuable is its impact on society and its role in communities. It plays a key role in supporting jobs, as was eloquently shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), especially jobs for women and young people. Some 82% of hair and beauty businesses are female owned, 60% of workers are self-employed and around 20% of hair and beauty workers are under the age of 25.
The pandemic has had a major impact on our mental health and we need to recognise how the sector can help the nation’s recovery by improving people’s physical and mental wellbeing. Whether it is feeling fresh after a new haircut, catching up with the local beauty therapist or getting a massage to relax, as the hon. Member for Swansea East said, the beauty and wellbeing sector provides the services needed to make people feel better.
The sector tells us that 68% of British adults who get their hair done professionally agree that having their hair done supports their mental health and wellbeing, and it is interesting to hear the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) tell us about how she had to bring out her hairdressing skills. There was no way that I was going to try that. I know that some people thought that I was taking my loyalty to our Prime Minister to the nth degree with the hair that I sometimes brandished in the Chamber, and I am glad that I have been able to get it cut since.
As we have heard, the sector also plays a key role for some people with serious medical needs, such as those with cancer. We therefore allowed treatments to continue during lockdown for those with health issues when they could not be deferred—for example, some people undergoing cancer treatment were able to visit spas and salons to receive specific treatment tailored to their comfort. Throughout the pandemic, I have worked really closely with the sector to understand the issues, so that I can best represent its interests within Government. Although it has always been represented in Government, we had a dedicated personal care sector support team back in January, and we look forward to working with organisations within the sector, the APPG and other interested parties in the coming months and years.
However, this has been a really tough year for personal care businesses, which have been closed at various points of the year and faced restrictions for the remainder. That is why, in recognition of the impact that the pandemic and the restrictions have had on the sector, we put in place an unprecedented package of support worth £382 million. That is the largest peacetime support package in history, and it included the job retention measures that we have talked about, support for the self-employed, access to the highest grants, the restart grants of up to £18,000 and loans. Indeed, the restart grants are a testament to the sector. Although it was able to restart at an early stage of this part of the road map, the restart grants are a testament to the extra costs that the sector had to bear by getting the PPE and other mitigation measures in place. As we have heard, we have also provided business rates relief and a moratorium on commercial rent evictions.
The business support programmes have helped many businesses and protected many jobs, but they cannot substitute for operating in an open market. The road map that I have talked about has always been cautious and gradual, but it has to be irreversible. To help the sector reopen, we developed guidance that could get it to reopen safely. Through compliance with that, it has been able to operate since 12 April. The road map laid out the timing for easing restrictions, and it is an approach that is being led by data, not dates. We have obviously had the announcement by the Prime Minister that we are taking a four-week pause at step 3, meaning that restrictions, including social distancing measures, are still in place. That will still have an impact on the beauty and wellbeing industry, because operating at reduced capacity is extremely challenging—not only for revenue, as we have heard, but by making certain roles in the workforce redundant—but by pausing step 3, we will further improve protection in the population and reduce the need for stringent restrictions to control the virus.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister has just mentioned the extension of the restrictions in line with the required public health measures, based on the data. Can he explain—the Government have not explained this—why furlough support has not been extended in line with public health measures? There seems to be a mismatch, and there is no explanation that does not leave the most vulnerable businesses continuing to pay and having a greater gap between their revenues and costs.
Paul Scully
I will cover support in a bit more detail in a few minutes. In his Budget, the Chancellor essentially went long by extending furlough to September, which allowed a cushion within the road map. It was about data, not dates, so it was never on the June date specifically—it was not before the June date. That is the essential thing, but I will cover support in a second, including the VAT request that has been made by number of hon. Members.
Over the next few weeks, we obviously want to ensure that the pause allows us to get more people vaccinated, but I hope that our unprecedented package of financial support will continue to go some way towards reducing the impact of the pause. As I say, we erred on the side of generosity, as well as going long, in the Budget in March, specifically to accommodate short delays to the road map. Most of the schemes do not end until September or after in order to provide continuity and certainty to businesses. It is fantastic that the sector is looking at ways to boost consumer confidence to maintain the high demand—for example, the Oh Hello Beauty campaign, which I have supported.
Until then, it is critical that we all continue to follow advice on safe behaviours, including social distancing, wearing a face covering when required, washing hands, and letting fresh air into indoor spaces. It is so important that hands, face, space and fresh air are really there, because we will not get to that July date to find that suddenly the baddie has been killed and it is the end of the film—roll credits. We will still be living with covid for some time, but we want to ensure that the social distancing measures can melt away, in order to allow capacity to increase in the personal care sector and others.
Seema Malhotra
May I probe the Minister a bit further? He will know that quarterly rents, for example, are due today and that other support measures, such as furlough, are being reduced from next week. From 1 July the level of grant will be reduced and businesses will have to pay a contribution to those wages. Those decisions were made assuming that lockdown measures would be lifted on 21 June. That has not happened, yet there has not been a corresponding change to the economic measures. Nothing that he has said so far has answered that question, which is a matter of real concern to employers across my constituency. I am sure that employers across the country have raised the same concern with their MP.
Paul Scully
I talked about the fact that the Chancellor went long and was overly generous—well, not overly generous. He erred on the side of generosity in the Budget to cope with the possibility of an extension. On the grant scheme, I have written, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), to local authorities to ensure that the additional restrictions grant can be widened. We have offered £425 million more to top up the additional restrictions grant, but that will be given to councils only if they have spent their original allocation. There are two ways that they can do that: they can either give businesses to which they are already paying grants more money or widen the number of businesses to include some of those that have fallen between the cracks, of which we know there are many.
Interestingly, different sectors are saying different things about furlough. It is a drag on bringing people back into work for some sectors, such as in some parts of the hospitality sector, but others, such as the personal care sector, are saying that they want to extend it. That is why it is really important that the Chancellor looks at it in a holistic way, right across the economy. Although these debates are so important to highlight the pleas and plight of a particular sector, the Chancellor has to take a macro view, while understanding that there is a human cost within all of this. When I say a macro view, it is not all about spreadsheets; it is about personal loss in terms of people’s jobs and businesses. That is why we have had to wrap our arms around the economy so much.
A number of contributors to the debate talked about VAT. It is interesting to note that the majority of businesses within the personal care sector are not registered for VAT in the first place, so it was considered by the Chancellor as probably not the best way of getting support directly out to a number of the small businesses affected. VAT is one of the larger and more costly measures for the Treasury, so the Chancellor again has to take a holistic view. From memory, the cost of the VAT cut to the hospitality sector was something like £27 billion, contrasted with about £12 billion for the business rates sector. That was a figure from around January, so it may be slightly out of date, but not by much.
Turning to jobs and skills, it is really good that the sector is accessible and flexible, and that it benefits young people and women, including those who have to balance work with looking after their children. In 2018, 65,000 qualifications were achieved in hair and beauty, and the hair profession specifically saw approximately 10,000 new apprenticeships—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised this issue—being taken up in England, but I recognise how the deeply challenging restrictions caused by the pandemic have affected employers’ ability to hire new staff, especially apprentices, due to capacity restrictions and financial hardship.
Jim Shannon
Is it the Government’s intention to help hair and beauty salons to employ apprentices in order to have in place, as I said earlier, the next generation of those who can do the job?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman, as ever, predicts the next few paragraphs of my speech. Yes, we want to encourage and work with the sector, and incentivise it to take on more apprentices. I am aware of how highly skilled and valued practitioners are, but they are tempted to start careers in different industries because they have lost confidence in the sector’s future viability. That is why it is important that we talk about it, support the sector and demonstrate how viable and flexible it is, and how it very much has a key role in the high street ecosystem that I talked about earlier.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend was quick to respond that he wishes to support apprenticeships and demonstrate how important they are in the sector. Can he outline what specific work he is doing with the Department for Education to make sure that it, too, promotes them?
Paul Scully
I can indeed, and I will come to that in a second. We also have to examine why apprenticeships were in decline before the pandemic began. We can look at it holistically across Government with the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and BEIS.
We have provided a range of support for the beauty and wellbeing sector. For example, the sector is eligible for the kickstart scheme, which provides a fully funded six-month job for 16 to 24-year-olds on universal credit and at risk of long-term unemployment. I am pleased to say that 600 high quality industry-designed apprenticeship standards are now available. I want to work with the sector to increase the number of small and medium-sized beauty businesses offering apprenticeships.
The Government have recently increased the cash incentive to £3,000 for every apprentice that a business hires, and that helps to maintain and attract the sector’s future workforce. It is good to see sector initiatives aimed at upskilling the workforce. For example, I commend L’Oréal on its education platform, Access, which I am told 54,000 hair professionals have used. We will continue to work with the sector to advance the reputation of beauty and wellbeing as an invaluable, skilled and highly rewarding career path.
I have talked about some of the issues that the hon. Member for Swansea East raised in her speech. I was pleased that she was forthright in mentioning the benefit of holistic treatment to the menopause. It is important that we do not shy from talking in this place about a treatment that can be of so much benefit to so many women across the country. It is great to see that issue highlighted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North talked about the entrepreneurial spirit, as did the hon. Member for Strangford. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should not talk about just beauty therapists and just the beauty sector. As we have heard, the hospitality sector, for example, has a low bar to entry, but that does not make it a low-skilled sector. The hair and beauty sector does not have a particularly high bar to entry, but someone cannot just pick up a pair of scissors and expect to walk into a hairdresser’s and say, “Can I start work, please?” It is really important to demonstrate the skills required in the sector.
The hon. Member for Bradford South talked about regulation, and we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to look at regulation and what needs to be done for particular treatments. We will continue to make sure that we can work with the Department, the APPG and the sector to ensure the safety of customers. They need to see not just a certificate on the wall, as she said, but that there are skills behind it. We have to be really careful in those areas.
The hon. Member for Strangford talked about people—specifically, women—setting up businesses. We have talked about the fact that this is largely a female-led-business sector. He is absolutely right when he talks about female entrepreneurs. This fits into a wider piece of work that we are doing in my Department. What are the barriers to female entrepreneurs? They include access to finance, peer-to-peer networking and mentoring. The issue there is not just having the big beasts—the Deborah Meadens, the Richard Bransons and all those people. It is how you get mentors for people who have perhaps just opened their first salon, having been a mobile worker for a number of years; perhaps they have just taken on their first employee—it is about all those kinds of things. That is the kind of example that women want to see—someone in their mould, speaking to them about their issues. It is a question of getting consistency across the country, but also, as I have said, access to finance.
Alison Rose, the chief executive of NatWest, led the Rose review a few years ago. I chair the Rose Review Board with her—we have a meeting next week—and we talk about access to finance. We have 100 signatories to the “Investing in Women Code”, which involves a number of venture capitalists as well as lenders. We are trying to get them to change their teams so that they can get diversity of thought in their investment decisions. That will lead to having diversity in their investments and ensure that they are investing in more women, and that has to be brilliant for the UK economy.
We also have the start-up loans, available for anybody to set up a new business, of up to £25,000, alongside free mentoring. That is run by the British Business Bank and has been since 2012, and 40% of those loans are going to women. That is clearly far lower than the percentage of women in the population, but compared with some other lenders, it is going in the right direction. We still need to do more, so I am pleased to be able to encourage that. The Budget in March from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was focused on helping those most affected by the pandemic, including small businesses and vulnerable groups such as young people, women and those from disadvantaged groups in our communities. It is really important that we continue to do that.
In conclusion, we will continue to listen to the sector to understand its views and concerns. As we move to step 4 on the road map, we will work together to address the key problems facing the beauty and wellbeing workforce, discussed in the debate today. We will keep on reviewing the data; we will keep on making an assessment against the four tests at least a week in advance and will announce whether we proceed to step 4 on the new date of no later than 12 July. I want the sector to fully open as soon as that is safe, so that it can bounce back and recover from the restrictions and the financial pressures caused by the pandemic. That will help to address the issues relating to jobs and the skills gap. There is clearly more to do, after we reopen, to address the longer term challenges for the sector, but we need to keep making the point that the beauty and wellbeing sector is a fantastic industry to work in because of the people and the skills that they bring.
Carolyn Harris
It is a pleasure to see colleagues from across the House acknowledge and champion an industry that is a serious contributor to both the economy and the societal life of our country. If we as parliamentarians have achieved anything, it has been to throw a spotlight on the need for greater respect for this industry, but we need to do more than be champions. We need to support the industry and provide solutions to repair the damage. I was disappointed to hear the Minister comment that the Chancellor had been “overly generous” in his provision. I am sure that that is not something that many people across the country would recognise, but I am going to acknowledge that it was, hopefully, a Freudian slip. I am sure that he would not want people to believe that he honestly thought that. I hope that he will take away from today’s debate everybody’s contribution and will think seriously about what more can be done to ensure the security, viability and progression of this very important industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the beauty and wellbeing sector workforce.
Tyne Bridge: Celebrating 100 Years
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and also before they leave the room after the debate, and I also remind Members that the Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered celebrating 100 years of the Tyne Bridge.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to share with you and the Minister the details of the celebration of our fantastic Tyne bridge.
We often say of people that they need no introduction, and that is certainly true of the Tyne bridge. It is a great icon of the north-east, of our pride, our people, our culture and our engineering. It is one of the greatest bridges of the world and, in my humble opinion, the most beautiful bridge ever built—or it is when it is looking its best, which is not now. The Tyne bridge is a nonagenarian. It will be 100 years old in 2028. We want to celebrate it and the purpose of this debate is to find out from the Minister what he plans to bring to the party.
First, I will give a little bit of history. The roots of our Tyne bridge go back millennia. The first recorded bridge across the Tyne, near to the location of the current bridge, was the Roman pons aelius, which was built in about 122 AD. The Romans believed that all rivers had a god who blessed the community living by the water, and representations of the Tyne’s river god can be found across Tyneside to this day. In 1270, a medieval stone bridge was built, which stood for 500 years until it was badly damaged by the great flood of 1771 and replaced by a new stone bridge in 1781. That replacement was itself removed in 1866 to allow the taller ships that existed by then to pass up the Tyne, with the swing bridge being built in 1876 by the “Magician of the North”, William Armstrong.
In August 1925, construction of the current Tyne bridge began. High enough for ships to pass underneath, it was built for the new age of the motorised vehicle and to cope with the increased volume of traffic across the Tyne. Made of steel and granite, the bridge was a major feat of engineering. It was constructed using shipbuilding techniques by local shipyard workers—hence the steel rivets, which can still be seen today. When it was opened in August 1928, it was the world’s longest span bridge. I recommend that everyone sees the fantastic photographs of its construction, which can be found online.
The Tyne bridge is sometimes cited as a prototype for the Sydney Harbour bridge. In fact, although the Sydney Harbour bridge was not completed until four years after the Tyne bridge opened, work began on Sydney’s bridge first. Although the two bridges had the same design team, the differences between them are really quite striking, as was explained to me by Vin Riley, a local engineer and historian. The Sydney Harbour bridge is 1,149 metres in length and 48 metres wide, which makes it almost exactly three times the size of the Tyne bridge, which is 389 metres long and 17 metres wide. But what the Tyne bridge may lack in size, it more than makes up for in beauty, being more perfectly proportioned than Sydney Harbour bridge.
The Sydney Harbour bridge is simply flatter, as its nickname of “the Coathanger” implies. That makes for a gentler, less hair-raising experience for those who have walked the bridge arch—I have not done so, but I understand that it is very popular—but it also makes the bridge less inspiring. The arch of the Sydney Harbour bridge is thicker at its base than at its height. The Tyne bridge, on the other hand, is thinner at its earth-bound side and much broader at the height of the arch, which gives the impression that it is bounding up, soaring away, almost as if it were trying to shake itself free of its earthly constraints. What more apt symbol could there be of the people of the north-east, who have so often shown through generosity and social activism, through passion and protest, through hope and hard work, a desire to put an end to earthly pain and a determination to build a better, brighter and more just world?
That is not the only way in which the Tyne bridge represents our whole region. It connects the north and south of the Tyne and spans the region in its construction. It was built by Dorman Long, which went on to become British Steel and was based in Middlesbrough on the Tees. Building the Tyne bridge was a mammoth task, and workmen risked their lives working up to 200 feet above the river without the benefit of safety harnesses, helmets and ropes. One worker died—Nathaniel Collins, a 33-year-old scaffolder from South Shields.
The bridge was officially opened on 10 October 1928 by King George V. The King and Queen were the first to cross it in their State Landau horse-drawn carriage, as thousands of people lined the streets for the opening ceremony and 20,000 local schoolchildren were given the day off to mark the occasion.
It is particularly fitting that we are celebrating the bridge today, as it is International Women in Engineering Day. The Dorman Long design team included the first woman to gain entry to the Institution of Civil Engineers, Dorothy Buchanan. As a chartered engineer myself—though an electrical engineer, not a civil engineer—I want to pay particular tribute to her on this day. She said:
“I felt that I represented all the women in the world. It was my hope that I would be followed by many others.”
It is our hope, too. In 2018, more than 90 female engineers from across the country gathered in Newcastle to celebrate the bridge’s 90th birthday and Dorothy Buchanan.
Today, the Tyne bridge is an important part of our north-east transport infrastructure and is used by more than 70,000 vehicles every day. It was upgraded to grade II* listed status in August 2018 as part of the Great Exhibition of the North, meaning that it is a particularly important structure of more than special interest. It is also home to the furthest inland breeding kittiwake colony in the world. Any work on the bridge must be planned around their breeding season on the towers.
The beautiful granite towers, which stand at each edge of the bridge, used to be open to the public, but in recent years have been used only for the odd illegal rave. It is a huge pity that there is no longer a legal way for north-east communities to use that space. It has magnificent views across the Tyne, from the north and the south, and would be a superb exhibition space, restaurant or other community space.
But the bridge as a whole is not looking its best—far from it. I am regularly contacted by constituents and visitors to our city upset at the state into which it has been allowed to fall. A bridge of that stature and importance requires regular safety checks, repairs, preservation and upkeep. The Tyne bridge was last fully painted in 2000, and the paint system is designed to last approximately 18 to 20 years, so a new paint job is overdue. Repairs are needed to the road deck, the towers, the stonework and the steelwork, and a new drainage system needs to be installed. A major refurbishment takes time—some years—in addition to the tendering process, which may also take over a year. If the bridge is to be ready for its birthday, we need to start planning it now.
We want to celebrate the Tyne bridge in 2028, and celebrate our region. Just last week, Members of Parliament from across the north-east—many Members wished to contribute to this debate but were unable to be here—together with local authority leaders, the North of Tyne Mayor Jamie Driscoll and the police and crime commissioner Kim McGuinness, wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Transport Secretary to request the £18.5 million needed to repaint the bridge from the levelling up fund. We want to ensure that it looks at its best, as a symbol of our region’s proud engineering past and, we hope, prosperous future. We want to make it fit for a queen—the Queen, in fact. We very much hope that the Queen will consider commemorating the bridge her grandfather opened.
We cannot allow the bridge to continue in its current state of disrepair. It represents our region nationally and globally. It is the familiar backdrop to the annual great north run, as 54,000 runners pass over the bridge, accompanied by a display from the Red Arrows. The bridge is also used for other large events, including hosting the rings for the 2012 Olympics, the 2015 rugby world cup, and, more recently, the 2019 European rugby champions cup final. It was the location for the amazing closing ceremony of Freedom City 2017, when we celebrated 50 years since Martin Luther King’s visit to our city, and also the closing ceremony of the Great Exhibition of the North.
However, the sad fact is that the bridge’s last proper birthday celebrations were for its 75th birthday, hosted by local mayors from Gateshead and Newcastle. The Sydney Harbour bridge, on the other hand, is celebrated annually as the backdrop for the first fireworks display of each new year and had a large, organised 80th birthday celebration, with a special performance by musicians on the top of its 134 metre-high arch. The Tyne bridge, I am afraid to say, had nothing.
The Government make much of their levelling-up agenda, yet the north seems to be forgotten when it comes to celebrating our communities. I have raised with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for International Trade that they only seem to use London images—red buses and Big Ben—to promote the United Kingdom abroad. Why not the Tyne bridge and the Angel of the North? Global Britain must mean global Britain including the north-east. If this refurbishment does not happen and the bridge is allowed to continue in its current state of disrepair and neglect, I am afraid to say that it will become a different kind of symbol of the north-east. It will become a symbol of the neglect of the north-east, which has been forgotten by this Government—its great heritage and great future have been forgotten.
What support does the Minister propose to offer my region for this momentous celebration? I do not suppose that the Minister can tell us the Communities Secretary’s response to our levelling-up fund application—although I would be very much pleased if he gave a certain yes—but does he agree that celebrations of such a national icon cannot be left simply to the local authority funds? Does he recognise that 10 years of austerity have slashed local government spending? For example, Newcastle City Council has lost more than a third of its spending power since 2010, with city spending entirely taken up by statutory duties such as social care. Does the Minister agree that local authorities cannot be expected to fund such a major project? Would he expect Westminster City Council to pay for the refurbishment of the Big Ben, for example?
How will the Minister ensure that all the north-east’s communities benefit from the celebrations? How will he work with other Departments to ensure that great engineering stories, such as those of Dorman Long and—this is particularly relevant on International Women in Engineering Day—of Dorothy Buchanan, are celebrated as part of the festivities? We want to inspire another generation of engineers, particularly women engineers, with our celebrations. Will the Minister talk to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure support for protecting our kittiwakes?
In the north-east, we know how to give a party. The north-east will bring our bridge, our passion and our people to the party. What will the Minister bring?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for securing this important debate and for highlighting the importance of the Tyne bridge to her constituents. The Tyne bridge is rightly a source of immense pride for communities in the north-east. Alongside the Angel of the North, Durham cathedral and Hadrian’s wall, it is recognised the world over as a potent symbol of the region, its character and heritage.
The affection for this iconic landmark and much-loved feature of the Newcastle and Gateshead skyline is clear from the comments we have heard today. The majestic arch of the Tyne bridge is a symbol of Tyneside’s international reputation for industrial excellence. As the hon. Lady noted, the bridge was officially opened on 10 October 1928 by King George V, grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. Constructed from Tyneside steel, the Tyne bridge is a magnificent feat of British engineering.
As a civil engineer, I note with genuine enthusiasm the proposals to celebrate the anniversary in seven years’ time. The bridge plays a vital role in the everyday lives of people in Tyneside, allowing easy access across the river for work and education. It is an exciting symbol of the rich cultural life of Newcastle, Gateshead and the north-east. From hosting the country’s largest Olympic rings in 2012, to celebrating 50 years since Martin Luther King visited Newcastle in 1967, the Tyne bridge has been closely connected to major sporting and cultural moments over the years.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s commitment to the restoration of such an important local and national landmark. I am aware that Newcastle has entered a bid to repair the bridge, through the Government’s £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. I understand that Newcastle is in the high-priority category 1 for the fund. I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that I am unable to comment on individual bids at this stage of the process, as applications for round 1 of the fund closed only last Friday. Levelling-up fund proposals are currently in assessment and I look forward to my Department announcing successful bids in the autumn.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of proposals for the Tyne bridge, including £36.7 million of major road network funding developed by Transport for the North. Department for Transport officials are continuing to work with Newcastle City Council officials on a business case, as that is the best way to make progress on securing the funding.
I am also pleased to note that there has already been significant Government investment in Newcastle and the north-east. To support the north-east’s economic recovery, the Government have allocated £47 million from the getting building fund to the North East local enterprise partnership, for local shovel-ready infrastructure projects. That includes £7 million for a landmark regeneration scheme on the banks of Newcastle and Gateshead quayside, set to open in 2023, with a new hotel, arena and conference centre; £5.1 million for public realm and digital infrastructure works in Newcastle city centre; and £780,000 towards NU Futures, a new leisure, careers and skills venue for young people.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments on the importance of the Tyne bridge as a regional iconic symbol, and for referring to investment in projects on the banks of the river. Does he agree that that makes it all the more important that our bridge, which has not had such investment for decades, should be fit for its surroundings, as well as for its birthday in 2028?
Eddie Hughes
As a civil engineer who appreciates the fine beauty of bridges and has visited Sydney harbour and seen its poor comparative version, I hope that the hon. Lady is successful in securing the funding she needs. There are a number of options open. The bridge deserves to be restored to its former glory.
The Department for Transport has provided significant funding to the north-east, including £198 million to the North East combined authority and the North of Tyne combined authority for local transport improvements through the transforming cities fund. The Government have also provided £82.9 million for 2021-22 to authorities in the north-east for highway maintenance, pothole repairs and local transport measures. Some £700 million has been provided for strategic road schemes between 2020 and 2025, including the A1 and A19 junctions north of Newcastle. The north-east has also received more than £9 million in investment from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport culture recovery fund.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue.
Chi Onwurah
Before the Minister concludes, I hope that he, a civil engineer, will join me, an electrical engineer, in celebrating International Women in Engineering Day and particularly the contribution of Dorothy Buchanan to the Tyne bridge.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to restate my enthusiasm for engaging more women in engineering and construction. As a proud member of the Chartered Institute of Building, I have previously done work not just on attracting women to the industry, which is sometimes successful, but on the less successful aspect of retaining them in the industry, because sometimes working practices do not fit with the way they would like to live. The construction and engineering sector has moved considerably on being welcoming to women and I hope that that continues in the future. When I was at university, only two of the 50 people on my degree course were women. I hope there is a significant improvement and that we will continue to build on it.
I recognise the pride held by the people of Newcastle and Gateshead in the Tyne bridge and I welcome the hon. Lady’s efforts to represent their strength of feeling. Although I am unable to comment on Newcastle’s bid for the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund while those bids are assessed, I look forward to the autumn when we will be in a position to announce those results.
The Government have provided significant funding for Newcastle City Council both during the pandemic and to support recovery from it. We are working hard to ensure that there is a strong settlement for all of local government at the forthcoming spending review, which will provide certainty for the coming period. I wish the hon. Lady all the best in her preparations as we approach the centenary of this iconic feat of engineering and I look forward to celebrating with her in 2028.
Question put and agreed to.
Deforestation in the Amazon
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I have been asked to remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. The timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. Members participating physically and virtually should arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate.
Members participating virtually, Mr Speaker has asked me to remind you that you must keep your camera on for the duration of the debate and should be visible to each other and to those of us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, along with the usual practices.
Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move into the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can only speak from the horseshoe where there are microphones. Members who are not on the call list but wish to intervene can do so, but only from the horseshoe. I remind Members that those on the call list have priority for spaces on the horseshoe, and those wishing to intervene should not prevent a Member on the call list from speaking.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered deforestation in the Amazon.
I called this debate because of what I see as a mounting crisis in the battle to protect the Amazon rainforest, which is one of the world’s most important biomes, if not the most important. The Amazon is thought to be home to 10% of known species on earth, including 16,000 species of tree, 3,000 species of fish and more species of primate than anywhere else on earth. It is one of the last refuges for jaguars, harpy eagles and pink river dolphins and is home to sloths, black spider monkeys and poison dart frogs. It is a really important part of our global ecosystem.
For decades, large swathes of the Amazon were cleared to make way for agriculture, but the Amazon was not only place affected in that part of the world: areas such as the Atlantic forest in Brazil have also largely disappeared, all too often to leave space for agriculture, and all too often agriculture that uses up the fertility of the land in a few years and leaves behind sparsely used and degraded land. In recent years, the impact of deforestation has become clearer and clearer, and international efforts to halt it have grown. I could speak for much longer than I have available today on the need to increase those efforts, to protect essential habitats and biomes, and to produce a global strategy to begin restoring some of the areas that have been lost, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about what is happening right now in Brazil, which in my view is tragic and cannot be accepted by the rest of the global community.
For many years, it seemed as if progress was being made in slowing the loss of the rainforest. Brazil committed to sharply reduce deforestation, introduced new legislation to strengthen environmental protections, and worked with soy traders to end the purchase of soy from illegally cleared areas. At the Paris climate change conference, it agreed to end illegal deforestation by 2030. However, the Brazilian Government have reversed that progress. I say that with great sorrow and dismay, because Brazil is a friend of this country, but we have to speak truth to friends, and the reality is that the Government in Brazil have reversed the process. Despite warm words to the international community, the situation is now going from bad to worse. The loss of rainforest in the Amazon is now acute, with 2019 and 2020 being disastrous years for the Amazon. In a 12-month period, an area the size of Israel was cleared. In 2020, the loss amounted to 4,281 square miles—and that is a Brazilian statistic. Despite the pandemic, the situation continues to look bleak. Current estimates are that deforestation has actually accelerated this year, with the loss of an area the size of the Isle of Man in just one month. Despite warm words internationally, this clearly has official sanction.
Instead of taking steps to halt deforestation, the Brazilian Government are now pushing legislation through the Congress that will have the opposite effect by regularising the rights of people who have cleared and occupied forest areas illegally. At the same time, a presidential decree has reduced the likelihood of environmental criminals being punished for past actions. I cannot think of any step more likely to encourage those who have been breaking the existing protections and clearing areas illegally than letting them off the punishments that they might have been expecting, or deciding to allow them to stay on those sites legally. What clearer message could there be that they will be allowed to get away with it if they try it again? It is no surprise that environmental groups are up in arms. They rightly see this as a clear route to further illegal forest clearances.
There are also plans to open up to commercial mining interests lands that enjoy existing protections—lands that are those of the indigenous peoples. I suspect that we will hear a bit more about that later from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who has been champion of indigenous peoples and the protections they need.
New environmental assessment rules for road building do not take deforestation into account, opening the way for large-scale road building through the Amazon, and the inevitable consequence of more clearances for mining and other uses, as remoter areas become more accessible. Those are not policies that come from a Government who are taking their environmental responsibilities seriously. The Brazilian Government claim that they are victims of misinformation, but I am afraid that simply is not true. The reason we know it is not true is because they told us themselves: at a recent meeting, the Brazilian Environment Minister was caught on video threatening to use the pandemic as a smokescreen to run the cattle herd through the Amazon, change all the rules and simplify standards. Heaven help the Amazon if that is the real policy of the Brazilian Environment Minister.
My message today, and the reason for calling the debate, is to say to our Government and the Minister that the international community really act on this issue, and the UK has to take a lead, along with other nations, in making that action happen. The reality is that other countries in that part of the world are working on this—for example, Colombia is starting to get to grips with the issue—but, sadly, the Brazilians are not. The first battleground has to be over trade, but it will not be easy. China has become a huge market for Brazilian exports and Brazil’s reliance on European and north American markets has been reduced, but that is not a reason for us to avoid action. It now looks unlikely that the provisional trade agreement reached between the European Union and the Mercosur trade bloc in South America will be able to go ahead in the agreed form because of what is happening in the Amazon. In the European Parliament, steps are already being taken to block the deal, and several EU Parliaments have voted to oppose it. It certainly gives the impression of being dead in the water.
As colleagues know, I do not always believe in following the example of the EU, but I definitely make an exception in this regard. The UK should not countenance even starting discussions with Brazil about a free trade agreement while the current situation continues. There must be no trade deals with Brazil while it continues to allow wholesale clearances in the Amazon, and we need a very clear message from our Ministers to their counterparts in Brasilia that this is the case. We cannot simply treat this as if it is not happening. Unless the situation changes quickly, I think we actually have to go further than that and deal with the issue in a very direct and robust way. Given the mood in Brussels and the changes in the United States, we can work internationally to tackle the issue directly.
It is very hard to work constantly to identify which products come from sustainable sources and which do not. For example, retailers in the UK tell me that it is hard to tell which soy used in their products has sustainable origins, given that the major dealers mix their supplies together in big batches. We now have to look very seriously at international action to impose tough tariffs on relevant Brazilian food exports unless and until there is clear evidence that the Government there are taking serious steps to protect the Amazon. That might seem strange coming from a strongly profree trade Conservative, but it is essential if we are to put the kind of pressure on Brazil that will stop this deforestation while we still have time. We cannot simply let the exports and imports flow if they are increasingly coming from more and more areas of the Amazon that have been cleared.
There is also a debate in the United States at the moment about whether President Biden and his climate change envoy, John Kerry, should even engage with the Brazilian Government, and in particular meet President Bolsonaro. I think they should, and I think our Government should be engaging as well: we should be having discussions and trying to strengthen relationships, but we have to be absolutely clear all along that future partnerships and future trade agreements are conditional on deforestation stopping. Of course, there is the issue that other countries are close trading partners with the Brazilians—the Chinese, for example. We should be clear with the Chinese Government that, as major importers of its produce, we need them to be part of putting the pressure on Brazil. Although the Chinese are making clear commitments themselves—they are chairing the COP on habitat and biodiversity later this year—they need to be putting that into practice and putting pressure on the Brazilian Government as well.
Protecting our natural ecosystems must become a central responsibility of all countries on Earth. Of course we need development, of course we need homes and jobs for a growing global population, and of course we understand the economic challenges that the Brazilian Government face, but none of the things that need to be done to remove poverty risks and improve the lives of citizens can be allowed to happen at the expense of key biomes and the habitats of endangered plant and animal life. A smart approach to land management and smart technology can help us to reverse the damage that has been done and start to rebuild the natural environment around us, but that work has to start quickly, and the loss of key habitats must stop now.
We, the United Kingdom, will be chairing the COP summit on climate change this autumn. We will, I hope, be the drivers of a new agreement on climate change and environmental improvements. This year, Ministers have already taken a lead role in the pre-discussions happening ahead of that meeting. As a Government, we have taken some really quite significant steps to address environmental challenges, both domestically and internationally, so I think we are as well placed as anyone to say, “We are willing to take a lead, but we need the help of others to follow.” In my view, there is no greater environmental need than this, both because the Amazon rainforest is key to dealing with the challenge of climate change and because it is such an important habitat—such an important home—for so many species and for indigenous people. It is a global asset, it is globally vital and it must be protected, but we are now facing a situation where a Government of a friendly nation is allowing policies and actions to go ahead that are accelerating the destruction of that global asset.
My message to the Minister today is very simple: the UK has to act on all of this. We have to be saying to Brazilian Ministers and others in Brazil, “We are your friends. We are going to carry on being your friends, but we cannot just stand idly by while this happens. We will take action. We will take action with the international community to put pressure on you if you do not listen and if you do not act.” It is in the interests of every Brazilian citizen, as it is in the interests of every citizen around the world, to deal with these environmental issues. Brazil has perhaps a bigger responsibility and a bigger burden than most, because it is home to such an important asset, but that responsibility has to be shouldered none the less, and this problem has to be addressed. As such, I say to the Minister and, through her, to colleagues in Government that this is something on which the UK Government have a duty to act. This year, we have a duty to lead, and if that means tough action and very tough words, we have to do it, because it is a historic responsibility that we cannot and must not shirk.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
We can probably get away without imposing a formal time limit if people confine themselves to about six minutes.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate, and I note with great pleasure, Mr McCabe, that you are presiding in the Chair.
This debate is timely, with the debate on the Environment Bill continuing today in the Lords. In my speech, I will refer to the vital provisions in that Bill that seek to place due diligence obligations on companies to eliminate illegal deforestation from their supply chains. That is an important start, but we need to go further. First, however, I will focus on the drivers of deforestation.
One key driver is the conversion of forest for ranching to produce beef. It is no wonder that we hear lots of analysis of the importance of transitioning to plant-based diets and the role of consumer choice in mitigating emissions and restoring biodiversity. The number of vegans and vegetarians in the UK has increased by 40%, and it is estimated that by 2025 vegans and vegetarians will form a quarter of our population. That sounds great until one understands that the other key driver of Amazonian deforestation is the demand for soy. The World Wide Fund for Nature reports that the land required to meet the UK’s annual demand for soy between 2016 and 2018 averaged 17,000 sq km, which is an area of land the size of Wales. This situation is all the more alarming when we consider that 27% of soy consumed in the UK was certified as being deforestation-free. If my maths is right, that means that 73% was not. It is no wonder that the Dasgupta review highlighted the fact that our demand for the Earth’s resources is far outstripping the planet’s capacity to supply us. This is what he called the “impact inequality”. We are living as if we have 1.6 planets.
I support the right hon. Gentleman’s push for sustainability labelling on foods to drive better consumer choices. It is clear to me that information, education and choice are essential to bring about change. However, it is also clear that, on their own, they will not be sufficient. We cannot afford to wait and hope that consumers will drive this change. There must be regulation and the legislative framework in place to drive change from the top. In 2020, deforestation in the Amazon increased by 13% in just 12 months and the number of wildfires there hit a 13-year high. It is easy to become complacent when all these figures are brandished about, so to put it simply: if we do not legislate for an end to deforestation in company supply chains, the Amazon—the world’s most vital biodiversity and carbon sink—will reach a tipping point and be gone.
I welcome the proposals in the Environment Bill for a due diligence system for companies to ensure that their supply chains are free from any involvement with illegal deforestation. This follows the recommendation by the Global Resource Initiative, an independent taskforce convened by the UK Government. Yet the GRI also recommended two vital measures that the UK Government have thus far failed to adopt: extending that due diligence to all deforestation, irrespective of legality; and extending it to the finance sector. I will address finance first.
UK financial institutions have provided finance worth £500 million to the three largest beef companies in the world—JBS, Marfrig and Minerva—all of which are linked with illegal deforestation in the Amazon. That is despite earlier commitments from these companies, stretching back to 2008, to end their links with illegal deforestation. UK-based banks and investment firms are providing huge finance for beef companies that are driving deforestation through their supply chains. It is imperative, therefore, that legislation extends to the finance sector. Voluntary commitments have failed. A Global Witness investigation found that these beef-producing companies bought cattle from 379 ranches containing 20,000 football fields-worth of illegal deforestation. That was not the number in the whole of the Amazon; it was the number in one state in the Amazon alone.
That extraordinary depletion of rainforest is being financed by UK financial institutions and investment companies, and despite the evidence, they are failing to act—indeed, they are failing to follow even their own voluntary “zero deforestation” commitments. Mandatory due diligence on financial institutions is vital, because even excellent initiatives, such as the Financial Stability Board’s task force on climate-related financial disclosures, will not pick up emissions from deforestation associated with these institutions’ financing. Mandatory due diligence and a statutory target to reduce our global footprint by 2030 would send the signal to the finance sector of the seriousness of this issue.
We must also address the problem of defining “legality” by producer-country standards. The Government’s own consultation document on due diligence for forest-risk commodities acknowledges that globally only 49% of deforestation is defined as “illegal” under local country laws. When companies in the global north first began to question their supply chains a few years ago, they asked specifically about the legality of the deforested land on which their supply chain products had been grown. The result was that, in order to help Brazilian business meet the demands of its customers, the Government relaxed the rules on legality. They simply changed the law. WWF found that, with Bolsonaro’s weakening of the legislative framework on deforestation, between only 22% and 29% of soy-related deforestation would now come under illegal deforestation regulation. We simply have to go further.
Law enforcement agencies, including the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources—IBAMA—issued in 2019 the lowest number of fines due to deforestation in the past 30 years. Most concerningly, Bolsonaro is taking away the rights of the indigenous communities to block deforestation and mining on their land. That is important because their land protects 34% of carbon stocks in the Amazon.
A Bill introduced in Congress last February would legalise the commercial mining and agricultural expansion on indigenous land without the free, prior and informed consent of those communities. Notwithstanding the devastating environmental impacts of that, it is also a violation of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people, to which Brazil is a signatory.
So, yes, let us label properly, accounting properly for the actual deforestation, but let us also insist on mandatory reporting for companies and, in particular, for those banks and funds that are financing the destruction. As President of COP26, let us ensure that indigenous land rights are a key priority in Glasgow.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr McCabe. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for bringing the debate to Westminster Hall. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) who is a very able member of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I chair.
Talking about the deforestation of the Amazon and, in particular, about what is happening in Brazil is a good reason for us to be here this afternoon. The Environment Bill is now in Committee in the Lords and offers a welcome opportunity for the UK to show global leadership in protecting the Amazon. The due diligence obligations will see companies that play a role in producing key commodities such as soya and palm oil held accountable for the illegal deforestation in their supply chains.
Although those due diligence obligations are welcome, they do not go far enough to protect the Amazon and other crucial, natural ecosystems, or to meet the UK’s global goals on climate and nature. The deforestation amendments I tabled unsuccessfully in the House of Commons were targeted towards ensuring that big businesses are not bankrolled. Those big businesses in Brazil that carry out cattle ranching, driving the cattle towards the Amazon, and ploughing up the savannah to grow soya, removing the rights of indigenous people, are being bankrolled by major UK institutions, such as HSBC, Santander and Barclays, which have investments in those big agribusinesses.
The Global Witness “Money to Burn” report shows that UK banks invested £5 billion between 2013 and 2019 in companies that are illegally deforesting land, such as those in the Amazon. We may not be conscious of it but our own pension funds in the House of Commons may well contribute to that by having investments in those institutions.
In a capitalist system, if those businesses are starved of capital they are brought to some recognition of the huge damage that they are doing. They are causing huge environmental damage; if we did them financial damage they would listen more carefully.
That is why I am so keen for this to happen, and I shall be interested to hear what our Minister has to say.
In December 2020, Global Witness, in “Beef, Banks and the Brazilian Amazon”, found that Brazil’s three largest beef companies are linked to tens of thousands of hectares of illegal deforestation, despite auditors saying otherwise. In just one state, over three years, beef giants JBS, Marfrig and Minerva brought cattle from a combined 379 ranches, containing 20,000 football fields-worth of illegal deforestation. In this year alone, an area twice the size of Devon has been deforested. While we stand here and speak, deforestation is going on at an alarming rate.
We have to remember that, although trees are valuable in every country in which they are grown, we would need to grow three trees here to hold the amount of carbon that a tree in the rainforest holds. We need to wake up to that. I understand that Brazil is a sovereign country and that it needs to make its decisions, but it cannot make decisions that are seriously damaging—literally—the health and sometimes the lives of indigenous people in Brazil and are causing so much degradation to our global climate. As we move forward as a country towards ensuring we have a much greener environment, we have to look to the rest of the world to deliver on that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell made a point about the Chinese, who are very hungry for minerals and all sorts of commodities, including soya for feeding their cattle and their people, but they too must be very conscious of where this is coming from. We can all work together to deliver on this. Overall, the people of Brazil would benefit from a regime that did not deforest.
Finally, to put my farming hat on, one of the problems that I have with what they do in Brazil is that they basically burn down the rainforest and plough it up, using all the fertility in the soil, and then move on to some more rainforest, abandoning the land after taking the fertility that has probably taken hundreds of thousands of years to deliver. Even from a farming perspective, it is ruinous. That is why I say bluntly that we need to listen to this debate very clearly. I look forward to the Minister taking the points that we are making very seriously. This is very much a cross-party issue, and is very much for the good of this country. In this case, we have to give clear guidance to the Brazilians about the impact of the policies of the present President of Brazil and where they are leading the country.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate. I hope he is not too offended if I say that I find myself agreeing with him an awful lot more these days, now that he is on the Back Benches, than I did when he was in Government.
Yesterday was World Rainforest Day, and it would be wonderful if we were here to celebrate all the wonders of the rainforest—the huge range of biodiversity and the fact that it is a habitat that is home to many rare and exotic species, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Instead, this is a very depressing day because, as has been said, the rainforests are under threat and are disappearing at a very worrying rate. Deforestation continues to devastate many havens of biodiversity around the world. It is driven by a variety of economic drivers, including infrastructure construction, logging, extractive industries and land conversion for livestock and feed crops such as soy.
The Amazon is a huge global resource in terms of its environmental contribution and is home to around 10% of known species. It stores around 76 billion tonnes of carbon. Clearly, we have a responsibility to do all that we can to protect it, but there was a devastating 13% increase in Amazonian deforestation in 2020, with over 11,000 sq kms of deforestation. Unfortunately, as has been said, the UK is driving this deforestation with our domestic consumption.
As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), in 2017 only 27% of soy consumed in the UK was certified as deforestation free, meaning that the rest was not. Supermarkets, such as Tesco, have well-documented links to meat firms tied to deforestation. I know some supermarkets have spoken about trying to stamp out those connections in their supply chains, and I welcome that move.
It is very rare that I take issue with anything my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North says, but I have to correct him about what he said earlier. The main driver by far in the expansion of soy production, which has almost doubled in recent years, is increased meat consumption. The main use of soy is livestock feed. Soybean oil is also used in cooking, cosmetics and soap and soy is used in industrial processes.
According to WWF, 80% of the world soybean crop is fed to livestock and according to Oilseed & Grain News, which I am sure we all read avidly every night, it is 85%, but that is where the bulk of it goes. I have had these run-ins with a former agriculture Minister in previous Parliaments. He is not in Parliament any more, but on quite a few occasions he stood up and said, “It’s all the vegans and their veggie burgers that’s causing this problem.” It really is not, although with the move to plant-based diets, the best thing people can eat is plants and not processed food anyway.
Many of us have been raising this subject for some time. A year ago I asked a question of the International Trade Secretary:
“Between 2013 and 2019, British financial institutions provided over $2 billion in financial backing to Brazilian beef companies linked to Amazon deforestation. How can we ensure that there is greater transparency in our supply chains so that we are not unwittingly, through exports from Brazil, contributing to such environmental degradation?”—[Official Report, 18 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 939.]
I got a vague answer that they were working on “supply chain” issues.
In January this year, I asked about this issue again at International Trade questions. I mentioned my recent correspondence with the Brazilian ambassador that started after I had mentioned the problems with biofuel when I was leading for Labour on a statutory instrument about the renewable transport fuels obligation, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell knows about. The Brazilians took issue with something I said, and we entered into a chain of correspondence, which was basically the Brazilians saying that deforestation was not a problem.
I mentioned this correspondence at International Trade questions and raised with the Trade Minister recent, very worrying reports in the press about Brazilian beef farms, where working conditions were said to be akin to modern slavery. I asked if the Government would make any future bilateral trade deal conditional on Brazil taking action to protect workers and prevent deforestation. I note that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that there should be no trade deal agreed with Brazil until these issues are resolved.
In reply to my question, the Minister said that
“the United Kingdom has already committed £259 million to Brazil through its international climate finance programme to tackle deforestation.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 471.]
He mentioned the early movers programme, which rewards pioneers in forest conservation, and a programme led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that has prevented the clearance of around 430,000 acres in Brazil. DEFRA stopping the clearance of 430,000 acres sounds really good, but under the Bolsonaro Administration deforestation is at a 12-year high.
As The Guardian has reported, at least 11,000 sq kms were razed between August 2019 and July 2020. That is roughly 2,740,000 acres in the space of less than a year. For all our efforts, we are just giving with one hand while Bolsonaro is destroying all that work with the other.
The Government had an opportunity to address this issue in the Environment Bill. I lose track with the Environment Bill because it took so long to go through Parliament. At one point, I tabled some amendments but they are lost in the mists of time. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) tabled his amendments at the final stage. I was pleased that the Government went halfway by including measures in the Bill to impose a due diligence obligation on the supply chains of UK firms, forcing them to tackle illegal deforestation. As has been said, and as I have tried to raise in Parliament with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the issue should not just be about illegal deforestation, because we know that so many of the activities that contribute to deforestation are legal, and Bolsonaro has been relaxing legal protections. We also know that there is very little enforcement and that companies can act with impunity. The Environment Secretary replied by saying that many countries have laws on deforestation in place, and that there was evidence that the failure to enforce was the problem, but I do not accept that.
We have heard what is happening in Brazil. As has been said, it is not just that some states are pushing ahead with measures to weaken legal protections. There are also serious concerns that they lack the mechanisms. Even if the political will was there, which I do not think there is, they do not have the mechanisms to identify what is legally and illegally produced. Clearly, a distinction between legal and illegal deforestation is not good enough.
As has been said by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, UK financial support for firms linked to deforestation goes far deeper than many of us would expect. Analysis from Feedback shows that even the parliamentary pension fund has investments in big meat firms such as JBS, which have been repeatedly linked to deforestation. I hope that that is something we can take up after this debate, because we should set an example in this place by severing all our financial links to forest risk commodities.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that what is happening in Brazil is tragic and cannot be accepted. I agree with his argument that it has been officially sanctioned by Bolsonaro and that our Government need to act. I thank organisations such as WWF, CAFOD and Global Witness for their tireless efforts to raise awareness of the issue and to try to ensure that the Environment Bill includes measures to address it. I very much hope that now the Bill is in the other place we can take stronger action.
I hope the Minister can shed some light on how the Government plan to rectify the glaring holes in their proposals on deforestation. I accept that she is a Foreign Office Minister, but there is a link with DEFRA and the Department for International Trade, and I hope that ahead of COP and the convention on biological diversity she talks to all her colleagues and tries to secure firm action on this.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate, because the issue is not talked about as much as it should be. It is right that we talk frequently about developing electric vehicles and renewable energy, but we do not discuss deforestation enough, so I am glad to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution.
During the recess I had the pleasure of visiting the Eden Project, which, as Members know, is expertly run by David Harland and his team in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). The project clearly demonstrates the importance of rainforests, particularly the Amazon rainforest, in terms of biodiversity, insects, birds, animals, plants and perhaps other forms of life that have not been fully discovered. Very simple research demonstrates that although rainforests cover 6% of the world’s surface, they host half of the world’s plant and animal species.
It is also important that rainforests generate so much of the earth’s oxygen. Given all those facts, it really is important that we talk much more about rainforests, particularly the Amazon rainforest, because its deforestation is one of the great crises facing the world. We talk about the climate change emergency, quite rightly, but contributing to that is the rainforest emergency, and we need to address the issue urgently. The process of deforestation adds to the carbon dioxide emissions that the world suffers from.
We source a number of products from the rainforests, but the production of palm oil is perhaps the main issue in encouraging people to deforest. Palm oil is important to many people, including small-scale farmers in developing countries. The countries that are causing deforestation are themselves developing. The problem is not easy to solve, especially as the research shows that growing palm oil substitutes could require even more land. This is not an easy problem.
The UK has played its part in addressing the problem and moving towards the use of sustainably produced palm oil. It has to be a Government initiative, because, although I am certainly in favour of consumer responsibility and putting as many warnings on packaging as we possibly can, there are more and more requirements for packaging and it is getting rather crowded, which could lead to people ignoring the messages. It is up to the Government to ensure that what we import is produced sustainably.
Of course, like climate change itself, we in the UK cannot solve all the world’s problems, but we certainly need to give a lead. I am pleased that we are doing that, but we have to take the rest of the world with us if these problems are to be solved and we are to protect the planet in the way that we want and need to.
Helping countries that might otherwise cut down forests and helping those countries that benefit from the importation of cheaply produced palm oil might be a very important role for us to play, and it might be a very good use of part of our aid budget. As Bill Gates said:
“People cut down trees not because people are evil; they do it when the incentives to cut down trees are stronger than the incentives to leave them alone.”
I might add that they do it when the incentives are also more immediate, because if people are starving, they are understandably more concerned about that than what they see as some distant concept of climate change.
For other products that we source from around the world, the fact that we can now negotiate our own trade deals provides us with the opportunity to try to stress to other countries how seriously we take these issues, just as negotiators from all developed countries should do.
The solutions are not simple. An emphasis on sustainability is one way forward. The possible development of synthetic palm oil might be another way forward, but I really believe that it has to be accompanied by help for others if it is to work.
We in the UK have enjoyed relative prosperity since the industrial revolution, and we have polluted the planet as we have gone along. We need to help others to reach the same level of prosperity without their polluting the planet in the way that we have. Perhaps I might suggest that that is another reason for us to maintain our aid levels at 0.7%. Perhaps this is yet another example of how doing so ultimately benefits the UK. As I say, we cannot do it all on our own. COP26 provides an ideal opportunity for us to set out a structure within which we can lead the world on this issue.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, Mr Law, are you experiencing some technical difficulties there? As I said at the start, Mr Speaker was very clear: people appearing virtually should have their cameras on throughout and should be present throughout.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
I have had some internet instability, but it seems to be okay now, Mr McCabe.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is excellent to see you in the chair, Mr McCabe. I once again find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), as I was in the tourism and travel debate. I thank him for securing this vital debate, which could not have come at a more appropriate time, as we marked World Rainforest Day yesterday.
Last February, Chief Raoni, a chief of the Kayapo people in north central Brazil, visited the UK and addressed a number of us, including the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who spoke earlier. He told us about the destruction of their lands by strip-mining, farming and industrialisation. It was not just a threat to the rainforest—his people were being killed if caught, in their own lands. Since then, I have kept in touch with the non-governmental organisations and Chief Raoni, who say that the destruction and human rights abuses have sped up since covid, with little ability to curb the rapacious nature of the forest destroyers and the Brazilian President acting more as a co-conspirator than as a protector of our greatest natural resource.
Chief Raoni’s biggest ask is to make indigenous lands protected reserves, with not just legal protection but security and human rights defenders on the ground, supported by us in the international community. However, the demarcation process is threatened under President Bolsonaro, who is a right-wing populist climate change sceptic who continues to open the door of protected lands to mining and agribusiness.
Last month, Chief Raoni and another top indigenous leader, Chief Almir Surui, asked the International Criminal Court to investigate Bolsonaro for crimes against humanity, accusing him of unprecedented environmental damage, killings and persecution in the Amazon. Will the UK Government be supporting Chief Raoni and Chief Surui, who are on the front line and have lost members of their tribes to those who destroy the rainforest?
Immediate action is so important as the climate crisis picks up speed and temperatures steadily rise. The lungs of our planet are burning. The Amazon rainforest is at a tipping point. Droughts and wildfires are now the norm, with 2021 set to be a particularly bad year. Just yesterday, an international study led by the University of Leeds warned that huge areas in the eastern part of the Amazon face severe drying by the end of the century if action is not taken to curb carbon emissions.
Under Bolsonaro, we have seen record levels of deforestation, with an area seven times greater than London destroyed last year alone. Crucially, the Amazon may begin to contribute more greenhouse gases to the air than it absorbs by 2050, or possibly even sooner if the expansion of this work under Bolsonaro continues. His predecessor President Lula brought in protections that we saw work, and the rainforest loss was curbed. However, that work has all been undone in quite a short space of time. Now the Brazilian Government are pushing laws to make deforestation easier.
Bill 2633 in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies encourages and legalises land grabbing of public lands, and is one of the key parts of the President’s legislative agenda. Bill 510 is a Brazilian Senate ill that also encourages land grabbing. These bills, encouraging land grabbing of public lands and authorising mining construction in indigenous lands, are set to be pushed through before the summer recess next month.
We need to consider this in our own law making. The Environment Bill will require firms to carry out due diligence on whether or not commodities come from areas that have been illegally deforested. Yet that only addresses illegal deforestation. If Bolsonaro’s Government are successful, what is currently illegal will become legal, and the Environment Bill will be unable to stop it or curb it in any way. We urgently need the Bill to be amended in the other place, where it now rests, so that we are not creating demand for the destruction of the Amazon.
The Conservative party promised to fight against Amazon deforestation, yet one of their biggest donors is an investor who profits from the destruction of Brazilian rainforests. If the Prime Minister is happy to take Crispin Odey’s money, questions have to be asked about his commitment to protecting the Amazon.
The Amazon is thought to be the home of 10% of known species on Earth, including 16,000 species of trees, 3,000 species of fish, and more species of primates than anywhere else. I work closely with the WWF, and hosted its Brazil director in March last year, right here in Portcullis House. The WWF told us that new species are being discovered all the time. Between 1999 and 2015, 2,200 new animal and plant species were discovered in the Amazon, including a river dolphin, a vegetarian piranha and eight species of monkey, including one that purrs like a cat. Are these not just wonderous, joyful things?
The outstanding biodiversity of the Amazon is not only important for the natural ecosystem, it also provides many befits to us as humans. The plants and animals are used for food, research, medicine and textiles. Any reduction in biodiversity can also contribute to increased disease risks, and after this past year we all know what zoonotic diseases and global pandemics are. In its initial report on the origins of covid-19, the WHO pointed out the threat of natural ecosystem destruction breaking down the buffer zone that protects us from wildlife- borne viruses.
Just as a virus born in one country can sweep across the globe, deforestation of the Amazon has the capacity to devastate not just Brazil, but the entire world. While Brazil acts as the primary custodian, maintaining the rainforest should not solely fall on their shoulders. Internationally, we must reflect critically as to how we consume the planet’s resources. COP26 will be a pivotal moment to focus on efforts to protect the Amazon rainforest and tackle unnecessary deforestation, with Brazilian representatives right here on our own shores.
The natural world does not reflect man-made borders, which is why we need multilateral co-operation on this issue. Now more than ever, the UK Government—even though they are retreating from their international development commitments—need to provide funds to protect the rainforest and its people. I will finish with the words of Chief Raoni:
“I'm overwhelmed with sadness when I see how our lands are being destroyed more each day”.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate and on laying out clearly and convincingly the reality of the situation in Brazil today. Although he painted a bleak and depressing picture, what he said needed saying, and I thank him for saying it.
We all recognise the importance of the rainforest and the disaster that would follow from its destruction, but it seems that, rather than doing everything possible to save it, the Government of Brazil have effectively given a green light to criminal networks to pursue illegal logging, mining and cattle ranching, thereby accelerating the destruction of the forest. It is right that President Bolsonaro is called out, as he has been in this debate, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we are blameless in all this. We are not, because, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) says, on our doorstep—in this city—financial institutions are complicit in the destruction of the rainforest. The Guardian revealed in 2020 that British banks and finance houses had given more than $2 billion to Brazilian beef corporations implicated in deforestation.
Of course, although the implications of the Amazon’s destruction affect the entire planet, they are most keenly felt by the indigenous peoples whose territories are being stolen and destroyed and whose human rights are being routinely violated. The Brazilian Amazon is home to approximately 25 million people, but it is also the poorest region in Brazil, with the worst socioeconomic indicators. Since coming to power, President Bolsonaro has scaled back enforcement of environmental laws, weakened the power of the federal environmental agencies and removed many of the protections and rights of the indigenous people.
As Sônia Guajajara, the leader of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, said recently:
“He is committing one crime after another against the peoples of the forest and against the environment.”
She says that he is not only a risk to indigenous peoples but that
“it has turned into a global problem, because what he’s doing here has an impact on the planet”.
As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, so fearful are the indigenous people of Bolsonaro and his policies that they have petitioned the International Criminal Court, asking that an investigation be opened into allegations of human rights abuses.
Sadly, across the world, indigenous people are among the most marginalised groups in society. They have historically faced systematic discrimination in everything from healthcare to education and from work to legal rights. They often have little or no political representation. Routinely, their lands have been seized and they have been forced to relocate when others have decided that they have to. All too often, they face persecution and violence and the destruction of their culture, language and traditional way of life. And the people of the Amazon rainforest are no different.
As Myrna Cunningham, a Nicaraguan woman and president of the Centre for Autonomy and Development of Indigenous People, says:
“Indigenous peoples have a different concept of forests. They are not seen as a place where you take out resources to increase your money—they are seen as a space where we live and that is given to us to protect for the next generations.”
Unfortunately, Myrna Cunningham’s concept and vision of what the forest is and how it should be used is not shared by everyone. As we have heard, President Bolsonaro, since coming to power, has actively pursued policies that erode protections for indigenous land and the indigenous people of the forest, and make it easier for non-indigenous Brazilians to carry out economic activity in the Amazon. He has attempted to shift more authority away from agencies whose job it is to protect indigenous rights, and handed it over instead to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, which has a vested interest in expanding development in the rainforest. During Bolsonaro’s first year in power, there was a staggering 135% increase in illegal invasions, illegal logging, land grabbing and other infringements in indigenous areas. According to the Brazilian Government’s own figures, the level of deforestation of indigenous land is now higher than it has been in a decade.
Of course, there is a terrible human cost for those communities seen to be standing in the way of so-called progress, as forest clearings frequently result in violence, forced eviction, harassment, intimidation, death threats, arbitrary arrests of community leaders and even murder. Human Rights Watch reported that illegal deforestation and violence in the Amazon were largely being driven by criminal gangs. Twenty-eight people have been murdered, four have faced murder attempts, and there were more than 40 cases of death threats in 2019 alone.
One indigenous reserve that has suffered more than most is the area of the Yanomami, which in one year saw deforestation soar by almost 1,700%, and where there are no fewer than 536 current requests for mining rights. I will conclude with the words of Davi Kopenawa, a spokesman for the Yanomami people, who said,
“The Whites cannot destroy our house for, if they do, things will not end well for the whole world. We are looking after the forest for everyone, not just for the Yanomami and the isolated peoples. We work with our shamans who understand these things well, who possess wisdom that comes from contact with the land.”
I just wish more shared that wisdom.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I am going to shave a few seconds off each of the Front Benchers’ speeches to give Mr Shannon a chance, but I ask him to wind up at 3.31.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I certainly will; it may not even take me that length of time, but I will do my best to lengthen my speech to six minutes.
First of all, I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for having set the scene so well on a really important issue. Every one of today’s speakers has outlined why the issue is important. We may not live in Brazil, but what happens in Brazil affects us here, which is why the debate is so important, and we look forward to the Minister being able to give us some assurances on the matters that have been raised. It is also always a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). There are very few debates in which he and I are on the same side: more often than not, it used to be debates about human rights issues, and today is an example of that. This debate is about human rights, but it is also about what is good for us in the world.
When I was very young—which was not yesterday—I remember one saying that my mother always said to me, which was, “The trees are the lungs of the world.” The Amazon rainforest, with all the massive trees it has, is clearly the lungs of the world as well, so when they are being destroyed to the extent they are, that should affect us all. We should become very concerned about it, bearing in mind that the latest data released by Global Forest Watch found that primary forest loss was 12% higher in 2020 than the year before, including the loss of some 4.2 million hectares—an area the size of the Netherlands—of primary humid tropical forest: in other words, those particular trees were unique to the world. The Minister has already been asked many questions, but will he consider taking appropriate action to reduce demand in our country for the goods resulting from that deforestation? If that happens, and if we are able to join with other countries—the EU, the USA, and much of the western world—we may be able to reduce the level of deforestation, which is really important.
However, this is not just about deforestation: a combination of other things is happening. Vast areas of the Amazon rainforest will be at risk from extreme drought—that is one of the things that is happening at this moment in time—and there is a need for the world to take rapid action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Whether we are climate change sceptics or believe in it, the reality is that it is happening. Scientists have predicted that the dry season will make things even worse than they already are: the eastern region of the Amazon will become increasingly arid, and it will become increasingly warm as well, putting already vulnerable trees that cannot respond to the drought stress they are already under at risk from forest fires. Many Members have referred to those forest fires: that will be worse for Brazil and the world as well, because carbon dioxide then adds to the greenhouse gas effect. What happens in Brazil affects us here and everywhere else. An international study has found that drought could affect a third of the Amazon by the end of the century, although there could perhaps be more rain in the western Amazon area.
As part of the Amazon dries out, it could turn into a savannah—I think the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) referred to that. There are deep concerns that this drought could be even worse than previously thought, so the Amazon is at risk from deforestation, climate change and drought. That should be ringing alarm bells for not just our Government but Governments across the world. Vital global resources must not be taken for granted. We must protect and expand forests rather than reduce them. They can absorb and store carbon; there has been much research and model trials on that. The relationship between the water, soil and trees, and the interaction between the atmosphere and the land surface, show strongly that this is truly an emergency.
We need to encourage Brazil to reduce the deforestation and to act to prevent any more loss. We can do that by gentle persuasion, as the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said, but it may take something more. If it does, and if we are acting for all the world, I have to say that that is something that has to be done.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I last spoke on the topic of deforestation in the Amazon less than two years ago, in a Westminster Hall debate prompted by a petition signed by more than 120,000 people. I welcome the fact that we have another opportunity to raise the issue, and I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for presenting this important debate.
Back in 2019, Extinction Rebellion had just begun its two-week protest in and around Westminster. The shared message that day from MPs in the Chamber, protesters on the streets and the thousands of our constituents who put their names to the petition was that deforestation in the Amazon is one of the great man-made tragedies of our time and that urgent action was required to stop it spiralling out of control.
Sadly, as we have heard in the debate, the urgent action required has not materialised; rather, the situation has become more perilous, with deforestation rates in Brazil hitting a 12-year high in 2020. Many of the fears expressed two years ago that the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro would, for economic gain, cause environmental destruction have now become reality. It is being reported that deforestation during his Administration is today more than double than in the same period under his predecessor, and just last month deforestation soared by two thirds from the same month last year, according to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research. Furthermore, professors at the National Institute of Amazonian Research have expressed concern that legislative changes currently before the Brazilian Parliament could result in increases in unsustainable deforestation that would have previously been illegal. The World Wildlife Fund has warned that the proposed changes
“will destroy the legal framework that has enabled Brazil to control deforestation in the past, making it impossible to control deforestation in the Amazon for the next decade”.
That matters to us all. The Amazon rainforest is invaluable to our environment and fragile ecosystem, producing as much as 20% of the world’s oxygen and acting as a natural carbon capture for vast amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation threatens the 30 million people who live there, including up to 400 indigenous groups, and many thousands of plants and animal species. It also threatens to fundamentally hinder attempts to tackle climate change, reversing any progress made so far and contributing to rising global temperatures, with all the devastation that that will bring.
The Scottish Government declared a climate emergency in April 2019, followed a month later by the UK Parliament. It is therefore imperative that we collectively do all that we can to combat environmental destruction of natural habitats such as the Amazon rainforest. If we are serious about the climate emergency, we must use every tool available to us to ensure that we lead the international pressure to end this destructive deforestation in the Amazon.
At the leaders’ climate summit hosted by US President Joe Biden in April, Jair Bolsonaro vowed that Brazil would become carbon neutral by 2050 and recommitted to net zero deforestation by 2030. However, as we know, that empty rhetoric does not reflect reality. In the first six months of Bolsonaro’s term, enforcement measures to protect the Amazon, such as levying fines and destroying logging equipment in protected areas, fell by 20%, and inspection requirements for timber exports have been significantly relaxed. Enforcement agencies have been underfunded and sabotaged, and the 2021 federal budget for the Ministry of Environment and agencies was cut by nearly a third compared with last year. One campaign group put it bluntly, stating:
“The Amazon has become an open bar for land grabbers, illegal loggers and miners.”
The Brazilian Environment Minister said the country would need $1 billion in foreign aid to support efforts to reduce deforestation in the Amazon, while President Biden has previously stated that foreign Governments should provide Brazil with $20 billion. Will the UK Government therefore reduce their aid cuts and ensure that no projects to prevent deforestation in the Amazon are cancelled and in fact ensure that support is increased? Sadly, we probably know the answer.
We learned just last week that the UK Government cannot be trusted to maintain their commitment to projects vital to our planet’s health. Just weeks after the UK’s COP26 President visited Indonesia and called on it to move forward with plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office cancelled a green growth programme designed to prevent deforestation in the Indonesian Papuan provinces three years into a five-year programme. We urgently need to know the Government’s rationale for cancelling that project, what impact assessments have been undertaken and how serious Ministers are about tackling deforestation across the globe. This is a completely scandalous decision that once again highlights the real-life impact that UK aid cuts are having and demonstrates the UK’s failing as a leader on the world stage. As with Bolsonaro, this UK Government’s rhetoric does not reflect reality.
We need to hear how the UK Government plan to tackle deforestation in the Amazon and how they are co-operating with other Governments around the world to do so. What recent discussions have UK Government Ministers had with their counterparts in Brazil? Will they publicly condemn increasing deforestation, the deliberate underfunding of agencies tasked with protecting the environment and the continued attacks on indigenous people and their land? In any trade talks and agreements with Brazil, will protection of the Amazon be put front and centre to ensure that the UK does not share in the profits of the rainforest’s deliberate destruction? Furthermore, do the UK Government agree with several US Senators that any funding provided to the Brazilian Government should be contingent on their having a clear plan to curb deforestation, including significant and sustained progress in reducing deforestation and, importantly, ending environmental crimes and acts of intimidation and violence against forest defenders? Given the importance of the Amazon rainforest to us all and its role in lowering the global carbon emission footprint, was this even discussed at the recent G7 summit? Will the UK Government commit to this as a priority at COP26 in November?
As Scotland will host COP26 this year in Glasgow, I will now turn my attention to domestic policy and reforestation on these islands. Due to a better, more efficient grant system and strong political will to meet targets, the SNP Government lead the way in the UK on tree planting, with Scotland planting 22 million trees last year alone, making up nearly 85% of the UK’s mainland tree planting in 2020. Around 9.5 million tonnes of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere each year by Scotland’s forests. The first quantitative study of its kind in the UK evidenced the natural capital benefits of planting new woodlands in our green recovery, which will help to meet Scotland’s goal of net zero by 2045. Given that Scotland is unrivalled in the UK nations for tree planting and environmental protections, the other UK nations ought to follow Scotland’s lead and demonstrate to the world through their own practices just how important the protection of forests is to all of us.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Law, you are into your last minute. I am sorry to interrupt you, but the debate is about deforestation in the Amazon. I ask you to come back to that to conclude.
Chris Law
Thank you, Mr McCabe. As the UK Government encourage others to follow suit, they have to do enough domestically to protect the environment and to make sure that we reforest, as well as talking about deforesting. Deforesting will inevitably lead to a need to reforest, because there is a balance, to which we may not be able to return.
Finally, I do not want to have to make these points again in yet another Westminster Hall debate in two years’ time, and nor do I want to hear further reports of increasing rates of deforestation, logging, resource mining, tree burning for farming and cattle-raising, or—last but not least—land seizures from indigenous people. I want to speak positively about successful global efforts to protect the Amazon and the people, flora and fauna who call it home. I want to hear about the protection of forests throughout the world and to celebrate reforestation projects across these islands. However, that will happen only if each and every nation takes its responsibilities on reaching net zero and protecting the environment seriously, and if we are vocal and forceful in tackling deforestation head on, not just in the Amazon but everywhere else too. We all know that the Amazon rainforest serves as the lungs of all nations across the world. Therefore, it is imperative that we urgently address this climate emergency together. No nation should be allowed to participate in, or be a bystander to, this self-inflicted damage to the planet.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, to this very timely debate secured by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). There is a great deal of cross-party consensus. I obviously agree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) about the aid cuts. I hope the Minister will give an assessment of the impact that the reductions being made by the Department will have on the subject of today’s debate.
Without a doubt, the Amazon rainforest is a vital bulwark in the international fight against climate change. It is apt that we are having this debate as the Government prepare to host the critically important conference of the parties climate summit in Glasgow later this year. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the Amazon. It has long been considered a vital carbon sink, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) related that to his own experience of farming. Scientists estimate that the vegetation and trees making up the forest contain a staggering 76 billion tonnes of carbon. It is also home to a rich tapestry of wildlife and rivers. It was lovely that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) quoted the indigenous leaders, who have spoken with such heartfelt poignancy about their current position.
Despite that, the situation today remains precarious. Some scientists estimate that if we lose just 5% more of the Amazon, it will trigger a tipping point. The forest will no longer be able to sustain itself and we will lose the Amazon as we know it. The warning signs have been there: from 2012 to 2016, there was a 200% increase in carbon loss. Before that, between 1992 and 2014, half a million square kilometres of Brazilian Amazon was either degraded or deforested. Other Members have cited very useful statistics. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) linked what we eat off our plates with the impact it has day in, day out in the Amazon.
Of course, there are no signs that there will be a reversal in fortunes while we have the current Government position in Brazil. Under President Bolsonaro, the Brazilian Parliament is about to improve, with the endorsement of a presidential decree, a legislative package that will alter key environmental legislation. That includes an amnesty for land grabbers and the approval of major infrastructure projects that will see swathes of the forest paved over.
What assessment has the Minister made of the excellent work of the international panel of jurists, chaired by our own Philippe Sands QC, which has come up with a definition of ecocide as the fifth pillar of the International Criminal Court? Obviously, headings 1 to 4 are the human rights ones that we know well. What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the fifth—the new definition of ecocide? Does she believe that that legal instrument, if it is approved, will be useful in our deliberations on how to manage this crucial question?
As well as the very clear risks of climate change, we must be alive to the human dangers of ongoing and increasing deforestation. That has been so eloquently laid out by Members that I need not repeat it. In the past 18 months, we have become particularly attuned to the danger of pandemics, and there is a very real and clear risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West said, that further deforestation may cause another deadly pandemic. Biologists and epidemiologists have been ringing the alarm about that for some time. Does the Minister believe that that is an effective use of some of the global health spend in her Department, which I know she is trying hard to protect? Does she think this might be a worthy subject to fund, in terms of global health priorities? This is a moment when we are all focused on the way that coming into close contact with the animal kingdom can lead to deadly viruses such as covid-19. It is a question that desperately needs further research. We have the intellectual firepower here in the UK; I hope that the Minister, as a great champion for universities and the link between global health, universities and foreign policy, will opine on that. The Amazon is thought to be home to 10% of known species on earth, so risk of another zoological pandemic originating from the region could not be starker.
The UK is uniquely positioned to act. Many of us mentioned the global COP summit in Glasgow. What dialogue has the Minister had directly with the ambassador regarding the deforestation question? Did he suggest, as some Brazilian MPs suggested to me, that the Amazon grows back? Could she enlighten us about how that bilateral conversation is going, saying whatever she can say in public?
Turning to the role of the financial sector, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made a very eloquent speech about our financial centre and the impact of our banks, our insurance and all the other instruments, which we might be able to challenge. I hope that the Treasury will become more activist about that. What protections are the Government putting in place so that trade between the UK and Brazil enshrines environmental and human rights protections during the negotiations? In a trade negotiation, it is amazing how far-reaching the discussions can be. Will the Minister also tell us where she thinks the Department for International Trade is up to in its discussions? I assume that they are at a preliminary stage, but now is a great time to be talking about the issues that we in Parliament are raising. There is no time like the present, especially when we are talking about the environment.
Other hon. Members have spoken so well in the debate, such as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raised the question of drought. That is another specialism within the new FCDO that I know the Minister has many thoughts on. Has she given any consideration to that?
I want to finish there to give the Minister plenty of time and so that she can perhaps allow a couple of interventions. I thank hon. Members for taking part, and I want to put on record how deeply we care about the environment and our relationship with Brazil. I hope we can all send a message from our Parliament to theirs and when we can travel again I hope we can welcome Brazilian MPs here to discuss this issue in person.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate. We have had a very broad debate with a lot of contributions from right across the House. This issue means a lot to my right hon. Friend and quite clearly to Members across the House. It means a lot to me as well. Given the breadth of the debate, I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can. On whether I will have time for interventions, let us see how I canter along, but I will try my best.
Protecting the Amazon is a priority for the UK. The pandemic has been a powerful reminder of the great global challenges that pose an existential threat to our security and prosperity here in the UK. We recognise that in our integrated review of UK foreign policy, in which we said that tackling climate change and biodiversity loss is our No. 1 international priority. Climate change and biodiversity loss are inseparable. We cannot stop climate change without protecting the natural environment, and we cannot protect the natural environment without tackling climate change. Conserving the Amazon is a crucial piece of the puzzle.
As we heard, the Amazon is one of the world’s most precious places. It is one of the most biodiverse places on earth. Its role in the global ecosystem, producing oxygen, absorbing carbon dioxide and regulating rainfall and temperatures, is huge. It is home to numerous indigenous people. Around a quarter of all drugs used today are derived from rainforest plants. It is estimated that the Amazon stores almost five years’ worth of global emissions of carbon dioxide. If deforestation is allowed to carry on, it will reach a tipping point—potentially in the next 10 years. Unchecked, the Amazon will be turned from carbon sink into source of emissions. That is one of the gravest risks that the world faces. It is a critical time for action on climate change, as we prepare to host COP26 in November. We know there is no path to net zero without a massive escalation of efforts to protect and restore nature, and crucially to protect the Amazon.
As president of COP26 and recently president of the G7, we have put nature at the heart of our response to tackling climate change. The leaders’ 2030 Nature Compact set out G7 ambition to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, highlighting nature’s role in tackling climate change; tackling deforestation through supporting sustainable supply chains; and participating in the COP26 forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogue.
The problems with deforestation do not stop with climate or biodiversity. There is a strong link with security. Across the Amazon, illegal deforestation is inseparably bound up with criminal organisations. They operate transnationally, trafficking wood, minerals, drugs and people. Tackling illegal deforestation is vital, whether through alternative livelihoods or law enforcement co-operation. More than anything, it requires strong and principled political leadership.
It is not a challenge for any one country or even one region alone. The world’s tropical forests benefit all of us, and all countries have a shared responsibility as consumers and producers alike. The furniture we buy and the food that we eat can make a difference. We know that to protect the Amazon we need to support the efforts of countries in the region. There are three that contain more than three quarters of the forest between them: Brazil, Colombia and Peru. We cannot achieve our aims without Brazil, and I welcome Brazil’s recommitment to zero deforestation in the Amazon by 2030, which it announced at the Earth Day summit this year.
We are eager to see the robust implementation plans that Brazil will need to deliver on that commitment. We are using our diplomatic capabilities and ODA programming to encourage the Brazilian Government to recommit to implementing and enforcing the Brazilian forest code, which is an important legal mechanism for protecting the Amazon rainforest. For Brazil, setting out those plans will bring advantages. It will shore up investor and consumer confidence and unlock private sector financial flows.
We are working at a national level with Brazil and with individual regions, for example, supporting the state of Mato Grosso to reduce deforestation, through our climate finance programmes. Brazil needs to tackle its problems of deforestation urgently, and we are closely watching the rates of deforestation and Brazil’s actions, as the dry season approaches.
A number of hon. Members referred to vulnerable communities and indigenous peoples. We are engaging with state Governments and local authorities. We have a results-based agreement with the states of Mato Grosso and Acre, which helps indigenous communities to develop sustainable income sources, and strengthen food security. Around 20,000 families have benefited so far.
Through the ICF partnerships for forests programme, the UK also supports almost 2,000 indigenous people, to strengthen their livelihoods through sustainable forest management. Our embassy international programme works to better understand the needs of indigenous peoples, supporting vulnerable communities during the pandemic.
As we ask other countries to act on climate change, it is only right that we make our own commitments. We have committed to double our international climate finance to £11.6 billion over the next five years, and to invest at least £3 billion of that in solutions that protect and restore nature. We are engaging the multilateral development banks and asking them to put nature first across all their work, and to support countries to fulfil their environmental commitments
As we announced at President Biden’s climate summit, we are helping to build the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance coalition, which aims to mobilise $1 billion in financing. It will kick off what is expected to become one of the largest ever public-private efforts to protect tropical forests and support sustainable development.
Reducing our footprint overseas is critical to that development. This year, through the forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogue, we are bringing together the biggest producers and consumers of the commodities that drive deforestation—cocoa, cattle, soy and palm oil. Together with those countries and co-chair Indonesia, we are agreeing actions to protect forests and other carbon- rich ecosystems, such as the Amazon, while promoting trade and development.
Catherine West
While the Minister is speaking about the private-public partnerships, could she comment on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on the banking—financial—sector, which we are famous for, so that it is a virtual circle?
Wendy Morton
I am about to come onto that point. In May, our joint statement, drafted with the 24 signatory countries on collaboration, was endorsed by critical Amazon countries, such as Brazil, Colombia and Peru. I have talked about a responsibility to reduce our impact at home. We are bringing forward a law that will make it illegal for larger businesses in the UK to use forest risk commodities produced on land used illegally. That will make sure there is no place for illegally produced commodities on our supermarket shelves, and support other countries to enforce their own forest protection measures. At the same time, we are working with UK businesses to improve the sustainability of their soy and palm oil supply chains through roundtables on these.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) about the importance of engaging with the financial sector on deforestation, the UK Government are funding a phase 2 global resource initiative taskforce, tasked specifically to make recommendations on addressing deforestation and linked finance. It will report with recommendations to the Government in the autumn.
Those initiatives are helping UK supermarkets and restaurants reach 100% sustainable soy and palm oil to reduce the UK’s environmental footprint overseas. Alongside that engagement with businesses, we urgently need financial decision making and investments to take account of nature. The launch of the taskforce on nature-related financial disclosure this month marks an important milestone in that process and builds on our leadership in green finance.
Chris Grayling
All the Minister has described is part of a great step forward in the policies of the UK Government, and I commend them. However, the reality is the urgency of what is happening in the Amazon is serious. I encourage the Minister, and her colleagues in the Foreign Office and diplomatic service, to step up the pressure. Does she agree that we cannot afford to wait to stop the deforestation in Brazil? Will she commit to telling the diplomatic service to step up what it does with the Brazilians, and look at other ways of putting pressure on them to bring this to a halt as quickly as possible?
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and reminds us of the importance of climate change. We do engage with the Brazilians. The Foreign Secretary recently discussed with the Brazilian Foreign Minister how we can work more constructively together to deliver COP26 objectives. UK Ministers and diplomats in Brasilia routinely engage with the highest levels of the Brazilian Government, on this and many other important items. Protecting the Amazon is critical if we are to tackle climate change and restore nature, and for long-term prosperity in the region. The UK is working closely with our partners there to support their efforts to reduce deforestation and protect the Amazon.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
With a few seconds left, I thank the Minister for her remarks and colleagues on all sides for joining in this debate. We need to keep the pressure up. The simple message for the Minister to take back to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is that this is urgent, it is accelerating, we cannot afford it to carry on, and we have to use every tool at our disposal, whether small or large, to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered deforestation in the Amazon.
Levelling-up Bids: North Somerset
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave, and that Mr Speaker has recommended that we wear masks.
I call John Penrose to move the motion.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered levelling up bids in North Somerset.
It is good to have you in charge of our process, Mr McCabe. It is also good to see my fellow Somerset MP and constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is here to support the debate and is expecting to speak later, as well as the Minister, who I hope will respond fully and positively to some of my questions and provide reassurances during the course of the debate.
The debate is about North Somerset Council’s bids last week for both the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund. The bid documentation is somewhere in the bowels of the Minister’s Department and is being gone through in huge detail, so I do not propose to take up an enormous amount of time by dwelling on what it says, other than to summarise briefly and say that my right hon. Friend and I strongly support both bids. It is quite noticeable that, at the moment, North Somerset Council is being run by a rainbow coalition, which is political speak for anybody except the Tories, yet here we are—my right hon. Friend and I, as the two local Conservative Members of Parliament—supporting the bids too. This is a cross-party, non-party political and pretty much unanimous set of proposals, which we urge the Minister to take very seriously indeed.
It is true that Weston has come an extraordinarily long way in recent years. Since I was elected 16 years ago, the place has become unrecognisably better, but even its most ardent supporters—I put myself right at the front of the queue—would say that we still have a great deal more that has to be done. The two bids for the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund are a key part of taking the next steps in North Somerset’s journey overall, but particularly Weston-super-Mare’s journey.
Without going into too much detail about what is in the detail of the bids, I will highlight three main areas. One is the renewal of our local heritage assets. Weston-super-Mare was primarily built during the Victorian seaside town heyday, and it has some beautiful architecture. It has many beautiful bits of local heritage to it, with some of it going back much further than the Victorian era—for example, there is an iron-age hill fort. However, renewing those assets and making current use of them, so that they can continue to be used and looked after—they should be part of the town’s future, not just its past—is essential. That is a key part of the bid. They give the place its character and its sense of place, and are an absolutely essential part of the bid.
Equally, the bid involves a whole series of proposals for more festivals, activities and attractions—everything from street theatre to buskers—in order to create a sense of theatre, a sense of dynamism and a buzzing atmosphere, which will make the place great not just for local residents to visit and live. As we are a seaside town and a visitor destination, that will also make it a great place for visitors. Of course, visitors have traditionally been one of the town’s lifeblood industries, because we are a tourist destination, so that is an essential piece of the bids.
Last but not least, the bid dovetails with the Weston place-making strategy, which means that we have input from local businesses and residents, and from the council, to try to ensure that Weston as a location has a sustainable mix but also a balanced mix of reasons to live there, to visit there and to do business there and create wealth. The place-making strategy is essential, and it is also a key part of what the council has put together for the two bids.
So, if the bid is so flipping brilliant, why am I worried, why have I asked for this debate and why do we have the pleasure of the Minister’s company this afternoon? The answer is very simple. It is that in spite of the quality of the bid and of the cross-party backing that I mentioned earlier, there is one fly in the ointment. It is that, as the Minister will know, North Somerset Council as a whole—the entire district—is currently designated as a priority 2 area for both the funds that we are bidding into. It is not a priority 1 area, but a priority 2 area. Potentially, that is a problem because it might demote us in terms of the importance—even the urgency—and eligibility of our bids for those funds.
I am here to argue today that that designation is actually a mistake—or it would be a mistake if it were to happen—simply because North Somerset as a district overall is a place of stark contrasts. The constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset is one of the wealthiest constituencies in the country, whereas, to put it simply, my constituency of Weston-super-Mare is not.
For example, we can compare my constituency with two neighbouring district council areas, both of which are designated as priority 1 areas. I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with them; they are Sedgemoor District Council and Mendip District Council. They are right next door to the town of Weston-super-Mare. They are almost identical in terms of their populations to the population of my constituency as a whole. So, if my constituency was a district council, it would be pretty much the same size as they both are. Yet my constituency has a higher proportion of people claiming benefits than either of those two priority 1 areas, even though my area is technically designated as a priority 2 area.
My constituency has a lower healthy life expectancy than either of those two neighbouring districts, even though they are designated as priority 1 areas and my area is designated as priority 2. My constituency has a worse average travel time to employment than either of those two districts, even though they are designated as priority 1 and my area is designated as priority 2.
So I hope the Minister will understand why I am concerned. If my constituency was a stand-alone piece of geography, and not part of the broader North Somerset Council area, we would easily qualify as a priority 1 area. However, because of the accident of postcodes, if I can put it that way, and because of the averaging effect, we do not qualify as a priority 1 area. Of course, that is not to say that the need in my constituency of Weston-super-Mare is not extremely serious or, indeed, every bit as serious as that in the other district councils I have mentioned, both of which are priority 1 areas.
I will go further and say that I have just given the Minister the figures for my constituency as a whole. Within my constituency, the situation is even starker. If we look at two wards in the centre of the constituency, Weston-super-Mare South and Weston-super-Mare Central, they have indices of multiple deprivation that would rank them in the top—or worst, depending on how we look at it—3% or 4% of wards in the entire country; in fact, parts of one of them are in the worst 2%. They are equivalent to anywhere else that is right at the top of the priority 1 areas. It is not just that we would scrape into priority 1 area designation: we would be right at the top of the Minister’s list of concerns, and rightly so, because of those indices of multiple deprivation scores.
So, what do both I and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset hope to hear from the Minister when he gets to his feet in a minute? The answer is very simple. We hope to hear from him that he is able to give strong weighting to those overall scores—scores that are at a more detailed and more granular level than the scores for the district as a whole—when assessing the bid. As I mentioned right at the start, I hope that it will qualify under its own steam in any case.
We do not want a strong and capable bid to be disallowed because of an accident of postcode and because of the averaging effect. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to reassure me and the residents of the constituency of Weston-super-Mare that that will not be the case, and that the bureaucratic process can be bent and manipulated sufficiently within the rules to allow the genuine need—as shown by the genuine levels of multiple deprivation—to be properly taken account of when these bids are finally totalled up.
If the Minister can do that, I may not be able to guarantee that we will erect a small statue in his name somewhere in the middle of Weston-super-Mare, but I can at least promise him that we will easily be able to carry him shoulder high along the Weston seafront, given the importance of the bids to the people of Weston-super-Mare. I will now sit down to make sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has an opportunity to add to what I have already said and to explain the perspective from the other part of the North Somerset district council area.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I am here to support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). I am all too aware that my constituency does not qualify for money from the levelling-up fund and we have only a small chance of getting any money from the community renewal fund, but I am here to give my support for two reasons: first, the generic, and secondly, the specific.
On the generic case, too often in our country, as many of us will attest from our time in Parliament, areas of deprivation that happen to be in the same district or constituency as areas of relative affluence can disappear in the data. The sensitivity and specificity of the data can mean that they do not show up at all. That is certainly the case with the town of Weston-super-Mare, where, as my hon. Friend has said, the data is very clear. However, if we add the data of the rest of the parliamentary constituency, we see that it is not at all clear, and if we then add the data from the rest of the North Somerset district—which, as he has said, includes my constituency, one of the most affluent in the country—it can all but disappear.
When we consider the differences in Weston-super-Mare itself, we find that the unemployment rate is twice that of my constituency next door. The health profile of my constituency is much better than that of Weston-super-Mare. Income is higher and the quality of jobs is better.
Lest anyone thinks that this is a case of pure altruism, let me turn to the specifics. Given that Weston-super-Mare is the biggest town in our district, its status matters. It gets many more tourists than places such as Clevedon, which is a very well-kept, upmarket Victorian tourist town in my constituency. Most visitors, however, go to Weston-super-Mare, and the quality of the services they receive is important to the status of the district as a whole.
It is also very important that, just because someone lives in a relatively poor part of a wealthy area, they must not be disregarded. I have often felt that the two things that nobody in this country wants to be is poor in a rich area or sick in a healthy area, because when it comes to services, they tend to be not ignored but not seen by those who plan public provision. Therefore, this debate is important for all the reasons that my hon. Friend has set out today and for the purposes to which the money could be put. Although my constituents recognise that they would not benefit directly from the money, they would benefit indirectly by the improved status that Weston-super-Mare could enjoy.
In conclusion, given that this is being done on a constituency basis, one of my councillors asked, “Why won’t our constituency get levelling-up money?” I had to point out to him that it is the status of our constituency, as demonstrated by many of the indicators, that people are levelling up to. It is not something to level up from. I can therefore say, with the greatest sincerity, that we are completely as one—including our council, whose leadership does not share our political views—in believing that this would benefit all of the people in North Somerset, whether they be direct recipients of the money or indirect recipients of the benefits it would achieve. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the bids to both the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund are entirely cross-district bids, for all the reasons set out so eloquently by my constituency neighbour. I hope that the Minister will take fully into account the point that deficiencies in the sensitivity and specificity of data should not mean that, just because someone happens to be poor in a wealthy area, they are not seen by this Government.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on securing this debate. He spoke with eloquence and passion about the importance of supporting his constituency and the need to level up in Weston-super-Mare. His desire to support his community is shared by all parts and corners of this Government and certainly by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Levelling up is a crucial part of our Government’s agenda. We are committed to unlocking economic prosperity across all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why we will publish the levelling-up White Paper later this year. We will set out bold policy interventions to improve livelihoods and opportunities in all parts and all corners of the country. It will set out the next steps in our plan to enable more people to get on in life without feeling that they have to leave their hometown or home community just to get the job or types of services they want.
We want to address these long-standing geographical inequalities. We want to deliver economic opportunity and improve livelihoods in all parts of the country so that, wherever someone is born, they have the chance to achieve what they want to in life. That means creating new, good-quality jobs. It means boosting training, productivity and skills in places that have seen economic decline and the loss of industry, and not through a broad, one-size-fits-all approach, but by nurturing different types of economic growth and building on the strengths that different types of places and communities have.
Nowhere is more important in these types of conversations and debates than places such as Weston-super-Mare. We have heard about how skills and wages lag behind the average in the south-west and many other different parts of the country. That is why the levelling-up fund as a concept is such an important vehicle for investing in communities just like Weston-super-Mare. We want to work with councils such as North Somerset Council to invest in the type of everyday infrastructure that my hon. Friend outlined, regenerating town centres and high streets, investing in transport and supporting cultural and heritage assets right around the country. That is a key part of the levelling-up agenda. It is about local communities and councils such as North Somerset determining and identifying their own priorities and using the funds as vehicles to develop and submit proposals and to level up in their area. It is about empowering communities.
The deadline for bids was last Friday. We have received significant interest from right around the country. The assessment process is just starting, but of course we were delighted that North Somerset submitted its bid last week.
We have heard some information about the proposal this afternoon and it is important for us to assess its impact. It is interesting to hear about the transformation of the pier building and the Tropicana Weston, two of the historic buildings that bookend the north and south end of the pier, which is so important to the town and to the regional tourism economy. It is also about bringing back into use vacant spaces in the main shopping area in Weston, helping to create new employment spaces and enhanced wayfinding and connections through the town centre.
I completely understand the passion and importance associated with these bids. I understand my hon. Friend’s belief in them, his desire for them to succeed and the importance he places on the potential to transform Weston’s future, enabling economic growth, improving the town’s economic resilience and tackling deprivation.
The bids focus on regeneration, town centre improvements, cultural assets and transport improvements. They accurately reflect the themes of what we are trying to achieve with the fund, so I thank North Somerset for its bids. I also thank my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for their support for them and for making clear how important they are to the community. I hope they understand that I cannot comment too much further on the bid itself today. However, we will certainly work to the timescales set out in the prospectus, ensuring that the decisions are delivered in a timely way.
On the levelling-up fund’s methodology, the bids will be assessed against the criteria set out in the prospectus and the strongest bids will be shortlisted. My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend note that Weston-super-Mare, which is part of North Somerset, falls into category 2, despite it having similar characteristics to a number of category 1 places. When we designed the fund we tried to purposely make sure that councils are able to target the pockets of deprivation within their local authorities, as my hon. Friend has identified.
In the case of North Somerset’s bid, two supportive MPs have helped to shape a bid within a council area, as will be noted as part of the process. The bid aims to tackle the most deprived part of the local authority area. That is noted as part of the assessment process. We will look at how the bid addresses challenges in the town and whether they relate to issues to do with health, unemployment or the availability of well-paid jobs for people living in Weston-super-Mare. The focus on tackling deprivation in Weston is in line with the objectives of the fund.
The methodology that sits behind the index of places is set out in the prospectus that we published on gov.uk. It is based on the metrics covering places’ need for economic recovery, regeneration and improved transport connectivity, as clearly identified by my hon. Friend in his speech. Those metrics do not determine either the outcome of the bid or the place’s eligibility to bid. Again, we certainly take account of the fact that two Members of Parliament have supported the bid, targeted at a pocket of deprivation. I do not know if that warrants a statue in Weston-super-Mare—a sandcastle, perhaps.
My hon. Friend also raised a point about the indices of multiple deprivation and asked about them not being included in the methodology of the fund. That is an important point. We considered looking at the IMD as part of the index, but it is important to consider that IMD does not represent in all circumstances a one-size-fits-all approach to measuring economic need. It does not completely accurately reflect, in this circumstance, the policy outcomes of the fund that we have established, which is about transport, high street and cultural regeneration. There are some things that IMD does not consider—for example, productivity. Raising productivity is a key part of what the fund is trying to address. Therefore, IMD was considered but we think that the way in which the indexation was set up is ultimately right.
My hon. Friend also referenced the UK community renewal fund, which is another important funding stream that this Government are delivering. We think it will improve the overall funding landscape available to places like Weston-super-Mare. We have tried to establish a one-year transition programme that is free of some of the shackles and bureaucracy of the EU structural funds, to allow places to design bids to tackle the problems that they identify. The £220 million fund will be available to communities next year.
We have received North Somerset’s £2.8 million bid. It includes a number of employment-based bids, including tailored support for jobseekers in the most deprived communities. That will be noted. Among the proposals is a financial inclusion project, a network of community hubs in rural areas and targeted business support, so we were interested to receive that. It sets out how, taken together, these will all work to create new education and training opportunities that will lead to the establishment of new local businesses and help to steer people towards the right employment and education opportunities.
I want to highlight the importance of the role of Members of Parliament in this process. This debate is a prime example of the way in which we have designed the fund to put such importance on Members of Parliament coming together, bringing communities together, including local authorities and local stakeholders, and acting as facilitators in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset have highlighted that they have managed to do that in Weston-super-Mare, working together to tackle the challenges in the way they have outlined. We have given MPs the opportunity to write formally in support of bids, and we have received that letter from my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend.
John Penrose
The Minister is being very helpful and is showing that his Department is already getting to grips with the details behind the bids, so I thank him for his remarks so far. Could he just make sure that in the five minutes or so that are left, he focuses on the point about priority areas? He has been helpful on that topic, but I am still not quite clear whether starting from a priority area 2 designation automatically relegates us to being a long way down the list of projects being considered, or whether the other factors that I have talked about and which he has also mentioned—very carefully and fulsomely—will allow us to vault up the list of eligible projects and get a better showing in the eventual decisions on allocations.
Luke Hall
It is really important to say that that indexation is just one part of the wider assessment process. Yes, the categorisation—category 2 in this case—is taken into account, but the assessment also takes into account a number of other factors, such as the support of Members of Parliament. I think it is really noteworthy that two Members of Parliament are backing a bid that is targeted at the areas of deprivation. I urge my hon. Friend to look at the information on gov.uk, which clearly sets out that the categorisation is just one part of the assessment process. Yes, the weighting has an impact, but so do the bid’s strategic fit, deliverability and value for money. Those are all important parts of the process. It is not solely determined by the categorisation level 2.
I would also like to remark on the importance of other investment in North Somerset, outside of just those two streams of funding. Across the south-west, the Government are investing over £400 million in the region through the getting building fund, the future high streets fund, and the towns fund, which is delivering so much for the south-west. If we look at the business support that we have put into North Somerset, for example, we see £73 million of support for businesses and business grants. We have also ensured that Weston has benefited from the getting building fund. I think it is receiving a £1.7 million investment in the town centre, as part of the wider £13.5 million package across the area, for shovel-ready projects in Weston.
The need for regeneration and investment in the high street is also evident in so many of our communities. The funding that has been allocated is already going to be supporting the vacant Weston General Stores site, creating new work spaces for entrepreneurs, micro-manufacturing, events and community spaces. That will help to breathe huge new life into the town centre as well, so that is not to be underestimated. Residents can also look forward to the reopening of the Portishead rail line for the first time in 50 years. That is going to be a vital transport link between North Somerset and the surrounding employment areas.
Of course, these interventions—the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund, the getting building fund and the other policies I have outlined—build on the £200 million we have invested across the wider area in recent years to support housing, skills and transport. That includes the two state-of-the-art training centres providing work-focused education at Weston College, the almost £12 million with which we have supported the Food Works innovation centre near Weston—a regional centre of excellence in that growing sector—and the major town centre transport improvements, including new cycle and pedestrian links across the town centre. There is huge investment in the region, and in Weston-super-Mare as well.
I hope that some of my remarks have helped reassure my hon. Friend that a number of factors go into the assessment of this bid, and it is not just the category place that determines the outcome. I very much look forward to seeing all the detail of the bid. We have had a number of them and we now have to look through them in detail. I know that he is as passionate as I am about levelling up in communities in the south-west and, of course, in Weston. As we have set out, we want every community to have the opportunity to shape its own future through locally designed solutions. I very much look forward to working with him on doing that as we look forward to the road to recovery for Weston-super-Mare.
Question put and agreed to.
Green Energy in the North-west
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of a debate and remain for the entire debate. Members participating virtually must leave their camera on for the duration of a debate, so that they are visible at all times both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, please email the Westminster Hall Clerks; the email address is westminsterhallclerks @parliament.uk.
Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should sit in the Public Gallery if they cannot find a seat in the horseshoe. Members may speak only from the horseshoe where there are microphones. Members not on the call list may intervene from the horseshoe but should not take the place of someone on the call list, as they have priority. After Mick Whitley has made his speech, I will impose a four-and-a-half minute time limit on speeches.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered green energy in the North West.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I am immensely grateful to hon. Members for participating in this important debate. I thank the Minister for joining us and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). I am aware of his decades-long interest in this issue, and warmly welcome the depth of knowledge and experience that he brings to the debate.
I secured this debate because I believe that by pioneering a just transition away from fossil fuels, we have the potential not only to curb the very worst excesses of climate meltdown but to breathe new life into left-behind towns such as my constituency. Massive investment in renewable energies, low-carbon hydrogen and the retrofitting of homes has the power to create hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide. That will bring badly needed investment to communities that have been ignored by Westminster for far too long. That could restore hope to young people with the offer of all-energy apprenticeships, a range of vocational training opportunities and, above all, dignified and well-paid jobs.
The north-west is perfectly placed to lead the transition to a renewable and low-carbon energy source. After all, our region was the cradle of the first industrial revolution. Our factories, foundries and shipyards gave birth to the industrialised world and, with it, today’s climate crisis. To paraphrase the Mayor of Greater Manchester, it is fitting that the north-west should once again be in the vanguard of a new industrial revolution—this time, a clean one. We already have all the key building blocks needed for this historic transition, from a highly developed renewables sector to world-leading carbon capture and storage capacities, our fantastic knowledge and economy and, most importantly, communities and leaders committed to tackling the climate emergency head-on.
My worry is that the Government’s decarbonisation strategy lacks the ambition and vision to deliver climate or economic justice for the people of the north-west. Analysis from Carbon Brief suggests that that 10-point plan unveiled last year would deliver just 80% of the cuts to carbon emissions required to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. The Industrial Strategy Council has described the plan as
“not yet a…roadmap for delivering Net Zero.”
I am concerned that the Government’s sequential approach to creating low-carbon clusters risks leaving the north-west behind. We desperately need a coherent national strategy for green investment that could benefit all the UK’s regions and nations. We must be far more ambitious, not just in the speed and scale of decarbonisation but by recognising the huge potential for creating jobs. The needs of communities such as Birkenhead must sit at the heart of our decarbonisation plans. That is not to say that I disagree with the Government’s proposals in their entirety. The plan is right to recognise the vital role that blue and green hydrogen can play in helping to meet net zero goals, especially in the hard-to-reach sectors of the economy such as steel, international shipping and aviation.
Low-carbon hydrogen does not just have a role to play in delivering a greener, cleaner economy for future generations. It also has the potential to create up to 75,000 jobs within the next 15 years, as well as contributing £18 billion to the British economy. The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult centre estimates that the UK could earn up to £48 billion a year from hydrogen exports to Europe by 2050. That means that the green industrial revolution and the post-pandemic economic recovery are partners, not enemies.
The Government’s stated ambition of achieving 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030 is welcome, but as a nation we must go further and faster. Last year, Germany pledged €9 billion to the development of low-carbon hydrogen, while France committed €7.2 billion. The UK risks falling far behind our neighbours in Europe.
Already, Merseyside is beginning to benefit from the development of a low-carbon hydrogen economy. Thanks to the hard work of the metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram, and the head of low carbon, Mark Knowles, Liverpool has become the first city in the north of England to trial hydrogen buses, with the St Helens BOC plant acting as a new refuelling facility. Meanwhile, INEOS Runcorn is helping to make the north-west a centre of green hydrogen production. It is a member of both the North West Hydrogen Alliance and Net Zero North West.
Low-carbon hydrogen can help to decarbonise our homes and offices. That is why I am a strong supporter of HyNet North West, which is attempting to develop a low-carbon hydrogen network stretching from north Wales across the Dee to Liverpool, Greater Manchester and Lancashire. HyNet estimates that it will be able to deliver 35% of the UK’s gigawatt hydrogen target by 2025 and will deliver enough carbon capture and storage capacity for 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030. It is estimated that that project could create 6,000 permanent jobs and contribute about £17 billion of gross value added to the regional economy by 2050.
The Government should be doing more to encourage hydrogen as a domestic heating source. That begins by encouraging demand by phasing out the sale of natural gas boilers in much the same way as they are ending the sale of ICE—internal combustion engine—vehicles, and it means giving low and middle-income homeowners the financial support that they need to buy low-carbon alternatives such as heat pumps or hydrogen-ready boilers. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the proposals that HyNet submitted to the green recovery challenge fund, to accelerate mains replacement in Merseyside and Greater Manchester. With an additional £250 million of funding, HyNet could deliver a hydrogen-ready network about five years ahead of the current programme.
The advent of green hydrogen and electric vehicles will double UK electricity consumption by 2050. The question of how we meet that increased demand is pivotal. In recent years, offshore wind has undoubtedly been renewable energy’s greatest success story, producing more and more clean electricity every year. In the north-west, a gigawatt of capacity has already been installed. That is enough to meet the needs of more than 1 million households. The Burbo Bank wind farm in Liverpool bay alone produces enough electricity to power 80,000 homes, and its continued expansion is likely to bring increased work and investment to towns such as mine.
We should celebrate the amazing advances in offshore wind capabilities, but we should be careful that the industry’s successes are not allowed to blow away other forms of renewable energy, which may be essential to meeting the soaring demand for clean electricity in the coming decades. I am concerned that the lion’s share of contract for difference funding is going to offshore wind, with other industries missing out.
The Government are doing too little to cultivate the development of wave and tidal power. It is estimated that half of Europe’s wave and tidal power resources are in the UK. With the potential to meet a fifth of UK electricity demand and create 16,000 British jobs, and with 80% of the specialist supply chain located in the UK, investments in tidal power have the potential to create jobs across the engineering and manufacturing sectors. In Merseyside, the proposed Mersey tidal project could generate four times more electricity than the entire offshore wind capacity in Liverpool bay. That is enough to power 1 million homes, as well as creating work on both sides of the river.
Despite that enormous potential, there is not a single mention of tidal power in the 10-point plan. The 2020 energy White Paper stated merely that the Government would consider the role of tidal power in helping us meet the net zero objectives. That is simply not good enough.
I appreciate that the up-front costs of such a project are immense, but they are well worth it. I also recognise that we must give serious consideration to the ecological impact of such developments. We need to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises in tandem—clean energy cannot come at the expense of vulnerable natural habitats—but I agree with the Environmental Audit Committee that many benefits of tidal power, including its predictable and reliable energy output, more than justify the initial expense.
As someone who spent 27 on the shop floor of a Vauxhall car plant, it would be remiss of me not to mention the car industry. The electric vehicle revolution has the potential to revitalise an industry that has been devastated by the pandemic, but only with the unequivocal backing of Westminster. The Government must be far more ambitious in their vision for British car making, beginning with a commitment to the construction of three more gigafactories, to be in operation by 2025. I am sure my hon. Friends from Merseyside and Cheshire will join me in saying that the first of those should be in Ellesmere Port.
I look forward to the contributions of all hon. Members. I am aware that time is short, so I will conclude my remarks. The scale of the crisis we face demands a total transformation of our energy system. That will have profound implications for every part of our lives, from how we heat our homes to how we travel and power our economy. I am sure that that will be reflected in a diversity of contributions. Although I believe we should be honest about the scale of the challenge we face, we should equally embrace the enormous opportunities that a just transition to green energy affords us and our communities.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
We will have a four-and-a-half minute time limit from now.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on bringing forward this very important debate.
I believe that the growing green-energy sector in the north-west and north Wales is integral to the success of our region. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Mersey Dee North Wales, I am committed to supporting it in any way that I can. I am also pleased to be holding a local COP26 summit in my constituency this coming Friday.
Green energy infrastructure will increasingly provide direct and indirect employment, help establish the region as a centre for technological development and contribute to the UK-wide goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. My comments today will be almost entirely positive, but I want to put on the record my concern that significant work has yet to take place to begin to decarbonise the region’s transport. Travel in the area predominantly takes place by car, but there is currently a distinct lack of electric-vehicle charging infrastructure. Although many of the elements in the Government’s 10-point plan provide our region with an outstanding set of opportunities, it is important that we are not left behind on that issue.
There is also particular work to be done to achieve a modal shift from road to rail, and achieving that will require investment in rail infrastructure, as per the Growth Track 360 plan, and the decarbonisation of the existing network. The Irish sea is home to a number of offshore windfarms, including North Hoyle, Rhyl Flats, Burbo Bank and Gwynt y Môr, for which an extension, Awel y Môr, is currently being sought. Round 4 of the Crown Estate’s leasing programme proposes the development of three new areas of seabed between north Wales and the Isle of Man, possibly with new floating turbine technology. The region is also home to a significant nuclear sector cluster, known as the north west nuclear arc. It remains extremely important that attempts are made to deliver a Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station on Anglesey.
I am extremely pleased that the north-west is one of the Government’s industrial super-places. Critical to that is the work of HyNet, which aims to be the world’s first low-carbon industrial cluster, serving north-west England and north-east Wales. HyNet will convert natural gas to hydrogen at Stanlow, with carbon dioxide being successfully captured and stored in the former hydrocarbon fields in Liverpool bay, just off my constituency. I have engaged positively with HyNet representatives about their work, and I very much hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister is discussing the Government’s cluster sequencing decision before 25 October, she looks favourably on HyNet North West.
Our region is also blessed with a lengthy coastline. The Morlais project in Anglesey is a tidal-flow demonstration zone, while tidal-range projects are increasingly of interest. One tidal lagoon has been proposed between Colwyn bay and Prestatyn, while another would be located in the Dee estuary at Mostyn. I know that there is huge interest also in the Mersey.
Tidal range has the potential to offer plentiful and reliable energy over the course of an exceptional operating life, while providing a valuable coastal flood-defence function in many cases. The UK’s world-leading tidal resource and expertise across finance, engineering and construction offer a significant opportunity for this alternative renewable energy source to help to reach our requirements while creating jobs and growth in priority regions such as ours.
The Tidal Range Alliance on behalf of the whole industry recently submitted a request for £20 million of grant funding to undertake pre-feasibility assessments of the most promising tidal-range projects and key staging technologies and constraints. In addition to my ask on HyNet, I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would look favourably on the proposed tidal-range assessment fund, as I believe it could pay dividends. Our region will be critical in leading the way on green energy.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this really important debate for us in the north-west of England.
My remarks are about how a UK invention made in the north-west has exciting potential to reduce carbon emissions across the world, create green energy and generate thousands of skilled jobs and apprenticeships here at home. I am referring to a cutting-edge piece of geothermal technology called the geo-engine, based in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The creators of the geo-engine have been meeting with north-west MPs to try to secure support for their technology. By supporting them in bringing this world-leading technology to market the Government could show the world that the UK’s words are matched by its actions when it comes to helping the world to meet its emissions targets. It would be a clear example on which the COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), could draw as the UK hosts the conference in November.
I am pleased that the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), is in her place and I look forward to her response. She might recall that in a written answer to me on 7 June, she said:
“The geo-engine could help achieve the ambitious decarbonisation targets set in the North Sea Transition Deal for offshore gas published by BEIS in March.”
I was expecting her to see the wider benefits of the technology. I hope that she will be able to acknowledge the benefits that the geo-engine has to offer when she winds up the debate, and perhaps meet my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the inventors of the geo-engine and me so that we can look at how it can be rolled out globally from the home of the north-west of England.
Let me explain the technology and its wider applications. The environment is harmed by the process of carbon dioxide flaring, which is used to burn off natural gas in CO2-contaminated natural gas fields around the world. It accounts for around 300 million tonnes of CO2 annually. That figure continues to rise as uncontaminated gas reserves dwindle. The geo-engine, however, is able to eliminate CO2 flaring by powering carbon capture and storage and creating surplus power that can be fed into the grid as net zero energy or used to create blue or green hydrogen.
With gas fields located around the world, there is a huge opportunity for the export and adoption of this UK technology. The UK could also benefit, so the investors believe, from the use of geo-engines in abandoned oil fields by recirculating the geothermal power sourced from hydrogen for hydrogen production. That could assist the UK significantly in its net zero energy future. The University of Liverpool and the geo-engine inventors are currently investigating that possibility further.
I have explained how, by supporting the geo-engine, the Government can help to meet carbon targets not only in the UK but in countries across the world. In the little time I have left, I will make clear the benefits for the UK beyond meeting its emission targets. If the Government are serious about building back better, there is no better way to do so than by supporting a home-grown invention with global importance and the potential to boost UK exports. The creators of geo-engine want to create thousands of skilled jobs in the north of England in the direct manufacture of the geo-engine and its specialist supply chain. It is a no-brainer, so let us make the north-west the real hub for green technology. I urge the Minister to please look seriously at backing the geo-engine.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this really important debate.
The Government have taken a global leadership role in setting an ambitious trajectory to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My constituency has seen the closure of the Fiddlers Ferry coal-fired power station, which has been a physical landmark in the north-west of England over the past 12 months as the UK has shifted its focus from coal-fired power stations to more sustainable forms. However, that has had an impact on experienced, secure jobs in my part of the north-west.
We in the north-west are in a prime position to support the green industrial revolution, with local and regional industry acting as a springboard for low-carbon growth. With a diverse range of low-carbon projects already happening on the ground, I am optimistic that the north-west is destined to make a significant contribution to the UK’s net zero carbon emissions target. This is a legacy that we need to build on over the next few decades as we head towards our 2050 net zero target, from offshore wind and hydrogen to carbon capture and electric vehicles. Warrington in particular is a regional centre of excellence in the nuclear sector. These specialisms are conceived in northern minds and built by northern hands, and while it is right that our clean energy plans should be ambitious, much like the first industrial revolution, they must come with a positive return for local people.
I mentioned the jobs we have lost. We need skills change. We need more employment, and most importantly for the economic growth of our region, we need this to come quickly. I am really excited, therefore, by the prospect of HyNet, to which the Government have already committed £33 million and which is currently being developed by Cadent. As the Minister knows, HyNet will involve the development of new hydrogen pipelines across Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cheshire and the creation of the UK’s first carbon capture and storage infrastructure.
HyNet has the potential to create £17 billion of added economic value for the north-west region and could create up to 5,000 jobs in the region by 2025. It will also deliver more than a million tonnes of CO2 savings per annum—the equivalent of taking more than 600,000 cars off the road every year—and will have a decarbonising effect against other sectors such as transport, industry and home heating. In short, it really is a game changer for the north-west. I am keen to ask the Minister, given the likely readiness of HyNet, whether she will look carefully at this project being given priority—track 1 —as one of the first projects to be moved forward in 2025.
In the time I have left, I will also mention some of the smaller projects, which can fuel and heat our homes deep within local communities. I was really pleased to learn that Lymm Community Energy, in my constituency, has secured funding from the rural community energy fund to assess the feasibility of constructing a 5 MW solar farm. The project has the potential to supply local residents, businesses and community facilities with electricity, and is investigating whether it could accommodate battery storage too. The proposed solar farm would support 1,500 homes and would save around 1,130 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. As well as that, any financial surplus generated will be put back into a community benefit fund that would support local projects and organisations. The combination of the large-scale HyNet project and the smaller Lymm energy project will fuel our homes, businesses and transport in the future. I look forward to seeing these projects achieve net zero and level up the country.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for calling today’s important debate. We both share a passion for new job creation and investment in infrastructure across Merseyside and our north-west region.
As my hon. Friend said, the north-west of England was the birthplace of the industrial revolution. The history of our region, the ingenuity of our people, our culture and our belief in the dignity of work as the tide that lifts all boats, mean we are well placed to lead on the coming industrial revolution—to innovate, to build and ultimately tackle the climate crisis head on.
Although we look back at our history, we do not dwell on it. Rather, it acts as a catalyst to ensure that we meet the demands of the 21st century, to create good jobs, to use the climate emergency as an economic opportunity for a just transition that takes manufacturing workers and communities on a journey that leaves no sector behind, especially the jewel in our crown—the automotive sector.
A new generation of leaders is taking up the fight to realise those demands. The Government talk a big game on levelling up. All I hope is that the substance behind the slogans matches the scale of the ambition that our metro Mayor Steve Rotheram has for Merseyside. The Liverpool city region was the first region to declare a climate emergency in June 2019, and the metro Mayor has committed to reaching net zero carbon by 2040, a decade ahead of the UK target.
The tidal range of the Mersey estuary provides us with a unique opportunity to create a low-carbon electricity generation project that has the potential to create up to 5,000 jobs. Highly skilled, green manufacturing jobs should power our economic recovery beyond the pandemic. It is calculated that the Mersey tidal power project has the potential to generate up to four times the energy of all the wind turbines in Liverpool bay: enough energy to power 1 million homes.
Sadly, we do not have much time this afternoon, but I want to use the time I have to champion the Mersey tidal power project. The Government have the levers at their disposal to make that happen, so give us the tools to get on with the job, not least through the north-west energy hub. In the year of COP26, we need bold affirmations in our devolved Administrations to assist in the UK-wide strategy to address the climate emergency.
As Mayor Rotheram’s manifesto states,
“The River Mersey has been the lifeblood of our fortunes for centuries.”
He is right. Let us make it so for the next century.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing this very important debate. We are facing a climate emergency and I pay tribute to the innovative work being done by scientists, engineers and architects across the north-west to address the challenge. Work like that of architect—[Interruption.]
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. Margaret Greenwood, I am sorry to interrupt. A Division bell is ringing in Westminster Hall at the moment, which means we are not hearing you at all. I understand that everyone here is proxied, so no one needs to leave. If you want to wait a moment until this stops, and start a little bit back, we can pick up your speech—because you are not getting a fair deal here.
Right, Ms Greenwood; I am terribly sorry about that. I sometimes forget how much I love this place. If you would like to go a few sentences back and pick up, I think that would be the fairest way to proceed.
Margaret Greenwood
Thank you very much, McCabe. The architect Colin Usher, who has built himself an award-winning home in West Kirby, said that it uses heat pumps, solar panels and exceptional insulation. As a result, it cost him and his wife just £15 a year for heating, lighting, cooking and hot water when the house was completed around six years ago.
The Energy Saving Trust has said that, for the UK to reach its net zero targets, we need to roll out heat pumps at pace and scale, yet the Government scrapped the green homes grant just over six months after its launch. More than 20 organisations, representing builders and construction businesses, energy companies and civil society groups, have called for households on low incomes to be supplied with free heat pumps in order to kickstart the market for low-carbon heating equipment and meet the UK’s climate targets, in a proposal that addresses both the climate emergency and the issue of fuel poverty. Can the Minister set out her response to that proposal?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has recently called for an electric vehicle revolution in every part of the country, in order to boost the car manufacturing industry and create jobs. Here in the north-west, that strategy is urgently needed. The electrification of the automotive industry is of great importance, as the north-west is home to many key automotive factories—including the Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere Port, where a number of my constituents work. For them, it has been an uncertain time, with the chief executive of Stellantis saying earlier this year that it was
“considering the closure of its Ellesmere Port factory unless the UK government offers financial support after extended negotiations.”
Last month, however, it was reported that recent discussions between Stellantis and the Government have been extremely positive and productive. Can the Minister give us an update on those discussions? Will she back Labour’s call to kickstart in this Parliament the development of three additional giga-factories to produce the batteries for electric vehicles? Will she accelerate the creation of charging points, particularly in north-west England, and will she pledge to make electric vehicle ownership affordable for people on lower incomes?
I pay tribute to the metro Mayor of the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, for the work he is doing to address the challenges of climate change. The Mersey Tidal Commission has been established to look into ways of harnessing the power of the River Mersey as a source of clean, renewable and predictable energy for generations to come. It is estimated that a tidal barrage on the Mersey could generate enough electricity to power up to 1 million homes across the region, creating thousands of local jobs.
In March this year, the Environmental Audit Committee wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to say that there is “substantial potential” for the tidal sector to make a “significant and distinct contribution” to the UK’s future mix of energy generated from renewable sources. It is therefore disappointing that the Government’s support for tidal energy has been only lukewarm up to now. Will the Minister personally take up this issue and give Liverpool city region the support that it needs?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this really important debate on an issue that matters not only to all of us here, but to our constituents. I want to draw to the Minister’s attention a few points that are especially relevant to Cumbria, and I hope she can answer some of my questions.
In rural communities such as mine, the growth in the provision of ground source heat pumps in buildings around Cumbria, but particularly in the more rural areas, is hugely encouraging. I would be really grateful if the Minister spent some time looking at the problem whereby small businesses—very often farms—end up being charged ludicrous sums of money to get connected to the grid for the ground source heat pump to work. I have spoken to Electricity North West, which acknowledges that that is not great, but the company is allowed to do it, so it does so. The cost is sometimes about £7,000 or £8,000 per connection, which is massively debilitating for dairy farms and other small businesses in rural communities. That is the first thing I would love the Minister to look at.
Secondly, would the Minister look again at building regulations and insist that the provision of renewable energy is integral to all new builds, particularly solar panels? I understand why there is resistance to this: it adds cost to the bill, and green bills can sometimes be more expensive. However, that could be offset—more than offset—if the Government revised the Land Compensation Act 1961 to reduce the price of land at the same time. That would massively reduce the cost of building, meaning that it would be entirely affordable to insist on solar panels in every new building. Let us remember that retrofitting properties is far more expensive than doing the right thing in the first place when they are built.
Thirdly, could the Minister acknowledge that the Government’s ending of the feed-in tariff schemes for hydro energy and electricity has been massively damaging to that sector? A wonderful hydro-energy company in my constituency, Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon, has had to let go of almost 20% of its workforce indirectly as a consequence. Will the Minister announce now, or soon, ways in which the Government can provide incentives for hydroelectricity and ensure that the likes of Gilkes can expand in the future? It seems most peculiar in a county such as Cumbria, which I admit is occasionally damp and contains England’s fastest flowing waterways, that we are making such limited use of that water. Companies of great heritage, such as Gilkes, could be making sure not only that we employ more people in great jobs locally, but that we make use of the natural energy that is so abundant in the lakes and the dales.
Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to something that MP colleagues in Cumbria and I have written to the Government about: the exciting prospect of tidal energy across Morecombe bay. This is an opportunity to connect the Furness Peninsula—or, as we say, “Lancashire over the sands”—with mainland Lancashire and, more importantly, to generate energy from that source. This Government need to take the blame, as do previous ones, for the fact that despite the United Kingdom having the largest tidal range on planet Earth after Canada, we tap nearly none of it. Morecombe bay is an opportunity to do just that.
I set these things in front of you, Mr McCabe, and the Minister, and I eagerly await her response. I suggest that all these proposals, and the many others put forward by hon. Members sat around the table and on the internet, could make Cumbria a—if not the—leading green energy provider in the UK, creating thousands of good, long-term jobs, contrasting beautifully with the somewhat less progressive proposal for a coalmine in west Cumbria, which I hope the Minister will agree to scrap.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this debate and for the excellent points in his introductory comments. As he said, he has a long, proud association with Ellesmere Port through his time at Vauxhall Motors; that company, with many others, is synonymous with my town. It is vital for their future prosperity that we get this right. They all impact the local economy and they also use huge amounts of energy, contributing about 5% of total energy usage in the UK. Faced with that fact, companies are not oblivious to the need to change and have been working together on a whole series of projects that will contribute to reaching net zero and enhance our local economy at the same time. [Interruption.]
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. The Division bell is ringing again. I think we will do the same thing as before and stop until it finishes.
Justin Madders
Several Members have talked already about the HyNet North West project, which is vital for the future of industry, not just in my constituency but in the whole sub-region, if it is to meet the challenges of decarbonisation and increased energy costs.
In our area, we are fortunate enough to have an unbeatable combination of industry and geology, which means we can transition to a hydrogen-based economy faster than anyone else. Our current infrastructure can be easily converted to operate with hydrogen. HyNet believes that, as a result, it can capture up to 800,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. As we have heard from various Members already, there is cross-party and indeed cross-border support for HyNet; I refer not just to the border between England and Scotland, but to the equally important border between Cheshire and Merseyside.
It is vital that we get this transition right. Let me give one example of what that can mean. In my constituency, CF Fertilisers employs hundreds of people and supplies about 40% of the UK fertiliser market. It is also the front end of key supply chains for the production of products such as building insulation, Perspex products for car manufacturing, and key bathroom products such as sinks and baths, as well as respiratory medications, so moving to hydrogen will play a huge role in greening large parts of other sectors, too. There is a brighter future down the road, but to get to that point gas prices and emission costs need to remain affordable for companies such as CF Fertilisers over the next five years. They need as much certainty as can be offered by Government. We do not want winners and losers in different parts of the country to be played off against one another. We need to recognise the particular challenges that ammonia producers have. If the Minister needs further details, I am happy to provide them after the debate.
To reiterate a point made by several Members, it is critical to our part of the world that we get the green light to go ahead in phase 1. CF Fertilisers is just one of many businesses where lots of jobs are at risk if we do not get a sustained and consistent approach from Government. There is no doubt that the ambition in my area is there. The question is: will it be matched by Government? Germany is investing 10 times the amount that we are in its quest to deliver the same amount of hydrogen by 2030 that we hope to produce, so we really cannot afford to effect this transition by half-measures. For people’s livelihoods, for the thousands of jobs that it would create and for the future of the planet, we need this transition to be full steam ahead, if colleagues will pardon the pun.
The concept of a just transition is not only realistic but essential if we are to achieve the aims that I think we all want to achieve. When I walk around my constituency in 10 years’ time, I want to see people going about their daily business in electric vehicles that have been manufactured in Ellesmere Port, powered by batteries that have been made locally, driving into secure, well-paid jobs that they can raise a family on in a manufacturing industry that is enjoying a renaissance thanks to the advances we have made in carbon capture and hydrogen. I want us to be living in a time when emissions have gone down but wealth has gone up. That is the future I want. I hope that the Government share our vision and will work with us to make it a reality.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We are indeed in strange times: those of us who have been in the House for quite a long time have a Pavlovian reaction every time the bell goes off—we jump up and run down the corridor. To resist doing that, and to resist saying anything in the meantime, is a new skill that we need to get used to.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on having secured this afternoon’s debate. It is a really important debate that sheds light on two things in particular, and he is to be commended for the excellent way he presented the case for renewable energy in the north-west.
First, we must recognise what an important part of the country the north-west is, in terms of both its renewable resources and their utilisation for the benefit of the country as a whole. Some of those resources have been mentioned in the time permitted to us this afternoon. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), spoke about the tremendous tidal resource in the north-west. Not many people know that the tidal range in the Mersey estuary is the second highest in the UK, closely followed by the Morecambe Bay tidal range. Parts of the north-west should be in the driving seat when it comes to utilising tidal energy for the future benefit of the UK. Of course, we already have substantial penetration of offshore wind in the Irish sea and a number of installations close to the north-west coastline, but anyone who has seen the offshore wind projects timeline charts put out by RenewableUK will know that, despite the tremendous offshore wind resource in the north-west, development of offshore wind has essentially stalled in that area. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) mentioned that some new leases are under way, particularly for floating wind, but performance at the moment is, frankly, very poor when it comes to developing this tremendous asset that the north-west has.
We have also heard from hon. Members not just about the north-west’s physical assets, but its human assets, including the assets of ingenuity and thought that have gone into the HyNet project. I unequivocally commend that scheme to this House for its proactive imagination, its importance, and its ability to bring jobs and skill chains to the north-west, which will benefit the north-west and the country as a whole. It combines carbon capture and storage and hydrogen and brings forward industrial processes, and the developers of that project are to be applauded—[Interruption.]
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. I am conscious that I cannot alter the finishing time, which is still 5.50. I am really sorry about this, Dr Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
I will shout my way through it, Mr McCabe. I am trying to draw our attention this afternoon to the north-west’s rich renewable resources that the north-west has, and how imperative it is that those resources be exploited for the benefit of the whole country as soon as possible. Hon. Members have underlined why that is so important.
The second important point to discuss is what the Government are doing about exploiting the resources and supporting the people, local councils and industries of the north-west in getting those schemes under way. The marks are pretty low here. I mentioned the lack of development of offshore wind, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wirral West said Government support for tidal power was lukewarm. That was extremely kind of her, because as far as I am concerned, Government support has been stone cold. That needs to be urgently reversed, in order to bring the resources for secure, stable, low carbon energy forward in the way we know is possible, in Morecambe, the Mersey and other sites in the north-west, to the benefit of the whole country.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. I think you will have to wind up there, Dr Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
It is important to put the two parts of the debate together—what the potential is, and what the Government are doing about it. Those two things need to be in close harness. If the result of this debate is better Government support for renewables in the north-west, that would be a very good achievement indeed.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing this important debate. I assure the House that this Government are ensuring that we have an energy system that delivers a cleaner and greener future. We are determined that every place, every community and every industry in the UK, including of course the north-west, has the support it needs to successfully transitioned to green energy.
We only need to look at what happened with coal and wind in the last few decades and the political consensus that has formed around reducing our emissions to see that the nation is embracing a move to green energy. Members have shared their passion and commitment to a just transition to net zero in this debate. The energy White Paper, which we published in December last year, set out plans for the historic transformation of the UK’s energy system for a cleaner future, including fully decarbonising our electricity generation by 2050. We have shown that rapid progress on decarbonisation is possible, alongside a thriving economy.
We recognise, of course, the need to ensure that industries move to clean energy in a sustainable way, which is why we have announced in recent years the industry strategy challenge fund, the industrial energy transformation fund and the clean steel fund. Those funds support the meeting of green energy goals in key industrial regional clusters and sectors. In addition to those funds, the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution set out how we will work with industry to help deliver our net zero targets in a way that creates employment opportunities in green energies as they emerge. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) raised some important north-west leadership points in relation to nuclear, which were very interesting to hear, as it is a key low carbon part of our future energy mix.
In the 10-point plan, there is a commitment to deploy carbon capture usage and storage in at least two industrial clusters by the mid-2020s and a further two clusters by 2030, with an ambition to capture 10 megatonnes of CO2 per year by 2030. In May this year, we launched the first phase of the CCUS cluster sequencing process. On the concerns about other technologies of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), they will be pleased to know that allocation round 4 of the contracts for difference later this year will include less established technologies, including floating offshore wind, advanced conversion technologies and tidal stream. The delivery of at least two CCUS clusters is not the extent of the ambition, with a commitment to support four by 2030 at the latest. The Government are also clear that, in order to reach net zero, all industrial clusters will need to decarbonise and CCUS is going to play a key role in enabling that.
The industrial decarbonisation strategy and the forthcoming heat in buildings and net zero strategies will set out how targeted investment, underpinned by support for technology innovation, will help enable a more sustainable long-term path, while protecting jobs and supporting levelling up across the UK. I hope that will give my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) reassurance on many of the transportation issues that were raised.
This debate gives us an opportunity to recognise the significant contribution the north-west has already made and plans to make to investing in green energy. I will take a moment to recognise a couple of those excellent contributions. Winnington in Cheshire will be home to the UK’s first industrial carbon capture and utilisation plant. The £15.7 million project will be funded by Tata Chemicals Europe, with the support of a £4.2 million grant from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy through our carbon capture and utilisation demonstration programme. The plant is near completion and due to commence carbon dioxide capture operations this year.
The hydrogen energy and carbon capture and utilisation storage project, HyNet North West, which many colleagues mentioned, is an innovative low carbon and hydrogen energy project that will unlock a low carbon economy for the whole of the north-west and north Wales, and put the region at the forefront of the UK’s drive to net zero. The project will receive almost £33 million of funding from the industrial decarbonisation challenge, and will be important for our efforts to decarbonise industry in support of the Government’s wider net zero ambition. I am really looking forward to my visit to HyNet North West later in the summer. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) to learn more about the geo-engine technology, when my diary allows.
Finally, since 2015, Electricity North West has spent £33 million on innovation projects which have already delivered £46 million of benefit to consumers across the north-west. I am sure hon. Members agree that these kinds of bold and innovative investments, such as those happening in the north-west, will be vital to positioning the UK as global leader in the future energy industry. This Government are absolutely committed to working closely with communities and industry to enable that transition to green energy.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) will be pleased to read the heat and buildings strategy when it is published soon, as it will answer some of his questions. I am sorry, Mr McCabe, but I am still quite excited that I brought carbon budget 6 into law yesterday and signed the legislation this afternoon, which means that we are genuinely world-leading in the challenge that we have set ourselves. When we publish the first net zero strategy of any country in the world in the autumn, we will be genuinely demonstrating our world-leading effort to get to net zero by 2050. That will be achieved through creating green jobs, targeting investment and supporting the innovative technologies that we are seeing across the north-west and across the UK, which will help us to achieve a cleaner and greener future for us all.
Mick Whitley
I thank you for serving as chair today, Mr McCabe, and all hon. Members for contributing to the debate, which has benefitted greatly from their enthusiasm and expertise, and I am not forgetting the Division bells either.
I welcome the comments made by the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter) on the HyNet North West project, and I am glad to see these proposals attracting support from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) put me to shame by highlighting the important work that a company based in my constituency is doing to combat the effects of climate change, while also driving economic growth across our region. He is right to highlight the enormous potential of the geo-engine, and I echo the important comments he made about the necessity of the Government’s report.
My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) rightly expanded on the many ways that Merseyside can play its role in combating climate breakdown, from harnessing the immense power of the Mersey tidal range to greening our transport. I have no doubt that these are issues upon which we will campaign together in the future. I also thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his insightful contribution on the issues facing rural communities as we decarbonise our energy system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) rightly described the profound impact the transition to a low-carbon economy could have on his constituents in particular, and the region more widely. I agree with every word he said. As I said in my opening remarks, the shadow Minister’s interest in this issue is long-standing and his passion was clear for all to see.
Finally, I thank the Minister for her thoughtful response to the points I and others raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered green energy in the North West.
Written Statements
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government are today entering into a new set of arrangements to deliver safe, lower-cost and more efficient decommissioning of the UK’s operating nuclear power stations, once they stop generating power.
Those nuclear power stations are all owned and operated by EDF, and the new arrangements have been negotiated by the Government to provide significant cost savings for the taxpayer, with the potential to achieve upward of £1 billion of savings without compromising on safety and security. They will also provide the Government with enhanced oversight of the decommissioning costs.
The new commercial arrangements relate to the fleet of seven advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) stations—Hunterston B, Hinkley Point B, Dungeness B, Hartlepool, Heysham 1, Heysham 2 and Torness. EDF last year announced the end of generation of Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B in 2022 and recently, Dungeness B with immediate effect. The other four are all scheduled to close on a rolling basis by 2030.
The new arrangements do not relate to the Sizewell B station, which is of a different technology—pressurised water reactor—and is due to continue operating until at least 2035. The new arrangements also do not cover the Hinkley Point C station, which is currently under construction.
Once a nuclear station closes the nuclear fuel from that station must first be removed (defueling) before it can be prepared for deconstruction. Then, following deconstruction, the site can be remediated.
The new arrangements we have negotiated will incentivise EDF to achieve the defueling of the AGR stations in a cost-effective and timely manner and include real risk share. EDF Energy have agreed to up to a total of £100 million in charges for underperformance in return for the potential to earn up to a total £100 million for good performance across the AGR fleet.
Shortly after EDF has completed the defueling activity, and subject to regulatory approval, the ownership of the AGR stations will transfer to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), on a station-by-station basis, to prepare for and manage the long-term decommissioning. The NDA will deliver this mission alongside their ongoing mission to decommission the first-generation Magnox nuclear power stations. This will allow the NDA to employ their unique expertise and experience of nuclear decommissioning and seek synergies with their wider mission to achieve savings for the taxpayer.
These new arrangements will harness the best of both organisations: EDF’s in defueling as an extension of its operational activity; NDA’s in decommissioning as the nation’s civil nuclear decommissioning authority—in order to deliver best value for the taxpayer, while maintaining strong regulatory oversight on safety, security, environmental and health matters.
The NDA and EDF will co-operate to help ensure a seamless transfer of the AGR sites and to enable efficiencies and identify and realise cost savings across the AGR decommissioning programme.
Under previous arrangements, EDF was responsible for the full defueling and deconstruction of the AGR stations, using funding provided by the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF), a segregated fund managed by trustees and underwritten by Government. EDF’s AGR defueling and decommissioning work will continue to be funded by the NLF.
To facilitate these revised arrangements, designation directions have been laid in Westminster and jointly with Scottish Ministers in Holyrood—for Scottish stations —which provide the appropriate vires for the NDA to undertake their pre-transfer work and obligations on these stations.
I will deposit the designation directions in the Libraries of the House and further details are available at the www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS114]
Summits, Conferences or Events: Defence Contribution
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
A new order has been made under section 56(1 B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service to support HM Forces in connection with military operations in support of summits, conferences or events.
The Ministry of Defence is regularly tasked to support summits, conferences or events. As part of this support, reserve forces will be on standby, as part of a whole force approach with regular forces, to deliver a range of defence outputs such as, but not limited to, the reinforcement of regular units, provision of specialist knowledge, skills and experience, and support to partners across Government.
The order shall take effect from the day on which it is made and shall cease to have effect 12 months from the date on which it is made.
[HCWS115]
Broadcasting Policy
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Today, we are announcing our intention to publish a Broadcasting White Paper in the autumn. In order to inform the White Paper, we will consult on the future of Channel 4 and on regulating video-on-demand services.
We believe that the need for public service broadcasting (PSB) remains as strong as ever and it is therefore necessary to bring the UK’s broadcasting framework into the 21st century.
The forthcoming White Paper will look ahead to the challenges of tomorrow, ensuring the UK’s broadcasting system is dynamic, relevant and can continue to meet the needs of UK audiences in the future. This will include proposals on prominence, to ensure that high quality public service content is made easily accessible to UK audiences across online platforms. The White Paper will also be influenced by Ofcom’s ongoing PSB review, the Government’s own strategic PSB review, as well as the recommendations of the Digital Radio and Audio Review which will report this summer.
This summer we will launch a consultation on the future success and sustainability of Channel 4.
Since its inception almost 40 years ago, Channel 4 has delivered on its remit, aims and objectives, and has done an excellent job in managing the uncertainty in the market over recent years.
However, Channel 4’s current ownership model and remit places material restrictions on its ability to keep pace with the challenges posed by the fast-evolving media landscape.
Now is the time to proceed on the basis that an alternative ownership model—but one where it keeps a public service remit—may be better for the broadcaster and better for the country.
We will also launch a consultation on the regulation of video-on-demand services. Services such as Netflix, ITV Hub or Amazon Prime Video provide huge value to UK audiences, and in many cases significant, and growing, contributions to the UK economy. However, they are also services that are regulated far less robustly than traditional broadcast television stations, particularly in relation to the regulation of content standards and audience protection, and some services are not regulated in the UK at all.
So this summer we will consult on whether it is time to set the same basic rules for video-on-demand services as we do for traditional broadcasters.
[HCWS113]
Condition Improvement Fund
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Today, I am announcing the allocation of almost £483 million for 1,466 Condition Improvement Fund (CIF) projects across 1,199 academies, sixth-form colleges and voluntary aided schools to maintain and improve the condition of the education estate.
This funding is provided to ensure schools have well maintained facilities and give students safe environments that support a high-quality education. Many of the projects funded by CIF will lead to more energy efficient buildings and will reduce energy bills for schools. Since March 2015 CIF has delivered 8,018 projects and continues to deliver 1,571 projects across the school estate with essential maintenance projects.
Details of today’s announcement are being sent to all CIF applicants and a list of successful projects will be published on gov.uk. Copies will be placed in the House Library.
Attachments can be viewed online at: Written statements - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament
[HCWS116]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill so, if a single voice says “Not content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Dormant Assets Bill [HL]
Wednesday 23rd June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Dormant Assets Act 2022 View all Dormant Assets Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (21 Jun 2021)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 54 and will speak to Amendment 55. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on Amendment 54 and of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on Amendment 55. I will focus the bulk of my remarks on Amendment 55 but will first deal briefly with Amendment 54. I thought about degrouping it but, in the interests of speed, the Committee might be able to deal with it as part of this group.
Amendment 54 is about transparency, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in her comments on the group beginning with Amendment 4, which the Committee discussed at its first sitting on Monday. Its very simple purpose is to ensure that, if the Secretary of State wishes to introduce restrictions on the way that the dormant assets scheme works, these have to be contained in regulations. This gives a proper degree of transparency to the actions of the Secretary of State. We all have our worries about the efficacy of the scrutiny of regulations, but this does at least bring them before your Lordships’ House. This is primary legislation, so will be in place for some years; it would clearly be inappropriate for a future of Secretary of State to be able privately to influence the operation of the scheme. That is the purpose of Amendment 54; I trust that the Government would have no problem with its objective.
In Amendment 55, I am returning to a point which I made at Second Reading: the very uneven distribution of social capital across the country. I fear that that unevenness may have been increased by the events of the past 15 to 18 months. This unevenness was originally brought home to me sharply during reviews of the charity and voluntary sectors that I carried out for the Government. It was my practice to try and hold meetings in different parts of the country to be able to take on board local concerns and questions. The fluctuating numbers of attendees at these meetings provided an interesting yardstick of the strength and vibrancy of social capital in those areas. When I chaired for your Lordships’ House the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civil Engagement—I was very lucky to have two such experienced committee members as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—the same situation revealed itself in our trips. Each situation is different, of course, but certain common themes to this problem have emerged. Funding is of course important, often in small, repeated amounts rather than in big dollops, but this is about much more than just money. It is about finding physical structures—buildings in which people can meet, socialise and help create communities. There is a third element: the need for practical experience and paid help to supplement voluntary efforts.
One of the most distressing aspects, for me at least, was the loss of self-confidence and self-belief. For too many, aspiration and hope had died, overwhelmed by the scale of the apparent challenge but, when a spark had been lit, often by a small group of people, the results were remarkable. I recall, on our committee visit to Clacton, that the pub which had been bought by the community, an ACV, was now breathing life into the area in a whole host of ways not originally envisaged. Money, physical structures and practical help are important, but there is yet another requirement—staying power and endurance. Rebuilding social capital is a marathon, not a sprint. Volunteers have lives outside the work they do for their communities.
On our committee trip to Sheffield, we met a group helping to keep libraries open and extend their opening hours, better to assist and serve their communities. But as members of the library group pointed out graphically, if Mrs Smith, say, has undertaken to open the library at 9 am on a particular morning and her child falls ill in the night and has to be taken to hospital, the library will not open because, quite understandably, rightly and properly, her responsibility to her child will take priority. That will be a blow to the community, unless there is a structure to ensure that someone steps into Mrs Smith’s place. That is why some limited paid back-up is important. It can be seen that this is a complex, shifting kaleidoscope of requirements that needs to be sustained over time.
Finally, to be really effective, to ensure that actions are done by and not done to, these activities must be and remain really local. That may seem very obvious to the Committee, but I shall quote a couple of sentences from our Select Committee report. We wrote:
“Communication between citizens and government at all levels is often poor, and was a subject frequently raised not just in formal evidence but by those we spoke to on our visits. When seeking people’s views, communication tends to be with the ‘gatekeepers’—those who hold themselves out, not always accurately, as representing their communities. People, especially in deprived areas, must be made to feel that government is speaking directly to them, working with them and for them, and paying attention to their needs and wishes … Communities must also be prepared to open up and bring more voices into the conversation.”
That is the background to the amendment. The concept of community wealth funds could be particularly well placed to meet the complex requirements I have described. They could provide funding, could provide a means to open and maintain buildings, could employ the limited permanent staff needed to provide the necessary structural framework and, finally, could do all these things over the long period needed to provide remedies for the deep-seated, structural challenges that these communities face—hence my interest in the briefing sent to me and many Members of your Lordships’ House by the Community Wealth Fund Alliance. However, I have to admit that I had a concern about the original briefing. The alliance speaks for 400 civil society public and private sector organisations, and the briefing sought the tabling of an amendment establishing a “Community Wealth Fund”—with a capital C, a capital W and a capital F—as a national body.
I told the alliance I believed that the concept and the approach they represented was entirely praiseworthy and worth supporting, but I did not think that as yet there was enough practical experience to justify a “Community Wealth Fund”, with capital letters, appearing in primary legislation as a national body. Could a CWF—with the capital letters—appear as a national body in future? Of course it could, but we are not there yet. We need more practical experience of how this alliance of 400 different organisations will work together, and how methodologies and objectives will change in the light of real-life experience.
Today, I am delighted to urge the Government to support the creation of community wealth funds—individual local efforts, shaped to meet the particular needs of their areas. I think it highly likely that a national body will emerge in due course, and perhaps become a fifth distributor but, as I have said, I do not think we are there yet. We need more experience of building from the ground up. In short, Rome was not built in a day.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I make it clear at the outset that I am very supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—first, his amendment on transparency, which was usefully preambled in our debate two days ago, and secondly, his amendment relating to a call for the Secretary of State to include the establishment of a so-called community wealth fund in an order under new Section 18A of the 2008 Act.
Labour supports, of course, the principle of putting additional funding into the hands of local communities. Our experience, rather like the noble Lord’s, is that those things are best left local: communities need social capital support to ensure that they work with the charitable interests to achieve the objectives of many of those locally and nationally based charities. The Local Trust and the Community Wealth Fund Alliance have made a strong case in their briefing notes, and we recognise that there is broad-based support for this proposition right across the sector.
The idea of community wealth funds is not new, but the case for long-term and locally focused investment has become even more compelling in the light of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and of events during the Covid-19 pandemic. Our Amendment 56 would make a small but potentially significant tweak to the noble Lord’s proposed text, in that it specifies that new National Lottery community funds should operate independently of National Lottery structures. We appreciate, of course, the good work that the National Lottery Community Fund does across the country, but we saw the arrival of the Bill as an opportunity to debate additional methods of disbursing money to the communities that need it.
The alliance behind the community wealth fund proposal have given it a great deal of thought, and have undertaken research on how best it would work and how a system could be made operational in practice, with neighbourhoods empowered to create a positive community vision, and given time to deliver the change they seek.
There is a range of evidence from Britain and across the world that giving communities a proper stake in local spending decisions produces far better results than imposing schemes from the top down. As with our previous debates on the asset clauses, we should not be confined by how things have been done in the past. Instead, we argue that we should seize opportunities to try new approaches.
I have little doubt that the Minister will say that there is not yet strong enough evidence for the Government to support this approach. If that is the case, would the DCMS be prepared to fund pilot studies in a small number of communities across England, to gain more data? The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in a sense, alluded to that. Perhaps we should consider a pilot approach, before bringing into play the full effect of a community wealth fund clause in, or an amendment to, this legislation.
That would be a practical and pragmatic approach and would garner support, but we obviously want to listen to what the Minister has to say on this. We will be more than happy to discuss with her and colleagues across the House how we can make this work because, like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I think that it is a winning idea that would genuinely empower local communities.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have put my name behind Amendment 55, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I strongly support the presentation that he made this afternoon. His work on the charities report and in chairing the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement were milestones in understanding the critical importance of civil society and an enabling state. The way in which he presented his case this afternoon reinforced the importance of communitarianism—of building from the bottom, and of engagement with and facilitating the ability of communities to work for themselves and those whom they serve.
In a moment, I will obviously wish to speak to Amendment 56A in my name, but I want to say a word or two first in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Bassam in terms of the possibility in future of building from local experiments and local development into a national community wealth fund, and the facilitation of that through the legislation so that it might happen organically. I am proud of the work done over the years by South Yorkshire’s Community Foundation, which has been able to distribute grants and support local initiatives. Greater funding and support for that kind of operation is where organic change can take place and where people can see not only the contribution made from the unclaimed assets fund but the contribution that they can make in small ways by adding to that and being part of the process of delivery. They see where the funds have gone, experience the benefit of them and then take forward those learning processes to build that enabling state at local level, reinforcing civil society and enabling people to make decisions for themselves. The case is overwhelming and the question is about how we should go forward. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to indicate that on Report there will be a welcome for a facilitating clause, which will enable us to move forward on that.
On Amendment 56A, I commend the Kickstart money and those who have, over many years, fought for better financial education throughout the education service. Obviously, this applies to young people who reach 16 and are looking to their future. I remember, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, going around the country on a fact-finding and informing exercise on what needed to be done about the future of pensions and the pension age. We were picking up the report by Adair Turner—the noble Lord, Lord Turner—and looking at the extension of the working age. We looked at auto-enrolment, which took so many years to implement, having been agreed back in 2005, and the way in which young people should think about their future.
This was complemented by the then child trust fund, which we addressed in the House yesterday and is relevant here. It was designed to enable people to have a nest egg—a small amount of capital that they could engage in their own lives. What we are talking about here has a synergy, and it is important for us to understand how the capital asset divide is a major challenge for the future. If you inherit a house from grandparents, parents or an uncle or aunt in London, it is the equivalent of winning the lottery. If you live in rented accommodation in the north of Sheffield, Barnsley or elsewhere and have nothing to pass on to future generations, you will see the reinforcement of intergenerational disadvantage.
I hope that financial education will help in its own right but also with the wider debate on where we are going as a country. It is particularly important that this happens at primary level; at secondary level, there is at least PHSE and the emphasis that can be placed on the economic side of the financial learning exercise. In the citizenship curriculum, the wider issues can be addressed as well. In primary education, those two things, while relevant to the curriculum, are not taught in a specific or identifiable way and it is really important that we get it into primary education at a very early stage so that young people understand the importance of their part in managing their money and how the financial world works around them. The unclaimed assets fund could be of great benefit if we can get this right.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I, too, was a member of the Select Committee on citizenship, but clearly I did not make as big an impression as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, or the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I am very glad that I was, however, because it was one of those pieces of work from which one comes away having learned a great deal about a subject that one thought one already knew a lot about but where there was much more to learn.
One of the lessons that came to members of that committee quite forcefully, particularly from people in communities that felt they had been left behind, was the very low level of knowledge of how to participate in local democracy—simple things such as knowing how to be eligible to vote, for example. In part, that fuels what I shall say over the next few minutes. I do not object to community wealth funds; I have considered them over the past few years and they are undoubtedly well intentioned and beneficial. It is also undeniable that they would in some—perhaps most—cases provide assets to go with the aspirations of local people to own and control the assets, which they are already legally able to acquire under the challenge fund and with the assistance of organisations such as Locality and so on. That legal right is already there.
My question about this is: in general, is the addition of another entity that has to be governed, managed, staffed and accountable advisable? Is it an addition or will it be an unnecessary added complication? We have hundreds of local community groups that rely on the knowledge, skills and good will of people in those localities. What they very often lack is technical skills.
Here I will pick up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, about the National Lottery Community Fund. I go back a very long way. I remember the creation of that fund and the impact it had on the voluntary sector, which I worked in at that point. It is unarguable that the fund brought in resources that could not have been imagined before its creation for capital, sports and social programmes.
However, it has always been a puzzle to me how we enabled the National Lottery Community Fund to be created and to be the size and extent it is, yet we have never had a requirement that part of its money would go towards sustaining and developing the infrastructure of the charities and community groups that largely deliver its programmes. The National Lottery sits on top of the rest of the voluntary sector and requires it to deliver its agenda. It does not have an obligation to sustain it.
It is worth noting that the financial position of the voluntary sector is vastly different from how it was even 25 years ago. Many noble Lords will know that NCVO, together with Nottingham Trent University, is carrying out a tracking exercise on the impact of Covid on the voluntary sector. It is producing some really interesting results about the way levels of demand for local services are rising and the extent to which, in this last year and in the forthcoming year, the resources of those charities will be under significant strain. At least 30% of them expect that they will have run out of reserves and will go out of business. That is the overall position.
I will tell just one story. Quite a number of years ago, National Lottery funding was used to develop a series of healthy ageing centres. These were flagship programmes set up with five-year funding. The great thing about them was that they had to be innovative and dynamic. Therefore, they have to be free-standing and to bring in new partners. They therefore could not be set up and run by the existing local older people’s organisations. They ran very well and highly successfully. Then the five-year funding ended, at which point the remnants of their good programmes were all absorbed by the then-existing local Age Concerns and so on. I wonder whether, in setting up this kind of mechanism, we might not set people up for a similar kind of scenario.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to speak in support of Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts—not least because, as he said, I was a member of the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, which he so ably chaired.
I must admit, it is only recently that I have been made aware of the campaign for a community wealth fund and that I have joined the APPG for “Left Behind” Neighbourhoods. However, I have been persuaded by the evidence from the Local Trust and others that a community wealth fund—or, to take on board what the noble Lord said, perhaps community wealth funds—potentially represents a key building block in the aspiration, shared across the political divide, to build back better or, as Sir Michael Marmot put it, to build back fairer.
In his new report, The Marmot Review 10 Years On, Sir Michael emphasised this:
“Empowering and sustaining communities was central to the 2010 Marmot Review”—
his original review of health inequalities. He also observed:
“Over the last 10 years, these ignored communities and areas have seen vital physical and community assets lost, resources and funding reduced, community and voluntary sector services decimated and public services cut”.
Both in his report and in his Covid update, he called for investment
“in the development of economic, social and cultural resources in the most deprived communities.”
In a similar vein, as I noted at Second Reading, a number of bodies, including the Legatum Institute, have argued the importance of social investment to the levelling-up agenda. According to a recent survey published by NPC, the general public believe that levelling up must address social needs, and just yesterday, the Education Select Committee referenced the idea of a community wealth fund when discussing the implications of the levelling-up agenda for education and children’s outcomes.
While dormant assets, as underlined at Second Reading and in line with the additionality principle, must of course not be used as a substitute for government funding, the idea of community wealth funds as proposed in this amendment provides an opportunity for “empowering and sustaining communities”, to quote Marmot. It would be targeted at a very specific group of communities or neighbourhoods: those in which serious deprivation is combined with lack of social infrastructure, or what Community Links calls “civic inequality”. In its recent report Making a Good Place, Community Links concludes:
“The case for investment in social infrastructure is strong, not just because of the long-term benefits that it brings and the need to address civic inequalities, but also because of the pressing situation created by the Covid-19 pandemic, which makes it all the more important to create good places that promote good mental and physical health and well-being and resilience to other attacks.”
According to Local Trust, which spearheaded the campaign for a CWF, in its experience communities lacking in places to meet and social infrastructure, such as youth centres—so it does include support for young people—pubs, cafes, parks and community hubs, can find it difficult to nurture the social interactions and bonds that play an essential part in developing a community’s civic spirit. The trust argues that investment in social infrastructure is foundational in that it helps to build knowledge, skills and confidence in marginalised communities, thereby contributing to a lasting legacy of change. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, what is important is the knowledge of continuity of funding that one does not necessarily get from local philanthropy.
As a report from the IPPR Environmental Justice Commission shows, this can strengthen environmental as well as social action in deprived communities. The commission argues:
“For communities to thrive in a climate changing world they must be given greater ownership and agency”.
As I said at Second Reading, in a point that has already been made, a particularly attractive aspect of the CWF is the emphasis its advocates place on the control over spending decisions that it would give to local residents. I quoted the Public Services Committee, which has consistently made the case for user involvement in the development of services if those services are to meet local needs and to be resilient.
There is growing recognition that failure to embed genuine community involvement is one reason why past local-area initiatives have not been as successful as they might have been. To quote Community Links again:
“Community participation in decision-making ensures that investment genuinely serves those it aims to support and also helps build capacity within the community”.
The proposals for a CWF contain detailed suggestions for how this could be done and how to build accountability into its structures. That perhaps goes some way to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, as to why this kind of structure is necessary: it perhaps adds something to what is there already.
Polling research carried out for Local Trust and its experience of running the Big Local programme suggest there is a real appetite in deprived communities to take on the challenge, provided there is appropriate funding and support to build capacity and confidence. Research in so-called left-behind areas found that three-fifths agreed that local residents have the capacity to make real change in their area, while seven out of 10 said it should be local people and community organisations leading decisions about how any funding should be spent.
The release of new dormant assets under the Bill provides a timely opportunity to invest in such areas through proposed community wealth funds, which, as we have heard, have the support of over 420 organisations, including the NCVO, and 35 local or combined authorities. Again, the fact that it has such strong support from the voluntary sector, the NCVO and others perhaps goes some way to counter the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
While I am not looking to pre-empt the consultation that we will discuss shortly, I hope the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the Government’s views about the proposal for community wealth funds as an appropriate use of a portion of the dormant assets that will be released. At Second Reading, despite it having been raised by a number of noble Lords, I think she carefully avoided commenting on it. I hope she will be able to provide a sympathetic response that will give hope to the 423 organisations in the community wealth fund alliance, and to those living in the deprived communities that stand to benefit from such funds.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, there is a clause stand part element to this group and I shall address it first as it has not been the subject of discussion. It is important to make the point that Clause 29 removes the requirement to focus on the needs of young people, financial education, access to finance and social investment from primary legislation and puts the responsibility for the areas of focus into future secondary legislation—I know that the current rules stay in place until the first SI comes. That is a troubling issue that Parliament has to consider because we all know that statutory instruments cannot be amended and that killing them is a constitutional crisis, so Clause 29 asks us to change the framework very substantially, and that is an area that Parliament has to consider.
I do not mean to be insulting to the Government, but cronyism is a real worry—frankly it is a worry with any Government—as are fads and fancies. They are not ill intentioned but they tend to mean that attention diverts from one place to another and lacks long-term consistency. It is very hard to deal with in secondary legislation. Will the Minister discuss whom she anticipates will be the winners and losers when we make this change and remove these various obligations from primary legislation? We really do need to know.
A great deal spills on to the consultation process, which the Minister will no doubt mention. We shall deal with that in another group, but I point out now that, although I am sure the Minister will talk about public consultation, it is not in the legislation. There are a lot of issues to deal with around that.
I now turn to Amendment 54, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which I was glad to sign. I hope it is just that the drafters of the Bill wrote a badly constructed sentence and that the transparency that we would have hoped for is intended. Given the number of government amendments, I suspect the Bill has suffered from some rather rushed drafting, and if there is a government amendment to sort this sentence out, I would not object and I am sure no other Member of the Committee would.
The heart of the discussion today has been the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, supported by many others, for the specific inclusion of a community wealth fund. I can see scope for very good work here, but I have heard three concerns, some expressed here, and I want to pick up on them quickly. My noble friend Lady Barker talked towards one of them, but she did not explicitly mention it. It is about the character of the dormant assets fund. It is not an endowment fund. The numbers in the dormant assets fund are large because we were capturing 10, 15 or perhaps even 20 years of dormant assets that had been sitting around and were unspent. I reckon that dormant assets from banks and building societies are fairly close to exhaustion now. There will be new ones every year, but the bulk of dormant assets have already gone through the system. We are now drawing in more assets but they will follow the same pattern, and we may find future assets to put into the fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made the point that you can create something very successful and provide it with funding that can last for five years but, if it has no sustainable funding beyond that point, one is in something of a bind. I am not sure that many people have realised the character of the dormant assets fund. The point is that it should be exhausted and driven down to as close to zero as soon as possible by a combination of reclaim and the paying out of money. It cannot be replenished and continually provide support for many of the community wealth funds in the way that has been described. Sadly, there has to be some real thinking about how all that would work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I start by thanking all noble Lords who spoke for their reflections and remarks on the amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Hodgson put forward Amendments 54 and 55; the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, put forward Amendment 56; and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, put forward Amendment 56A. As we have heard, these amendments seek to enable specific causes to be supported through the Bill—namely the establishment of community wealth funds or provisions for primary financial education—and, in the case of Amendment 56, to clarify that the National Lottery Community Fund could not deliver a community wealth fund itself.
I shall start by responding to my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, regarding Amendment 54. I assure your Lordships that any future restrictions on spending in England would be contained in secondary legislation.
I recognise that many of these amendments have been tabled with the purpose of sparking a conversation on these initiatives; it is without question a conversation worth having. My noble friend Lord Hodgson expressed very eloquently, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the value of local community organisations and the needs of those communities. I have certainly seen, on my own visits, similar examples of the value that they can bring. Indeed, more broadly—and clearly beyond the scope of this legislation—we are hoping very much that both the levelling up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund will invest in what I think we described as the infrastructure of everyday life, much of which we have talked about this afternoon.
I also echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about South Yorkshire’s Community Foundation and the great work it does, mirrored across the country by many other local community foundations.
While we think that this is a conversation worth having, we are clear that a consultation, as set out in Clause 29, is the best way to agree future spending priorities for England. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, suggested that I would argue that we need more evidence before we can support a single cause. In one way, I agree with him, but there is a question before that. The point of the consultation is not just to identify the causes and restrictions that will be placed on future moneys; it is also to understand which of these should take priority in future and why. To do so, we need to identify the principles on which we would make such a prioritisation. Attempting to arrive directly at the answer by including specific causes in the Bill would limit and potentially distort the scope of the consultation and compromise its transparency, inclusivity and impact. Work on preparing the consultation will begin following Royal Assent, provided that the Bill passes with this measure. We will need to determine what these principles should be.
I hope it is helpful if I give a few examples of the kinds of issues that I think are important to discern through the consultation. For example, we might consider the benefits of focusing thematically at scale across England. We could take the example of the work Fair4All Finance is doing in trying to put an end to high-cost credit in this country—something I am sure we can all agree would be a great achievement. Contrast that with locally driven initiatives, such as the community wealth fund; we have heard much about their merits. I am not trying to argue that one is right or wrong; I just think that we need the discussion between competing priorities.
We could also think about the size of the problem that we are aiming to tackle. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also helpfully pointed out that this is not an endless flow of money. These should be problems that can be addressed within a certain timescale, so that the quantum and duration of the money released from the scheme in future would make a material difference—on Monday, noble Lords raised points about the ability to attribute and measure the impact achieved with the funding—as well as unlocking other funds using it. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and others at Second Reading. The work that the Youth Futures Foundation is currently doing, for example, focuses on expanding the evidence base on what works and has the potential to influence the way an entire sector approaches programme delivery. In another example, Big Society Capital has had a clear success in levering more funds in to the social investment sector.
I have heard that your Lordships care about impact. I am also keen to ensure that the impact of the existing causes, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and how far into their journey of achieving their missions the current organisations are, are taken into account. I stress that I raise these as illustrative examples of the types of conversations that should be had before determining which causes are not just good ones to support but the best causes for this unique type of funding. We need to get as much clarity as possible on how best to define future funding restrictions, to ensure that these funds achieve the greatest possible impact. It is, therefore, vital that we enable a public consultation to take place before making any changes or additions to the current uses of dormant assets funding in England.
We cannot commit at this stage to changing the recipients of this funding in primary legislation. This includes by referencing community wealth funds or financial education, as well as whether or not the National Lottery Community Fund should deliver them, as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, proposes. Given this, it is also not the time to prescribe the distribution mechanism for how future funding might best be administered. While the Secretary of State already has the power to add or remove distribution bodies, the National Lottery Community Fund has fulfilled this role for the past decade and there are no plans to change this. It has access to an extensive network of delivery partners, and has well-established systems of governance, accountability and assurance in place. For these reasons, I am not able to accept these amendments.
I now turn to why Clause 29 should stand part of the Bill. This clause amends part of the mechanism for distributing dormant assets funding in England so that it aligns with the model used in the devolved Administrations. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, highlighted, it will provide the scheme with greater flexibility to respond to changing social and environmental needs in the future by enabling the Secretary of State to make an order restricting the purposes of dormant assets funding in England. The Committee has heard this afternoon about the genuine tension that exists between flexibility of funding and the longevity and visibility of it. We believe that the consultation will help us understand this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me to specify the “winners and losers”. I hope very much that the winners of a consultation will be those that have the greatest impact from the use of the funds and which address issues that communities care about. Expansion of the scheme could unlock around £880 million more for good causes across the UK. In light of this sizeable amount, a changing social and environmental context in the wake of Covid-19, and public calls for input, it is right that we consider how to use this funding most effectively. Clause 29 enables us to do this while ensuring that these decisions have an appropriate degree of scrutiny.
As I have outlined further, the Government have committed to launching a public consultation on the social or environmental causes in England, provided this measure passes. The current restrictions will continue to apply until this consultation has been processed and an order is made. Any new restrictions will have to be approved by both Houses through the draft affirmative procedure.
This power will not affect the additionality principle: the distribution of dormant assets funds cannot be a substitute for government spending programmes. We will discuss this further as part of the debate on Amendment 60 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. With that, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and I commend that Clause 29 continues to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak relatively briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s Amendment 56A. I find the procedure slightly odd—I am still trying to influence the Minister after she has asked for it to be withdrawn—but I will give it a good go.
The importance of financial education and financial literacy in primary education does not need too much arguing. I recall a friend of mine, Emily, who finished secondary with four A-levels about three or four years ago. She chose to become a successful actress rather than go to university. About six months after she started work—she got work very quickly—she was furious that her education system had not told her about taxation and that suddenly she had to put money aside to pay her taxes as a self-employed actress.
That reinforced for me that we have an education system that is really passive on this. I was delighted a couple of years ago, when I was working for a company called TES, to be involved with the Bank of England and the Beano on producing some financial literacy resources for primary schools, which were very well received. I also endorse the work of KickStart Money.
It has become particularly acute that we must do more in primary education because of the cashless nature of our transactions. According to a survey this month published by, I think, Yahoo, fewer than a quarter of transactions in this country are now paid with cash. Children no longer see and feel money exchanging hands. They are no longer adding it up and making sense of 1p, 2p, 5p, 20p, 50p, £1, £10 and so on because it is not part of what most of us handle any more. There are apps. My stepdaughter will be 10 tomorrow. We use an app for her called RoosterMoney, which helps her with some of these things. But there has been an impact for primary schoolchildren on their numeracy, their understanding of debt, and of how their school is paid for and how their teachers are paid, because it is taxation and public money. These are really important parts of citizenship.
While the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was talking I thought that, although the amendment is about resourcing financial literacy in primary schools, I had better quickly check the primary curriculum to see what is in it. There are two mentions of “financial”. One is in respect of what the curriculum requires years 5 and 6 to do in terms of spelling. The noble Baroness asked whether there is something horribly wrong in the Department for Education. It is so obsessed with things such as spelling in English that you have to learn how endings that sound like “shall” are spelled, as in “official”, “artificial” and “financial”. The only other mention is in the context of maths. It says that studying maths is a good idea and “necessary for financial literacy”, so it gets a slight mention but that is it. There is no real requirement, but there is a little bit of a nudge that there is a good reason for studying maths. We have to do better.
This amendment, and putting something in statute, would give some priority and send a positive signal from government that we should do more on this. It would be able to fund some of the teacher training that is important to give primary school teachers better confidence and competence around how to link this in to various parts of the curriculum, because it is not just in maths that you can teach financial literacy. Of course, it could fund more of those resources so that it is not just down to the Beano, the Bank of England, KickStart and others and we have some properly evidence-based resources that help teachers to link across the curriculum in an engaging and interesting way for primary school students.
I urge the Minister to reflect and perhaps have a chat with some of her colleagues in the Department for Education—particularly the Schools Minister, who is obsessed with spelling, punctuation, grammar and maths but, frankly, is not really that interested in very much else in terms of what is specified in the national curriculum. We could do better.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I absolutely do not deny in any way the importance of financial education, but the issue here is not the importance of any individual cause. The challenge we are faced with—or the privilege that we will all have—is to contribute to a conversation about the right cause for this particular stream of money, with its unique features, and that includes the existing causes that are funded. We will be putting the cart before the horse if we focus too much on causes to go into the Bill; rather, we should put the combined intellect of your Lordships and others into making sure that we spend future moneys in the best way possible.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I had better begin with an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for not having name-checked her as a member of the committee. The truth is that I saw who signed their name to the amendment, but I did not see who was going to speak to it. That is an explanation, not an excuse. I know her as a doughty fighter, and I hope that she will accept this apology for not expressing my thanks to her.
She rightly drew attention to concerns about duplication and what we discussed in our committee about what we call “new initiative-itis”, where ideas are started by a Minister wishing to make a mark but they are abandoned after six months, whether they are good or bad is not followed through with and the institutional memory is never properly adjusted. I accept that. Indeed, I accept the caution from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about future funds flow. She pointed out that this is not an endowment fund but a flow that stops flowing when the money is spent.
I share the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we need continuity. There is sufficient visibility over the next five or 10 years to be able to provide the financial continuity that both she and I see as an important part of the community wealth fund concept.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about duplication, some of the plan methodologies that we have seen from the Community Wealth Fund Alliance are distinctive and will provide a different approach that is not duplicated elsewhere. However, I accept the strictures of both noble Baronesses.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for his support. His suggestion of pilot studies as a means of beginning to build institutional memory was interesting.
I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Of course I accept his remarks about financial education. He and I have discussed many times the narrowness of the national curriculum, which fails to provide education in many of the most important parts of what makes a citizen an effective and worthwhile person knowing their rights and their responsibilities. Financial education surely must be a part of that.
Finally, the response of the Minister was, as ever, smooth and beguiling, and I am trying hard not to be beguiled. I think she said that the current drafting already implies what is made explicit by Amendment 54. Well, if the amendment makes it explicit, let us have the amendment, so that that is explicit, as opposed to relying on the interpretation of the words “at some date in the future”. I hope that my noble friend will come back to that and think a bit more about it, and also about the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made.
On Amendment 55, the Minister said that consultation would begin as soon as the Bill becomes law. She referred later to the cart and the horse, and I have to say that that sounds like cart and horse to me because, essentially, Clause 29 throws all the cards up in the air, they will come down where they may, and the only way that your Lordships’ House, or indeed Parliament, will have to influence what happens after that will be by means of regulations. I fully accept that we will have a chance to look at them, but as has been said this afternoon, and as Members of the Committee know, they represent a lower level of scrutiny and of being able to amend what is proposed.
I understand the Minister’s reluctance to accept the amendment, and the weaknesses of the community wealth fund concept at this point in its history, but I hope that she will find time to reassure the people who are working hard in the Community Wealth Fund Alliance that the fact that the Government are reluctant to accept the amendments does not mean that they do not think it is a worthwhile concept. It is a worthwhile concept, and the Government ought to be finding ways—pilot schemes, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, suggested, and other ways—to encourage institutional memory and practice to develop in this area. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I think that the idea is distinctive, offers something that no other groups will offer and will be able to do so over a sufficiently long time to make it an attractive prospect in helping to rebuild our social capital. I hope that the Minister will think again about her remarks on Amendment 54. Let us make sure that we have absolute clarity about what can and cannot happen. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
“(aa) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the charity sector,(ab) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of communities that—(i) have benefitted, or(ii) may reasonably expect to benefitfrom funding under the scheme, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to understand the consultation process envisaged by the Government when it wishes to exercise powers under Clause 29. It proposes including representatives of charities and communities, as the main beneficiaries of the scheme.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak to Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam. My comments will also refer to the themes drawn out through Amendments 58 and 59, which are also in this group. This group of amendments builds on some of the issues raised in the previous debate about how we ensure that the fund is utilised in way that provides a degree of predictability for the charitable sector.
Consultation needs to be meaningful, and it needs to be seen to be meaningful. It must secure the confidence of the relevant groups and communities as well as the wider public and meet the need to ensure that decisions are fully informed. That quality of involvement is something that my noble friend Lady Lister highlighted when she spoke on the previous group about the need to involve the relevant groups and communities.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of these amendments, especially Amendment 59 in my name and Amendment 57, to which I have added my name.
With regard to Amendment 57, I was encouraged by the Minister’s response at Second Reading to concerns raised about the consultation process. However, given what she said and what is said in the fact sheet on the Bill, it seems very odd that the Bill itself suggests a narrower approach to consultation, restricted to
“the Big Lottery Fund, and … such other persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
That “if any” implies that the Secretary of State could well consider that there are no other appropriate persons—not a good look to the outside world.
While it is reassuring to have a commitment to wider consultation on the record, it does not have the same force ultimately as the Bill itself, especially if we are looking to any consultation that might be required in future because of a new order under this clause. Would it not make sense to amend the Bill so that it reflects the Government’s actual intentions, thereby giving a clear signal that the Government would like to hear from a wide range of relevant voluntary organisations and community groups? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a clearer idea of what is envisaged by way of consultation, but also that she will undertake to take the question away and see whether she cannot come back on Report with an amendment that better reflects the Government’s stated position than the rather forbidding wording of Clause 29(3).
I want to take this opportunity to refer back to the previous group and ask the Minister whether she can confirm that the idea of community wealth funds will be included in the consultation document. If it is not, only those who already know about the idea will be in a position to support it. This links back to what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said about the Government sending a signal that they consider community wealth funds a worthwhile concept. The Minister again carefully avoided saying what the Government think about community wealth funds, so some kind of signal to all those voluntary organisations in the alliance that they look sympathetically on the idea would be helpful.
Amendment 59 reflects concerns expressed, in particular by the NCVO, that there should be adequate time for consultation. When I tabled the amendment, I must admit that I thought that 12 weeks was the normal recommended time period. It had recently been breached by the six-week consultation on the New Plan For Immigration so I wanted to be sure that it would not be breached in this instance. However, thanks to a note provided for me by the Library, I have discovered that, some time ago, the Government withdrew the guidance on a recommended 12-week period in favour of departmental discretion. Since then, there appears to have been a marked reduction in the typical time allowed for consultations.
The NCVO puts two main arguments as to why consultation on the use of dormant assets should last for a minimum of 12 weeks. First, it is important that the Government hear from a wide range of groups and communities, which may themselves need to consult their members and may not be used to responding to government consultations. The official guidance on consultation introduced in 2013 indicated that, when deciding on the timescale for a given consultation, the capacity of the groups being consulted to respond should be taken into consideration. Timeframes should be proportionate and realistic. This all points to a good amount of time to ensure that such groups have the time they need to respond, even though the most recent iteration of the guidance in fact gives very little guidance at all. I was not at the meeting where the Minister gave assurances about following Cabinet guidelines but I do not think that those guidelines take us very far.
Secondly, the decisions that will be taken on funding have relatively long-term implications, notwithstanding what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said on the previous group, so it is important to take the time to listen and get the decisions right. I am sure the Minister will point out that it is not usual to specify a timescale for consultation in legislation, but in the face of increasingly vague official guidance, it may be necessary to specify it to ensure that the Government hear from all those they need to hear from. That said, I would welcome a clear commitment on the record from the Minister that the consultation will last at least 12 weeks.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 57. The essence of the case has already been well covered so I shall be brief, but brevity should not be taken as indicating that I do not attach considerable importance to this amendment.
The Committee will recall that, a couple of minutes ago when I was moving an earlier amendment, I emphasised the need for local views to be taken into account and the fact that, to be effective, “local” must mean precisely that. It is charities and voluntary groups, which are often quite small, that can speak most authoritatively about the needs of their local areas and communities, hence the first part of this amendment. It is obvious that the groups that are the likely recipients of funding under the scheme will have the most relevant first-hand experience or views about how the scheme is or should be operating.
There is a danger, of course. I fully accept that trying to discern what local communities really want is not always easy and may require particular effort. That is why there is a temptation to fall back on what I referred to a few minutes ago as gatekeepers. While many gatekeepers are absolutely fine, we need to ensure that those who are holding themselves out are sufficiently well plugged in to the detail.
In that connection, I re-emphasise the point I made—it was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, a minute ago—that the concept of community wealth funds are relatively unknown and therefore, to get a proper consultation on how they might work, the Government are going to have to do a bit of pitch rolling, if I may use a cricketing analogy, to ensure that the contributors to the consultation process have a full understanding of what they are being asked to respond about. Having said that, Amendment 57 seems likely to provide the objectives to be fulfilled, which is why it has my support.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, as I think this is her first outing in a Grand Committee in the House of Lords, and she is basically doing it in a prison visitors’ set-up. We probably feel like that sometimes here. She made the absolutely key statement: that consultation needs to be meaningful. That certainly underpins everything that I have to say.
I am exceedingly troubled by the very narrow list of consultees in the Bill. The Minister talks about the public, but has felt it really important not to put public consultation in the legislation. We really need an understanding of why she is so determined that the public will not appear in that consultation list. Obviously a Secretary of State who thinks it appropriate can do so, but it is not inherently appropriate in the way that the Bill is drafted. That really is important and it needs to be justified.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about the importance of including charities more broadly. I would add social enterprises. The noble Lord also pointed out the significance of local views.
It may be that I am an old cynic but I deal with a lot of consultations, particularly in the finance sector—they tend to be HMRC or Treasury-driven—and I am extremely conscious that a handful of voices get listened to. They are the sort of recognised powerhouses, the usual suspects and whatever else. Everybody else might get a little answer to one particular point that they make but very rarely—in fact, never within the field that I have covered—have I seen anybody other than that central core of usual suspects have any significant impact on the outcome, and lead to a different approach as a consequence of the consultation. I am extremely troubled by the way in which all this is currently structured and by its essential identification of only one big usual suspect: the Big Lottery Fund. Frankly, it is not fair to the Big Lottery Fund to make it carry that full burden alone, in the way that has been done.
My Amendment 58, also signed by my noble friend Lady Barker, was tabled because I am spitting tacks generally at the way that there is no role for Parliament in these consultations. From the many exchanges I have had with HM Treasury I know that, when there is a consultation, regulators take exactly the same point of view: that any parliamentarian is welcome to write in. Well, first, you do not find many parliamentarians with the time to develop and do all that but, secondly, they are not among the usual suspects who ever get seriously considered. It is not worth the candle most of the time and I have no reason to think that any other department will be very different in its attitude.
The first time that parliamentarians will have any impact will thus be in the useless process of dealing with a statutory instrument that they cannot amend or kill. This seems fundamentally disrespectful to Parliament. In an area such as this, we are essentially looking at Parliament in many ways as the guardian of people’s money that they have somehow missed or lost, or whatever else, so it is even more important that there should be that much wider voice speaking.
In Amendment 58, which is slightly hopeful, I have popped in a requirement to engage directly with Parliament. This problem will have to be resolved because consultation is increasingly becoming the substitute for scrutiny and accountability. It is not designed to do that in the way that it is structured at the moment.
I will pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It is quite shocking that we do not even have a reliable framework now for a consultation: it is back to departmental discretion. That is not appropriate. It is highlighted again in the Bill and, for all these reasons, I find this very troubling. We need a justification from the Government on their approach to consultation, and the answer is not: “In this instance, we’ve decided to do something very broad and general, so be happy”. Why is it in no way captured within the legislation itself?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 57, 58 and 59 put forward respectively in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, seek further commitment and clarity regarding Clause 29 and the statutory duty to consult. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for setting out so clearly the importance of the consultation process: we concur absolutely with the spirit of her remarks and I hope that my remarks on the earlier group show quite how critical we see the consultation as being as part of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked me to commit that a question about a community wealth fund will be in the consultation. We need a collective agreement on what goes into any consultation document, so I am unable to give her that reassurance today. Similarly, I hesitate to make any comment in relation to the specific community wealth fund initiative, however caveated in the way she suggests, because I do not want to give the impression that any decisions have been made before they have been. We are genuinely going into this consultation with the aim that I outlined on the earlier group; I hope she will accept that.
As noble Lords have noted, Clause 29 mirrors the approach for distributing funding that is already used in the devolved Administrations. In line with their process, the Secretary of State will consider who it is appropriate to consult and has committed to launching a full public consultation on the social and environmental causes in England, provided this measure passes. This will give the public and sector participants the opportunity to contribute their views before any change may be made to the current English causes. The devolved Administrations have similarly undertaken public consultations on the distribution of their portions before laying orders.
I will respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Merron. Making further specifications in this clause could imply that these stakeholders are more important than other groups which it might be equally appropriate to consult.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the length of the consultation. It will be open for a proportionate amount of time to allow for considered and good-quality responses, and will be in line with Cabinet Office guidance. She will be aware that, in response to the challenges faced by many groups, but including small community organisations, we have extended the time period of consultations where necessary, particularly, most recently, during the pandemic. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments and I ask that noble Lords do not press them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank the Minister for, as usual, responding very fairly, but I have a number of questions. She said, and I understand why, that she cannot commit to including the community wealth funds in the consultation document, but will she at the very least commit to considering it when discussing what will go into the consultation after the Bill becomes law?
The Minister did not respond to my fundamental question—it was raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—about the difference between what the Bill says about consultation and what she herself has said about it. I asked specifically whether she would take the matter away and have another look at it before Report. If the Government are committed to consulting community groups and so forth, why does the Bill not say so? It is sending out a very bad message if it stays like it is. I want to push her on that. Will she at least look at what has been said today and see whether the drafting of the Bill could not be improved? As has been pointed out, there has already been quite a large number of government amendments. This amendment would not change what the Government plan to do, but it would give a clear signal to the outside world that the consultation would, to use my noble friend’s word, be “meaningful”.
On the timescale, the Cabinet Office gives very little guidance now. Can the Minister at least confirm that she accepts that, given the kind of groups we want to hear from, “proportionate” points towards a longer rather than a shorter timescale for consultation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to commit to consider the community wealth fund proposal as we review the range of questions that go into the consultation. I apologise to the noble Baroness: I thought I had answered her questions. The framing in the Bill mirrors that of the devolved Administrations, which is why it is drafted in the way that it is. The Secretary of State has said in public that there will be a full public consultation on the social and environmental causes—I have said it several times at the Dispatch Box—so that is a matter of record.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response to the debate. I note that she acknowledged the importance of consultation and indicated that she concurred with the spirit of my remarks, which I welcome. However, I want to press the point raised by my noble friend Lady Lister about the need for the consultation to be meaningful, not just in how it is but in how it looks, how it feels and how it will work. My noble friend referred earlier to matters in the Bill being “not a good look”. I hope that the discussion today will support any changes the Minister might seek to make as we move along in the process to make the Bill, which is intrinsically good, “a good look” rather than to lose out by being in certain cases less than a good look. The quality of consultation is particularly important in that regard.
The Minister reiterated the point that the Secretary of State will decide who will be consulted and that a “proportionate amount of time” would be spent on the consultation. I believe that is all understood. However, the discussion today seeks to move us beyond that. The Minister’s argument sounds basically to be along the lines of we must trust the Secretary of State and be content with what is known as a “proportionate amount of time”. The point made so well by various noble Lords today is that perhaps it would be a better Bill if we were to be rather more focused and explicit about what we are offering, in terms both of timescale and of those who will be consulted.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the thinking and consideration that has been given today. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this group, which has shone a light on the ways we could improve matters. I am sure that we will revisit this as we continue to consider the legislation. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(5) Any distribution of dormant assets money provided for under this section must be additional funding, and must not replace funds previously provided for by the Government.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that any distribution of dormant assets money must be additional funding.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Grand Committee has certainly more than touched on the topic of additionality in previous groups of amendments, but I felt it was important to table a specific amendment. I am not at all precious about its wording; I just wanted to make sure that it got discussed directly.
From the beginning of the legislative process—even ahead of it, when she was kind enough to brief us—the Minister has spoken about the importance of the principle of additionality and reassured noble Lords that that principle would sit behind the dormant assets fund. I had a look to see where this is in the legislation. I am not the best comber of legislation so I would be delighted if the Minister were able to enlighten me if I have got it wrong. I can find a reference to additionality in the statues of the Big Lottery Fund; I can find it again in the 2019-22 management agreement between DCMS and the Big Lottery Fund. However, in the 2008 Act, which is entirely consistent with those two items, I only found it in the reporting and accounts requirements in part 3 of Schedule 3, which says:
“The report shall set out the Fund’s policy and practice in relation to the principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by … a Government department”
and the various devolved Administrations. Have I missed something? I cannot read anywhere that it is a requirement on the department or the Government to ensure that the structure is such that additionality is a fundamental principle. Have I missed it? Is it somewhere in the legislation and I have gone past it? If I have, I am very willing, and will be quite relieved, to be corrected.
The Bill in front of the Committee will allow other organisations to become major distributors, not just the Big Lottery Fund. Is the additionality principle particular for that fund? Will it be applied to other distributors? It seems that the issue is not discussed in any way. I am used to legislation in which, basically, Parliament empowers and instructs the Government to adhere to certain principles, and I cannot see that it is in here. If somebody can help me with that, I would be very grateful. As I have just described, the principle also has a sting in it. As I quoted before, it is
“to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by”
the Government. One can see the temptation to blur lines.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, as relatively few of us are speaking on this group, I follow straight on from my noble friend Lady Kramer. Unsurprisingly, I agree with everything she said. She has been putting her finger on quite a few weaknesses and gaps that appear in the Bill. We are all concerned to make sure that the money available does additional good work. It should not be used as an excuse by the Government to put in less than they would have otherwise, so that they do not take it into account by thinking they do not have to do quite so much because a top-up might come along from the dormant assets fund.
On that point, I am also curious as to what “unlikely to be made available by Government” means. It is hard to free one’s mind from the concern that the Government will somehow take account of this pool of money as a back-up, no matter what they say. Indeed, on Monday my noble friend referenced the money put in for Covid purposes and said that it was muddying the waters. The fact that the Government are prepared to recite it altogether means that they are taking it into account in some kind of bigger picture. It is hard to escape that point of view. The last thing we want is for there to be a pattern of cuts, followed by replacement funding.
In debate on the first group of amendments, the Minister said that the funding was intended to achieve maximum impact. That really means that it has to be doing things that would not otherwise be done or things that were previously being done, but from which the Government have decided they can withdraw. I am not saying that it cannot be used for that in extremis if the need is so great, but that cannot be the pattern that we allow. As my noble friend said, it would essentially mean that the money was in one way or another replacing taxation.
We debated this on Monday and, as my noble friend Lady Kramer also said, we have talked about reports and reviews. It is important to show how the money has been spent, and to show additionality—in other words, to show that there is clear water between the use of the funds and what the Government do. Perhaps this is a bit of a conflation of ideas but if things like community wealth funds might be going in at a different level, it could mean that they were more isolated from the risk of becoming replacement funding, in places where the Government have pulled out. This would be new funding.
We need something more in the Bill, unless the Minister can explain categorically that that idea is there. She may make statements about how the spending will be used but it would also be good, in the context of a review clause, to ensure that there is a review to find out whether things have actually happened that way, regardless of the original intention.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for tabling Amendment 60, which touches on an issue raised by many on Second Reading. I thought I heard the Minister, who has been extremely courteous throughout these proceedings, mention the Government’s intention to treat funds from dormant assets as additional to what is distributed through the other distributing bodies fed from the National Lottery.
The inclusion and identification of new dormant asset proceeds is welcome. I acknowledge the earlier commitment that these funds will remain additional, rather than replacing other types of financial help; that is extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has laid out the case well. There is consensus that we do not want funding of this nature to be replacement funding for mainstream government financing programmes.
If it is really the Government’s intention that this money should be used on top of other funding sources, I ask the basic, simple and fundamental question: where is the harm in the Government accepting this amendment? If they did, there would be a clear statement of policy intent, giving a clear direction on the face of the Bill. If the Minister says that the Government cannot do so, I shall be extraordinarily disappointed. However, I would be more than happy to work with colleagues across the House on this—and with the Government themselves, if they are not content to accept the amendment—to bring forward an alternative to the text in this amendment on Report. There probably is consensus that that would be the right thing to do.
Another important factor to bear in mind is that dormant asset funding will grow only as we find new dormant assets that can be used for charitable purposes. In no way should they be seen as an alternative source of funding, replacing government mainstream funding. For that reason, it would be right to put a commitment in the Bill, as a statement of principle, so I am more than happy to support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 60 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, seeks to confirm the principle of additionality. As I noted at Second Reading and during Monday’s debate, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also noted, the principle of additionality is set out in Schedule 3 to the 2008 Act and will continue to be a core principle of the scheme. The Act describes additionality as
“the principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by … a Government department”
or devolved Administration. The Bill does not alter the part of the 2008 Act in which the principle is defined, which affects all of the UK as opposed to just England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked to whom the principle applies. It applies to the National Lottery Community Fund, as she rightly said, not the Secretary of State in DCMS. That is because the National Lottery Community Fund is the main distributor of the funding and the accounting officer for the dormant asset funds, so there is also a read-through to the spend organisations on additionality, which I think was implicit in her remarks.
I absolutely respect the noble Baronesses’ and other noble Lords’ wish to get real clarity on what we mean by this principle but I hope that noble Lords will, on reflection, agree that the current definition gives a useful degree of flexibility. At one end of the spectrum, there are social and environmental causes that are clearly for government to fund, but, as the Covid pandemic has shown, there are areas in the economy that most of us would never have expected to receive government funding that have now received it, for example the furlough scheme. So we have flexibility depending on pandemics and other economic circumstances on where government funds, and that is well captured in the definition as we have it.
I propose to provide a couple of example of how the additionality principle has worked to date. I do not intend to be comprehensive but to show how it has worked in practice because I think that concern that it could in some way be departed from was behind a number of your Lordships’ comments, and I hope to reassure them that that is absolutely not the case.
The most obvious example of the principle is that it allows the scheme to fund something that would normally be seen as outside the scope of government intervention. A good example of that was the creation of the world’s first social investment wholesaler, Big Society Capital, which used a combination of dormant assets and leveraged private co-investment to make it happen. As another example, the principle of additionality could enable dormant assets funding to test interventions and gather evidence that could then be used as a model for other funders. For example, Big Society Capital and its associated fund managers have worked for a long time on homelessness using innovative social investment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I have no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I am grateful to everybody who has spoken. Obviously, the Minister is trying to give me some reassurance, but it has not taken me all the way, I have to confess. Although the additionality principle is in the Bill, it is there only in the context of shaping the work of the Big Lottery Fund; it is not there in the shape of a fundamental principle that applies, necessarily, if the Big Lottery Fund were to become one of several bodies managing distribution, for example, or if there were to be a different route for distribution. It is not sitting at that fundamental level; it is sitting at least one arm’s length away. So, I continue to have that concern.
I fully accept that the Minister has given some very good examples of additionality, but if she would care to look again at the GOV.UK website, to which I drew her attention when we were discussing some of these issues earlier in the week, it is a stretch to imagine that the additionality principle is applying to the £150 million from dormant bank and building society accounts involved in providing support to charities as a consequence of the Covid epidemic. Indeed, the way the Government discuss it—running it in with their own £750 million of additional funding—makes it very clear that they see this as a single programme, and express themselves very naturally and honestly in that way. There is a real question: do we say, “In extremis, forget the additionality principle”, in which case that ought to be acknowledged up front? Or do we say, “It’s always been a fairly weak principle and rather blurred; we have some good examples, but it is not something we are really going to press”? A lot of understanding needs to come from that.
When we go through a new Act, of course, Covid is at the front of our minds now, but I very much hope that in a matter of time it will not be and we will be back to normal procedures. We really need to know how the Bill will operate when it becomes an Act, because it will continue into that future period. So, I raised the issue of additionality and I think we could use some better answers. I absolutely still do not understand why it is not written in such a way that it applies to the government department’s actions. That is just beyond me, because I have certainly seen the Government draft similar constraints for other government departments in other areas, and I have certainly seen them accept amendments that do the same kind of thing. It just strikes me as a bit peculiar to see the way it has been handled here. I think all of us are concerned that it should be a tight ship and not a leaky one. Saying all that, I will, of course, withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barker
“Eligible recipients of dormant assets funds
(1) The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) In section 16(1), at end insert “to social enterprises and charities”.(3) In section 16(3), at end insert “to social enterprises and charities or to a body that will make grants or loans, or make or enter other arrangements for the purposes of complying with subsection (1), with social enterprises and charities”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that all the holders of funds would have to be registered social enterprises and charities and that any bodies that received funding would have in turn to work with social enterprises and charities.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Enterprise, at whose recent AGM I had the pleasure of listening to the Minister address the subject that we are coming to now. I admit that one of the reasons why I wanted to table this amendment was that, up until approximately an hour ago, the Committee had had very little discussion on social enterprises. We had, naturally, tended to focus on community groups and voluntary sector organisations and that is the trouble; social enterprises are always getting lost in discussions such as this. They also get lost when we come to talk about industrial strategy and so on. I wanted to focus some attention back on them because the dormant assets funding that has been released so far into the Big Society Capital fund and the Access foundation has been really important. It has helped more than 5,000 social enterprises since 2010, dormant assets worth £460 million have been put through social investment, and it has directly supported more than 1,500 organisations. It will be pleasing to some noble Lords that the vast majority—82%—of those organisations have been outside London, so the investment has been going into communities which are, by definition, less wealthy.
Social Enterprise UK, whose chair is the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, is currently investigating the impact of that, but we know that it is still difficult for social enterprises to access finance and that access to what finance exists is uneven. There is a particular deficiency in support for some minority ethnic organisations. It has always been the case that women and people from minority communities in any walk of life or business have had more difficulty than others in accessing capital. The biggest problem has been access to what is known as patient risk capital—long-term investments—for social enterprises. Dormant assets are exactly what would work for that.
That is the background to my amendment, which seeks to do two things. One is to limit the beneficiaries of the dormant assets scheme to charities and social enterprises. The reason for this is that, as the primary purpose of this legislation moves away from Parliament and down through departments, and given the experience of a year ago, when we watched the Government scrabbling to find money down the back of departmental sofas to put towards the voluntary and community sector, there is a feeling out there that we have to protect these funds from temporary political exigencies. We particularly need to protect against the creation of new vehicles, some of which may be companies, in an attempt to deliver the agreed main outputs of this fund.
Secondly, my amendment would limit the distributing bodies to being charities or social enterprises. We have already seen the emergence into that field of one entity which is not a charity or social enterprise. My noble friend Lady Kramer, who comes from the banking profession, has in previous discussions noted that if colleagues in her former profession were to see a profitable avenue to go down, they might well develop a new arm to do that. In the scope of banking it is not a massive amount of money, but we are talking about billions of pounds of assets.
It is for those reasons that I have tabled this amendment, and it is those issues that I wish to test in discussion. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief, because my noble friend Lady Barker has basically laid out the case. I suspect that it was thought a given by everybody in 2008 that the money would go to charities and social enterprises; it probably never occurred to them to do anything else. We live in a much more varied world these days, so it would seem to make sense to add the clarity which the amendment seeks.
When we considered some of the amendments on who should be consulted, they talked about charities. There is a tendency to forget the social enterprise sector and the crucial role it plays. It is a rapidly growing role. I was stunned to learn of the findings of a survey recently conducted by Social Enterprise UK to work out the size of its sector. It started off with the assumption that it was a sector of around £24 billion and discovered that it was one of around £60 billion. An awful lot gets missed and somehow goes under the radar. We need to make sure that attention is appropriately drawn. The amendment is successful in doing that.
As we move into the post-Covid world, we will need to pull all the good levers that we have. That means the social enterprise lever as well as the charitable lever. Making sure that the language matches the reality strikes me as significant and useful. I hope that the points that my noble friend has made will be taken on board. Sometimes it is important to make things explicit, particularly in legislation. I cannot think that it constrains the Government in any way that they would find unacceptable, but it may ring the bell of DCMS when it does the consultation to think, “One of the usual suspects we need to go and listen to is going to be in the social enterprise world; it won’t just be in the big charities world”. Sometimes, we have to do something to make sure those messages get through.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Although the amendment forms a different group, it certainly speaks to a number of the issues raised in previous debates over the past few days in Grand Committee. I am glad that the amendment is before us, because it shines a light on something very important in respect of social enterprises.
At Second Reading, I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raising several concerns about the Government’s approach to the dormant assets scheme, including about the long-term viability of projects and whether enough is being done to support social enterprises. She has just restated those concerns. Social enterprises are a crucial part of our economy, as they bring together those dual goals in respect of business but also social in a particular way that enhances our communities.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 64, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, proposes that all dormant assets funding must be distributed to registered charities or social enterprises. If I may, I will remind the Committee that there are two parts to the process of distributing dormant assets funding in England. First, the National Lottery Community Fund distributes funding to four independent, specialist spend organisations, which focus on one of the three causes currently specified in the 2008 Act. Secondly, the spend organisations themselves distribute funding to beneficiaries to deliver initiatives, in line with their respective objectives.
As your Lordships are aware, as independent organisations, the spend organisations are empowered to determine the best way to deliver long-term interventions to tackle youth unemployment, to increase the financial well-being of people in vulnerable circumstances and to grow the UK’s social investment market. This focus on creating systems change at scale is a major driver behind the scheme’s success to date. The unique flexibility that the scheme offers enables the money to be deployed innovatively and, as a result of this innovation, some of the bodies that distribute the funding do not happen to be registered charities or social enterprises themselves.
I have heard the emphasis that your Lordships have placed on ensuring the maximum impact of the scheme. Given the social and environmental focus required of the funding, as I have said in previous debates and in evidence to the committee which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to, it is hard to imagine that charities and social enterprises will not continue to be key partners in maximising this impact. I echo the comments of all the noble Baronesses who spoke on this group: I, too, absolutely recognise the important value of social enterprises. I have been working with a number of them, particularly in relation to implementing the social value Act and the important role that they can play in delivering government contracts in future.
However, organisations deliver impact on a spectrum. Impact-driven charities and social enterprises are an integral and important part of this spectrum, but we should not exclude mission-locked and mission-focused organisations that may differ in legal status. This is particularly so in light of the diversity of mission-locked organisations—many of which are led by individuals from black or other minority communities, which I know is an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to and sees as important.
Organisations that can deliver impacts which meet the objectives of the scheme should be able to do so; this should not be limited in terms of legal form or status, through primary legislation or otherwise. As I noted earlier this afternoon, it is imperative that we afford the public and our voluntary industry participants the opportunity to have a say in how future funding in England is distributed. Making changes to the recipients of this funding without first consulting would risk the legacy of the scheme that I know we all wish to see expanded and thriving. For these reasons, I am not able to accept this amendment and therefore hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendment, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. I thank the Minister for her considered reply. I hope she will understand that we have agreed from the outset of our discussions that there is an overall consensus about the benefit of the scheme and the Government’s intentions to take the existing scheme, grow it and make it work efficiently and effectively.
However, throughout our discussions the Minister will have picked up from all Benches a not inconsiderable degree of concern about the way the scheme is moving away from the initial primary legislation into secondary legislation, and the considerable powers of Ministers to change fairly fundamental aspects of it without further scrutiny. Although she was complimentary and supportive of voluntary organisations and social enterprises in her response, as I fully expected she would be, she still left the door open for for-profit companies to take over aspects of the scheme without any limitation. I worry about that. It is a real concern, particularly given the way parliamentary scrutiny is being watered down by the concept of the Bill.
I heard what the Minister said on this matter, but I am not reassured and I reserve my position for later stages, because there is something deficient about leaving the door open for the growth of non-charitable and non-social enterprise players in the distribution of this money. However, I heard what she said. We have come to the end of our discussions today and I thank her very much for the answer she gave. Therefore, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c. 8)
1A_(1) Part 24 of FSMA 2000 (insolvency) is amended as follows.(2) In section 359 (administration order), in the definition of “authorised reclaim fund” in subsection (4), for the words from “means” to the end substitute “has the same meaning as in the Dormant Assets Acts 2008 to 2021 (see section 26 of the Dormant Assets Act 2021);”.(3) In section 369A (reclaim funds: service of petition etc on FCA and PRA), in subsection (3) for the words from “means” to the end substitute “has the same meaning as in the Dormant Assets Acts 2008 to 2021 (see section 26 of the Dormant Assets Act 2021)”. Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (SI 2001/544)
1B_(1) Article 63N of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (activities of reclaim funds) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (1)—(a) in sub-paragraph (b) for “account” substitute “assets”, and(b) after sub-paragraph (b) insert “;(c) dealing with unwanted asset money.”(3) In paragraph (2)—(a) omit the first entry;(b) after that entry insert—““dealing with unwanted asset money” means—(a) the acceptance of transfers of amounts as mentioned in section 21(2)(b) of the Dormant Assets Act 2021, and(b) dealing with those funds (so far as they are not needed for either of the purposes mentioned in section 5(1)(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008) with a view to their transfer to the body or bodies for the time being specified in section 16 of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008;”;(c) in the second entry, for ““dormant account funds”” substitute ““dormant assets funds”, “reclaim fund””;(d) in the third entry for the words from the beginning to “the management” substitute—““management of dormant assets funds” means—(a) the acceptance of transfers of amounts as mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or 2(1)(a) of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 or 2(1)(a), 5(1)(a), 8(1)(a), 12(1)(a) or 14(1)(a) of the Dormant Assets Act 2021,(b) ”;(e) at the end of that entry insert “, and(c) dealing with those funds with a view to the transfer of amounts to the body or bodies for the time being specified in section 16 of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a paragraph 1A (making two consequential amendments to references in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to an authorised reclaim fund) and a paragraph 1B (amending the Regulated Activities Order to ensure it reflects the wider activities of a reclaim fund provided for by the Bill).
“3A_(1) In section 1 (transfer of balances to reclaim fund), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) A transfer of the balance of a dormant account as mentioned in subsection (1) does not itself—(a) constitute a breach of trust or fiduciary duty affecting the balance, or(b) give rise to any other liability of any kind (whether against the transferring bank or building society, the reclaim fund or any other person involved), other than the liability of the reclaim fund arising by virtue of subsection (2)(b).”(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to a transfer made before it comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make provision in section 1 of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 corresponding to Clause 17(1) of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would clarify that a transfer in pursuance of section 5(1)(ca) of the Dormant Bank and Building Societies Act 2008 (as inserted by paragraph 5(2)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Bill) is to be made to the body or bodies specified in section 16(1) of the 2008 Act.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that unwanted assets money does not have to be transferred to the body or bodies specified in section 16(1) to the extent that the reclaim fund needs to retain any of it to meet regulatory solvency requirements or to use it to meet relevant expenses.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove an unnecessary reference to the deduction of expenses, so that section 5(1)(cb) as inserted by paragraph 5(2)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Bill is consistent with section 2A(7) as inserted by Clause 20.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend the definition of “repayment claims” in section 5(6) of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 so that it covers claims arising by virtue of Clause 5(3)(b) as well as those arising by virtue of Clause 5(2)(b).
Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 so that it refers to Clause 5(3)(b) as well as Clause 5(2)(b).
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would correct an erroneous cross-reference.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment to Clause 14(3) at page 12, line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendments to Clause 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment to Clause 14(3) at page 12, line 26.
“umbrella company sub-fund umbrella co-ownership scheme sub-fund umbrella unit trust scheme sub-fund | section 9(6)(b) and (7) section 9(6)(c) and (7) section 9(6)(d) and (7)” |
This amendment is consequential on the government amendments to Clause 9.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Folic Acid
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with the response to their consultation about the fortification of flour with folic acid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the administration of folic acid to the bread of the nation to avoid around 500 neural tube defects a year is exactly the sort of preventative health intervention that we are putting at the heart of our health strategy. I am pleased to say that progress is being made, and I thank the devolved Administrations for their engagement in this measure to ensure that we have alignment between the four nations. I reassure noble Lords that this remains a priority for the Government.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, surely the Government have run out of time and must now announce that they will follow the science and finally act to help to prevent the entirely avoidable numbers of babies born with neural tube defects? Recommendations were to be announced as soon as the recent elections were over, and if we are serious about preventative medicine and health, surely on this issue, where UK research has led the way to many other countries taking action long before now, there really can be no further delay or excuses.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we are committed to following the science and are totally persuaded by it. However, I cannot avoid the fact that there were elections in devolved nations, which have meant that politicians and Secretaries of State in some of those countries were not available to engage with. I am pleased to report to the House that we have made a lot of progress in engaging with the devolved nations. We could not possibly do this policy without their support, buy-in and alignment. Progress is continuing at great pace, and I look forward to returning to the House and updating it at a future date.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in March this year, the noble Lord said that the Government were taking time to create a
“solution that is endorsed by mill owners, paediatricians and all the relevant stakeholders.”—[Official Report, 23/3/21; col. 720.]
Given that the position of UK flour millers is acceptance if the Government decide to introduce mandatory fortification, and given that there is overwhelming support from the medical community, why are the Government dragging their feet and not introducing this measure, when it is proven to reduce neural tube defects in babies? Next month is the 30-year anniversary of when this link was proven. Why are we taking so long to put this measure in place?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right: medical opinion on this matter has absolutely consolidated around support for it, and the consultation in September 2019 was extremely positive indeed. I am extremely grateful to mill owners, both the large industrial ones, which make a lot of the white flour, and the artisanal mill owners, which had complexities of their own. The engagement with them has been enormously positive, and I cannot see any obstacle on that front. However, there is a machinery of government point that needs to be addressed: we have to work it through the devolved nations and other arm’s-length bodies, and we are doing that at pace.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, from my noble friend’s responses, the House will be clear that this decision is under way. Could my noble friend give some idea of whether we might expect an announcement before the Summer Recess? We know that hundreds of children being born with spina bifida and anencephaly, which can be so damaging to themselves and their families, could be avoided. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can stop such problems occurring.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I agree with my noble friend; she is right that this is a priority. However, it is not within my gift to simply grant a decision on it; it needs to be worked through both industry and government. We are making progress on this. It is a huge national undertaking for us to put substances literally in the bread of the nation. The public deserve to feel confident that that decision has been made thoughtfully and responsibly, and it is entirely right that we take care to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Government have had an awfully long time to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s. When the MRC research first came out, my children were the age that my grandchildren are now. Some 80 other countries have moved more speedily than the UK on the evidence provided by the UK-funded MRC research. As well as the noble Lord making progress on this before the Summer Recess, will the Government look at what the barriers were that made us as a country so slow to come to the decision to fortify flour?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, this Government’s progress on this really came to a head in the consultation in September 2019, and we have been on course to implement these measures since then. It is unfortunate that the Covid pandemic intervened at that point and we had to put work on this project on hold until April of this year. Since April, we have had to deal with the elections in the devolved Administrations. That, unfortunately, creates an insuperable barrier to taking the measures through all the necessary checks and alignments. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are totally committed to this policy, we are moving at pace and I look forward to further progress shortly.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
I very politely remind the Minister—and it is on the record—that the three devolved Governments were in favour of this policy before the English Government were, so there cannot really be any substance of any delay from the devolved Governments. I know this because, with scientists, I discussed it with some of the Ministers. My other point is that, given that we already fortify with three substances, there cannot be any technical difficulties whatever in the flour mills in adding folic. There should not be any long-term delay of a technical nature, should there?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Can I just take a moment to bear testimony to his patient and determined campaigning on this issue? He has held the Government’s feet to the fire on it, and I am grateful for his focus. He is right that we are hopeful that there should not be any substantive delay with the industry. A huge amount of work has gone on in the consultations and the dialogue we have had, and I am grateful for that. However, the Senedd and Scottish parliamentary elections in May meant that new personnel were at the top of government. We hope that they are as supportive as the noble Lord so rightly pointed out, but there is a process to get the official endorsement that we need to take this forward and we are waiting for that paperwork to come through.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that 50% of pregnancies are not planned? Therefore, while the Government consult and procrastinate, what communication is being planned with women of childbearing age to tell them that they need to take a folic acid supplement before they start a pregnancy to avoid NTDs in their babies?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, this Minister is very aware—personally extremely aware—of the fact that 50% of pregnancies are not necessarily planned. As the noble Baroness knows very well, that is one of the reasons for this policy and that is why we are so supportive of it. The education that goes to new mums and dads on folic acid is done through GPs, and we are always looking at ways to enhance that. But I think there is no better of way of ensuring that folic acid gets to the right people at the right time than through this measure, and that is why we are supporting it as energetically as we are.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister comment on whether the Government have been working with the health authorities in other countries to review the evidence from the more than 80 other countries where folic acid has been mandatorily added to food products?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is my understanding that both the Department of Health and Defra have been engaged with other countries on this matter. I will be glad to write to the noble Baroness with any details that we may have on record.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I listened to the Minister’s answer where he referred to delays as a result of the Covid pandemic and the elections in the devolved Administrations. While they may be recent issues, this delay well precedes both those important events. As my noble friend Lord Rooker and others have so eloquently expressed, patience on this is long exhausted and parents-to-be cannot be expected to continue to carry such risk. Can the Minister tell the House exactly when babies will be protected? Is the delay that we have seen over decades due to any change in the Government’s position?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I absolutely reassure both the noble Baroness and all noble Lords in the Chamber that there is absolutely no equivocation on behalf of the Government in this matter. It is a huge undertaking to put a substance in the food of the nation. It is therefore something that has to be endorsed by all the relevant bodies, including the four nations and other arm’s-length bodies. We have to ensure that we have all the public health sign off and the industry support that we need, and we need to take the public with us. There will be a moment when we need to sell this to the public, and they will have questions and we will need to have a dialogue. When that happens, I would like to have crossed all the “t”s and dotted all the “i”s so that we are in great shape. That is why we are being as thorough as we can. I reassure all noble Lords that there is no question of us going backwards on this.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and we now come to the second Oral Question.
Electric Vehicles: Impact on Household Energy Bills
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on household energy bills of Ofgem’s proposals for powering electric vehicles, announced on 24 May.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I refer to my interest as president of National Energy Action.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, under their green recovery scheme, electricity distribution network operators will accelerate £300 million of investment into network reinforcement to support low-carbon projects, including electric vehicle charge points. About half of this will be sourced from efficiencies delivered by network companies, with the rest from new funding. Ofgem estimates that this will translate to an additional 65 pence on consumer bills for the next two years. This will decrease to around 15 pence from 2023.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the Answer. Many will welcome this investment, but why are households, many with no car, electric or otherwise, picking up the lion’s share of the bills for not only the rewiring of electric vehicles but the cost of renewables and meeting net-zero commitments? I urge my noble friend and the Government to be more transparent, so that consumers know exactly who is paying for what.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point, but the transition to net zero will affect everyone, and everyone will benefit from avoided climate change impacts and cleaner air. Ofgem publish on its website a breakdown of the costs that make up a consumer’s energy bill. These include the costs of maintaining and upgrading the electricity network, typically about 20%, and social and environmental obligations, also around 20%. The Government are very conscious of trying to deliver transparency.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if people will be spending 30 minutes charging their car, we would like them to do that where we would like them to be spending 30 minutes—that is, next to the high street? Will the Government look at what obstacles there are to provision in that sort of location and set about removing them?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point about trying to increase footfall on the high street at the same time as increasing the use of electric vehicles. The on-street residential charge-point scheme is available to all local authorities to provide public charge points for their residents who do not have access to private parking. To date, the scheme has supported over 105 local authorities to fund over 3,900 charge points, and this year another £20 million is available to ensure that more local authorities can benefit. Additionally, I am aware that Ofgem are talking to people such as Costa Coffee and Marks & Spencer to see whether we can put more charge points at their out-of-town sites.
Lord Broers (CB) [V]
My Lords, if home electricity prices apply, the cost per mile to propel a typical electric car will be very much lower than that needed to propel a fossil-fuel car. However, two-thirds of the cost of petrol and diesel is duty and VAT. Do the Government plan to tax electricity for electric cars in a similar way, or will they retrieve the approximately £30 billion lost to the Exchequer by other means, such as the long-rumoured road pricing, and how would such changes be phased in?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord will appreciate that matters of taxation are for the Chancellor, but the Government have set out that, as we move forward with this transition away from petrol and diesel cars and vans, we will need to ensure that the tax system continues to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. Revenues from motoring taxes must keep pace with this change to ensure that we can continue to fund the first-class public services and infrastructure that people and families across the UK expect. I am sure that the Treasury will be looking at other ways of taxing electric vehicles in the future.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I am an owner of an electric vehicle. Will the Minister accept that the Government’s determination to push forward with electric vehicles is not keeping pace—or anything like—with in particular the extent of off-street charging points at home, and that it is not sufficient to say that this is the responsibility of local authorities? They need much more generous subsidy support from the Treasury to match anything like what Oslo had when I witnessed it five years ago: extensive stanchions for electric charging outside people’s homes. That is where we need to be.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. The Government are determined to increase charging points, on-street and near homes, but also at motorway service stations and on the road system. We have announced a £1.3 billion fund to accelerate the rollout of charging infrastructure, targeting support on rapid charge points on motorways and major A roads, to dash any range anxiety around long journeys. We are installing more on-street charge points near homes and workplaces to make charging easier—as easy as refuelling a petrol or diesel car. We will publish an infrastructure strategy later this year. I do not agree with the noble Lord: on international comparisons, we are doing pretty well on charge points. I think the only country that has overtaken us is Holland.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
What plans do the Government have to address the substantial differences in costs for electric-vehicle owners between those who have off-street parking and can charge from their domestic electricity supply and those who do not and consequently have to pay fees to charging companies, which can be up to six times as high as domestic electricity prices?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am aware of some of the much higher charges for on-street charging, but the Government want to ensure that lack of access to off-street parking is not a barrier to realising the benefits of owning a plug-in electric vehicle. The on-street residential charge scheme is feeding through to local residents via their local authorities, to enable them to charge outside their homes and on the high street, as I have previously mentioned. The A-road system and the motorway system are also gaining a huge amount of investment to install at least six very rapid charging points in service stations.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
With the Government already reducing the grant for new electric vehicles, and around half of the £300 million of Ofgem’s additional support coming from savings from other projects, the remainder will need to be met by consumers. How do the Government propose to make the transfer to electric vehicles affordable and to distribute new charging points effectively and equably across all regions of the UK?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We pledged a further £582 million in grants for those purchasing zero-emission or ultra-low-emission vehicles to make them cheaper to buy, alongside generous tax incentives. We are also working with industry to deliver a market-led countrywide rollout of charging infrastructure. Our infrastructure strategy, which will be published later this year, will set out how we intend to measure progress in charging infrastructure provision and to ensure that there are enough in the right locations to support the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend is very aware that the move to electric vehicles will introduce significant new challenges to the grid, but can she provide an assurance that Her Majesty’s Government are also taking into account the requirements on the electricity grid to enable 600,000 new heat pumps each year? Can she share with the House what estimates exist for the cost of upgrading the grid to support the mass introduction of both electric vehicles and heat pumps?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right: we do expect the transition to electric vehicles and heat pumps to create significant new demands for electricity. Ensuring that local electricity networks are prepared for current and future demand is the responsibility of the distribution network operators—the DNOs—who are incentivised to do this through the regulatory framework known as price control, set by Ofgem. This includes making additional funding available via uncertainty mechanisms, which allow DNOs to access funding for net-zero-related projects that were uncertain at the start of price control but become more certain later on. As electricity becomes a common fuel, it will bring certain challenges, which the Government are endeavouring to address.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have just bought my first EV, and it has been a salutary experience. A cable of the length that we require to charge direct from our home is out of stock. We also planned to have a charge point in our garden, but our installer, one of the major players, did not have the standard model in stock. It has had to be imported from the Netherlands and has been delivered late. From order to installation will have taken nearly seven weeks. Does the Minister agree that, if public confidence in EVs is to grow, the EV industry must radically improve and foreshorten its processes?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is very unfortunate that the noble Lord’s home charge-point installation took so long. I do sympathise. There are over 5,000 installers. There are 50 charge-point manufacturers registered with the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles to install charge points under the electric vehicle home-charge scheme. This should provide a range of options for drivers to get a charge point installed. The infrastructure strategy will set out how we intend to measure the progress of these charging infrastructures being delivered to the home as well as to the high street.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Defence: Continuous At-sea Deterrence
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether continuous at-sea deterrence remains central to their defence policy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the nuclear deterrent will remain essential for as long as the global security climate demands. No alternative system is as capable, resilient or cost effective as a continuous at-sea deterrent capability based in four nuclear-armed submarines. As stated in the Government’s integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, we will maintain our four submarines so that at least one will always be on a continuous at-sea deterrent patrol.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reassuring Answer. Is she aware that such knowledge as I have in these matters was learned a very long time ago at the feet of the then Mr George Younger, whose son now sits on the Government Front Bench in your Lordships’ House? Can my noble friend confirm that the number of warheads necessary to maintain this deterrent in an effective form are definitely to hand?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, I can confirm to my noble friend that, to maintain the credibility of the deterrent and the minimum destructive power needed to guarantee that it does remain credible and effective against a whole range of state nuclear threats from any direction, an assessment has been made. The UK will move to an overall nuclear weapons stockpile of no more than 260 warheads—an increase of 15% from the previous ceiling of 225. I make it clear this is neither a target nor the current number of warheads, but it represents the upper limit of what we think we might need to maintain the credibility of the deterrent.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, for over 50 years, the submarine-based nuclear deterrent has ensured peace and acted as the ultimate guarantor of our nation’s security against nuclear blackmail. Those involved in this complex, difficult and continuous enterprise deserve our thanks. Does the decision to run the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment at Dounreay in Scotland for three years longer than planned, to meet
“the need to support the extended scope of the operational work”,—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/21; col. 101WS.]
mean that it is related to the life extension of the Vanguard class? As the PWR2 reactor will be running innumerable submarines for many more years, has there been any reassessment of the Royal Navy reactor prototype review of 2015 to see whether Vulcan should remain operating even longer?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, we are conscious of the obligations of seeing through the transition from the existing class of nuclear-armed submarines to the new Dreadnought class. That Dreadnought submarine programme remains on track to enter service in the early 2030s. There will be no compromise to the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent. On the specific points he raises, he will understand I am unable to release specific information about supply, support and logistics. But we are satisfied that our continuous at-sea deterrent is operating effectively now and discharging all its tasks and, in the transition and beyond, will continue to do that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, arms control experts have, for years, been advocating that the P5 states—the legally recognised nuclear powers, which include the UK—reaffirm the statement made by Gorbachev and Reagan in 1985 that
“a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
I am sure the Minister is aware that just last week, the current US and Russian Presidents issued that very statement. Will the UK endorse and repeat that statement?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. Most of us in this Chamber can recall the conviction of President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that a nuclear war cannot be won and can recall the contribution that statement made to stability at that time. The avoidance of war between nuclear weapons states and the reduction of nuclear risk is one of our foremost responsibilities. We welcome the US and Russia’s joint statement on 16 June and their commitment to a bilateral strategic stability dialogue. We regard this as a serious signal of intent to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance mutual trust and security by the two countries, which hold almost 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, given that a single nuclear submarine could deliver nuclear weapons with more than 100 times the destructive yield of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which incinerated over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, does my noble friend agree that while the possession of such weapons of mass destruction may be justified as a necessary evil at present, it remains the firm policy of Her Majesty’s Government to work towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons? If so, how do they intend to advance that agenda?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I refer my noble friend to the non-proliferation treaty, which the UK regards as a cornerstone of the international multilateral architecture on nuclear issues. Over 50 years on, that treaty continues to be a success. It has created the framework to reduce tensions and arms stockpiles. The UK will continue to work for a successful NPT review conference later this year. Our core objective is to demonstrate international unity behind the treaty and strengthen its implementation.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, clearly, the nuclear deterrent contributes to the defence of the realm, and its cost to the MoD makes sense. What does the Minister make of the proposals to have a new royal yacht, which, whatever benefits it might bring to trade or global Britain, would appear to bring very little to defence? Why should the MoD be funding it?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It is not a new royal yacht; it is a new national flagship. I think that is a very good thing, if I must make my opinion clear. The noble Baroness is correct that the MoD will be responsible for the initial cost of taking the flagship through the procurement process, but the source of government funding for the rest of the project is still to be determined. To the cynics I would say: this ship will have an important national security and foreign policy function. It is not a warship, and its primary role will be to promote trade and protect the nation’s economic security.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, if our nuclear deterrent is to be credible, it must also be viable. My noble friend mentioned two aspects of that viability—the continuous at-sea deterrent and having a suitable number of warheads—but is not a third aspect that we must not hand the advantage to our adversaries by being overly prescriptive about the circumstances in which we would use that nuclear deterrent?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As my noble friend is aware, the UK has neither a first-use nor a no-first-use policy, and to avoid simplifying the calculations of our potential adversaries, we will remain deliberately ambiguous about when, how and at what scale we will contemplate use of our nuclear weapons.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as patron of the Submariners Association. The Minister’s Answer was welcome. Will she pay tribute to the crews of the current Vanguard class, who are having to work extraordinarily and unbelievably hard, with significant sacrifice for themselves and their families, to keep their ageing submarines going to ensure that the continuous at-sea deterrent is sustained? They will have to continue to do so for another 10 years until the Dreadnought class comes into operational service.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, I certainly echo the noble and gallant Lord’s respect and admiration for the crews on the Vanguard submarines. Every minute of every day of every week of every year, they safeguard the interests of this country and contribute to our alliance within NATO to protect our global friends and partners. We absolutely should put on record our profound appreciation of the crews of these submarines. They are deserving of our highest respect and admiration.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I reiterate our support for the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent as part of our UK defence policy and the contributions it makes to our alliances and the protection of democracy across the world. However, the recent integrated review announced an increase, as the Minister said, in the cap on the number of nuclear warheads to 260. Notwithstanding her earlier replies, can the Minister elaborate further on why this was thought necessary? What has changed to justify the increase? What consultations took place? What is the timescale for the increase to take place?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can add little to what I said to my noble friend earlier, but I confirm to the noble Lord that we make a continuous assessment of threat—where it is emerging and what its character is. We are clear, as he will understand, that the critical adjective in relation to our deterrent is “credible”; for it to remain credible, our judgment was that we had to increase the number of warheads.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
National Science and Technology Council
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the devolved governments about the establishment of the National Science and Technology Council.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so draw attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the national science and technology council is to be a new Cabinet committee which will provide strategic direction on the use of science and technology as the tools to tackle great societal changes, level up across the country and boost prosperity around the world. Membership of Cabinet committees does not typically include members of the devolved Administrations, but we will continue to engage with them as work goes forward.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, as a former mathematics teacher, I welcome any new initiative that boosts science and technology. In another former job, as First Minister of Scotland, I created the role of Chief Scientific Adviser to the First Minister of the Scottish Government in 2006. There is a considerable opportunity here for the Governments across the UK to work together for maximum benefit in this new initiative. I therefore urge the Government to include on the agenda of the next economic recovery summit—if the Prime Minister’s recent summit was not just a one-off gimmick—this initiative for a new science and technology council, maximising co-operation across the UK with universities, government advisers and other scientists.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said and the general welcome he has given. I pay tribute to him for his own work. I can certainly assure him that, for example, the role of the new technology adviser covers a breadth of issues that necessarily make it a UK role, but the office for science and technology strategy is expected to engage regularly with chief scientific advisers and officials on how science and technology are being deployed across the United Kingdom. This will and does include the chief scientific advisers and officials in the devolved Administrations.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, prime ministerial initiatives of this kind usually reflect unhappiness with the status quo. In this context, what relationship will the new council have with UKRI, our largest public funder of research and innovation, which has widespread support from academia and industry and whose mission statement states that it exists
“to build a thriving, inclusive research and innovation system that connects discovery to prosperity and public good”?
As a scientist, I welcome more investment in science and technology, as my noble friend did, and I note that announcements such as this can generate good headlines, but can the Minister explain why it is in the public interest for the Cabinet Office to set up a similar, parallel operation to existing BEIS structures?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there are a whole range of bodies and organisations—the academic world, business, the scientific community, universities—and a whole range of people contributing to our effort in harnessing and developing science and technology. This new initiative is not intended to supplant the work of anybody but to signify at the very highest level—a new Cabinet committee—the determination of the Government to move forward and exploit these opportunities in a fully co-operative manner.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, following on from that question, when this new body was announced, it was linked to the research and development budget. As the Minister knows, until a few years ago, research councils independently directed the flow of R&D support. Just two years ago, UK Research and Innovation absorbed those research councils with the idea of focusing the effort in science. Now, with ARIA, the national science and technology council and the office for science and technology strategy, the Government have announced three new research bodies this year alone. There is no shortage of complexity, as the Minister pointed out, but where is the money? Either the Prime Minister’s new committees are making a budget grab, taking over from UKRI, or they have no money and therefore no way of implementing these strategies. Which will it be?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I consider that a less than enthusiastic response to an initiative in respect of which I have welcomed the support of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition. The Prime Minister is tasking the whole of government, working with the new council and office, to take the success of the United Kingdom’s approach to vaccines and apply it to other priorities. We are setting bold visions, acting with speed and taking risks which can bring high rewards and benefits to the UK, including developing technology to reach net zero and cure cancer, not only treat it. A broad range of work will take place. Funding for specific programmes of research is obviously a matter for the normal process of the consideration of public finance.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, in principle I welcome the creation of this new body, and in particular the Government’s commitment to operate on a UK-wide basis. What additional assurances can the Minister offer me to persuade the people of Northern Ireland that something positive will come out of this high-profile announcement and that they will stand to benefit? Further, I am a little alarmed that the intention is that the Prime Minister will chair it and that Sir Patrick Vallance, who already serves as the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser and head of the Government Office for Science, will take on this new responsibility as national technology adviser. If this body is to work, would it not be better for it to be headed by individuals whose time is not currently dominated by tackling a global pandemic?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first question, I reiterate what I said in response to the initial Question: the intention is absolutely to work co-operatively. I believe, despite comments made in certain quarters, that most will welcome the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to lead and support this. Sir Patrick Vallance has extensive experience in the academic world, in industry and in working with Ministers in his role as Chief Scientific Adviser. We believe that provides a strong foundation for the role, along with the leadership qualities Sir Patrick clearly demonstrates. It is a considerable new role, but we have full confidence that he can perform both roles. He will of course be fully supported by the new office for science and technology strategy in the Cabinet Office.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the creation of a science and technology council enhancing the United Kingdom’s reputation as a science power—a field in which we have undoubted skill sets—is essential, but so too is the important point raised by the Question of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about United Kingdom inclusiveness. Can the Minister confirm that supporting multilateral objectives, through its bilateral trade negotiations on IP commitments, has been critical to R&D? Is it recognised that the United Kingdom has often failed to ensure maximum benefits for our country by not having the requisite long-term financing to capitalise on innovation that originated in this country?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is some truth in what the noble Lord has said, which is widely acknowledged; it is one of the many reasons why the Prime Minister has given such a strong personal commitment to lead this new Cabinet committee. The purpose of the council is to set the overarching strategy on how to use science and technology to boost the United Kingdom’s prosperity, security and well-being. Specific policy levers still fall under the purview of relevant departments; thus, Trade covers international trade, and BEIS the R&D ecosystem, including innovation and access to finance. On the second strand of the question, as demonstrated at the G7, our international partners recognise the need for collaboration across science and technology. The office for science and technology strategy will establish centre-to-centre dialogues to ensure that our decisions are both realistic and load-bearing. Existing engagement through wider fora will continue, to enable the UK to spot opportunities for mutually reinforcing partnerships internationally.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, some years ago, when I was a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee in another place, we held an inquiry into why it was that we invented things here but the Americans made money out of them. How will this new council solve that problem?
Lord True (Con)
Solving that problem is a total challenge for every part of the broad science and investment infrastructure. It is far more likely that those problems can be resolved if the entire resource at the highest level of Her Majesty’s Government is put behind achieving that objective.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary Questions have been asked.
Events Research Programme
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Answer on the events research programme, which shows the devastating impact that Covid restrictions are having on events programmes and the hospitality sector. Public health and personal security must remain as priorities, but this is not helped by the lack of transparency surrounding the publication of the ERP findings. Will the Minister commit to the full disclosure of the report and what it means for the road map? Will she also commit to tackling some of the current ridiculous inconsistencies applied to events that enable Wimbledon, race meetings and Euro 2020 matches to have spectators but prevent Brighton Consort choir even holding rehearsals?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
The Government have always said that we will publish the findings of the events research programme ahead of step 4 of the road map, and we are committed to that. I assure the noble Lord that the results will be published very soon. In relation to inconsistency, I think that we can all understand the difference between rigorously set up and implemented pilots to test the impact of larger crowds coming together and the wider lifting of lockdown, and how one will inform the other.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister undertake to look at how information is disseminated on this? The fact that there have been leaks before it has come out officially does not help anything. Also, can the Minister comment on the position of the Government underwriting insurance for future events? At the moment, if it is thought that things might be extended, or possibly that there might be another lockdown, how can we plan for the future? This is totally strangling the events industry.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I share the noble Lord’s concern about leaks in this area. In relation to insurance, the Government are of course aware of wider concerns about securing indemnity insurance for live events. We are continuing to assess a range of options to provide further support to the sector in the public health context.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I urge my noble friend to take back to the department the concerns I hear expressed time and again about the lack of transparency around data from the events research programme, which we are led to believe suggests that there are no serious risks of Covid during events. Even before the delta variant—I recognise that—events were not superspreaders in the way they would have been last year. These draconian restrictions on our everyday lives seem to most people to be difficult to justify in light of the current low levels of infection and, in particular, deaths, as well as the extensive success of our vaccine programme, on which I hugely congratulate the Government.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hear my noble friend’s frustration on this, but there really is no lack of transparency. This is a very rigorous set of pilots. The complex data needs to be analysed, and I am sure my noble friend agrees with me that it would be really unhelpful to put it in the public domain until that has been completed.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, following repeated requests to see the full ERP 1 research protocols, a brief science statement was finally issued on 4 June. It says the ERP 1 will provide evidence on effectiveness of ventilation, organisation, venue design and attendee behaviour but will not
“generate any direct evidence based on transmission data on how … events might be done to mitigate risks of transmission”.
Does the Minister agree that this falls far short of sector expectations and the original aim, which GOV.UK still says is examination of the “risk of transmission”? Can she explain why the Government have not followed best-practice open science and released full protocols and findings to allow the valuable scrutiny of the wider research community?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot judge other people’s opinion on this, but we have certainly been transparent, as the noble Baroness sets out clearly, in what is possible and achievable in these trials. We have been very clear that the purpose of these pilots is to release the data when it has been fully analysed, which I hope will be very shortly, so that organisations working in the live events area can plan and reopen as quickly and safely as possible.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, the Church of England has adopted a clear policy on encouraging people to be vaccinated. However, at the same time, like many organisations, we cater for a variety of people, some with strongly held ethical convictions and objections to the vaccine, covering issues from animal testing to the use of aborted foetal cells. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to uphold freedom of religion and belief and offer an alternative to vaccine certification for religious events?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I am sure the right reverend Prelate is aware, the Government are very concerned about, and keen to uphold, freedom of religion and expression. I will take back the specific question on religious events and write to him.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the parliamentary choir. Research into disease transmission is obviously very important, and I am sure that the results will be helpful for future planning. However, common sense should not be ignored. Can the noble Baroness now answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley:
“is it not utterly ridiculous that shouting, chanting and drinking fans can congregate and hug each other”—
and be seen on television doing that—
“but a small, amateur, vaccinated and socially distanced choir cannot meet to rehearse?”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; col. 18.]
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, the scenes that were broadcast of people singing in pubs around the events outside the scope of the pilot events are governed by step 3 of the road map, which is absolutely clear that such behaviour is not permitted.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, thanks to Politico this morning, we now know that the events research programme has internal polling which shows that, if face masks were to continue after 19 July, 28% of people will be less likely to attend an event; a ban on food and drink would mean that 43% of people would be less likely to attend an event; and only with mandatory Covid testing would 15% would be more likely to attend. In light of that data, what are the long-term implications for testing at such events?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. One of the things that we are seeking to understand better in the third phase of the events research pilots will be the use of testing and certification and how that may or may not be applied in future, although I stress that no decision has been taken on that.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, given the importance of the wedding industry in this country, which employs 400,000 people and accounting for £15 billion in annual revenue, why did the Government not see it necessary to have a wedding-specific ERP? Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will embrace the wedding industry’s offer to use its unique experience and expertise in providing a reliable database of evidence that shows that it operates in a Covid-safe environment?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The events that were chosen for the events research programme were very carefully selected based on scientific advice for the data and the insights that they can provide. As the noble Lord is aware, we are limited in the number of events that can be included in the programme, but all learning will be shared with the all-important wedding sector, as he suggests.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the events industry has been decimated by Covid and is now facing its second lost summer, which will prove terminal to many small local events providers and the independent contractors that serve them. I note my interest as proprietor of an open-air venue that hosts a variety of small events, including one that tried but failed to become an ERP pilot. It appears that only large events companies were granted pilots, while small ones—those least able to survive another fallow summer—were not. Will the Government be providing specific support and/or skills training to the many independent contractors facing a very bleak future? Otherwise, we will lose vital skills for good.
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Earl is aware, some events are of course allowed under step 3 of the road map, both indoors and outdoors, in some cases with audiences of up to 10,000 people.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the Committee on the Environment Bill, day two. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for when the Question is put, they must make that clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 23rd June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-III Third Marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jun 2021)
“(e) a reduction in the use of conventional plastic packaging.(3A) In this section “conventional plastic packaging” means plastic products that are defined as packaging under EU Directive 94/62/EC, or its successor legislation, and which are not— (a) reusable;(b) recyclable; or(c) compostable as specified within the standard BS EN 13432 or BS EN 14995.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment specifies a reduction in the use of conventional plastic packaging as a priority area in which the Secretary of State must set a long-term target, which must be achieved over 15 or more years.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 13 I will speak to Amendment 30, standing in my name, and wish to support Amendment 28, whose objectives we share.
The pioneering Breaking the Plastic Wave report by the Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ, published last year, made for stark reading. Without concerted action to hold back the ever-increasing tide of plastic production and consequent plastic waste, we will see the annual flow of plastic into the world’s oceans triple by 2040. My amendments provide two opportunities to place in the Bill the necessity of clear UK targets for reducing the import and production of conventional plastic packaging in this country.
The Government, I know, want to use the Bill, once passed into law, to embed their world-leading environmental credentials at COP 26 in November. Agreeing to clear, enforced targets on the production of plastic packaging would genuinely be world-leading. I know that the Minister is likely to say that he shares our ambition to reduce plastic waste. If that is the case, it follows that we must reduce plastic production, which is the source of the waste. The Government must address both ends of the spectrum.
To be clear, in Amendment 30 we are seeking an immediate target on plastic production and imports, coupled with Amendment 13, which seeks to set a long-term target of the kind envisaged under Clause 1. The immediate target is the more important, since we must see a reduction in the production of conventional plastic as a short-term and long-term issue. This must not be a can to kick down the road.
I want to turn to the issue that marks out my amendments from the other in this group—recognition of the role of independently certified compostable materials in addressing part of the plastics crisis. The Breaking the Plastic Wave report was clear that there is no single solution to ending ocean plastic pollution. As I have said previously, a mix of approaches is needed, starting with producing less plastic, which is at the core of the amendments, and involving more re-use of the plastic that is produced and more recycling where possible. But recycling, like composting, is not a silver bullet.
The current discourse around plastics recycling implies that a plastic bottle or food tray might become another bottle or food tray, but that is seldom the case. Plastics recycling is rarely, if ever, genuinely circular, but we should strive to recycle. When I was a leader in local government, I was proud to increase recycling in my area significantly. But we should not fool ourselves that recycling is a universal escape hatch from the planet’s plastic problem.
What the industry calls flexible films—the sort used in bags containing fruit and vegetables, or in pouches to keep dried fruit preserved—are very hard to recycle, not least because they are frequently contaminated with food. According to 2020 figures from WRAP, flexible plastic represents a quarter of all UK consumer plastic packaging but only 4% is currently recycled. We must attempt to improve on this. We have all found ourselves with a bag of salad in the fridge that has turned to mulch, or a microwave meal film covered in food. This kind of food contact packaging can seldom be recycled because of that contamination. Conversely, recycled plastics cannot be used in food packaging because of food hygiene laws.
It is right to conclude that a measure of substitution of conventional plastics with compostable materials is an essential part of the mix. Such materials must be certified as complying with stringent international standards, referenced in the amendment. The certification is undertaken by an organisation independent from the manufacturer, which assesses technical information about the product and produces an independent laboratory report on how samples of the product performed when tested, as specified in the standard. So long as it makes the grade, the product can then be recycled within the food waste stream.
There are around 45 composting sites in the UK that can handle compostable films, and there is good evidence from Europe to show that using them has three effects. First, the compostable films break down in industrial composting conditions without leaving microplastics behind. Secondly, deploying such films reduces the amount of conventional, polluting plastic that gets into the soil through food waste and achieves a reduction of conventional plastic in circulation. Thirdly, by deploying compostable films as packaging for food waste, we end up with less food contamination in the dry recycling streams, such as plastic bottles and trays.
Compostables can therefore play a key role in capturing biowaste and ensuring that food contact packaging biodegrades with its contents. Instead of being incinerated or sent to landfill, it is converted into high-quality compost and, in turn, used to regenerate our rapidly depleting agricultural soils. This is a win-win, and one that the Government should grasp. The recent Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging consultation paper took a dismissive tone, rather than look at how an EPR scheme could and should be applied to compostables, so that the industry pays, as it is willing to, for the expansion in composting infrastructure.
All the while, global flexible plastic packaging is set to reach 33.5 million metric tonnes in 2022, with no viable end-of-life solution to dispose of it safely. That is only next year. Perhaps the Minister can say whether it is this waste that he is proposing to be the subject of trans-frontier shipments of waste. This is deeply frustrating to those represented by the Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Association, including companies such as TIPA, which is investing in the UK market. It has come together with the association for renewable energy and clean technology, REA, and with anti-plastic campaigners A Plastic Planet to draw attention to the missed opportunities in the UK.
The intentions behind Amendments 13 and 30 are therefore twofold: to emphasise the commitment on these Benches to reducing the production of plastic packaging, and to make clear the need for a variety of solutions to reduce plastic pollution, here at home and globally. Compostable materials are part of the mix, and one the Government should recognise. Everyone has a responsibility to both reduce the use of plastic packaging and for its sustainable disposal. I hope that the Minister can provide a positive response and perhaps agree to meet me and the campaigners on this issue to find common ground and to strengthen the Bill on plastics. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We have two withdrawals from this group: the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, I take the opportunity given by my noble friend’s amendments to probe the Minister on government thinking about the relationship between the principles of polluter pays and extended producer responsibility. I do so by using an example that we touched on in the closing remarks in Committee on Monday.
About two years ago, not far from where I live, a well-known fast-food company opened a drive-through restaurant. Since then, the brightly coloured packaging from this company has festooned our lanes. The National Association of Local Councils says that this sort of littering and pollution, much of which is plastic, is a growing problem in rural areas.
Clearly the litterers are the polluters here; they are winding down their car windows and throwing the stuff out. Do the Government therefore think that this is an enforcement or educational matter, or that there is some extended producer responsibility here, given that the originator of the packaging being littered is the one profiting? I wanted to use this example to try to get some clarity from the Government about where they see the relative balance of responsibilities.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I start by repeating something I said in the first day of Committee. This is a hangover from Monday, but the batting order is not satisfactory, because I want to speak to Amendment 28 and none of its proposers has spoken yet, so I cannot follow them. However, I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in her place and hope she can come in after the Minister, because few in this House know as much about the problem as she does.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, covered the problem comprehensively. I was going to raise the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, which is that we must take this opportunity not only to reduce the amount of plastic, but to curb the problem of plastic litter, which is spoiling the countryside in a way it never has before. This is particularly apparent with Covid and the pressures now on farmers, landowners and councils, because of the total disregard that a lot of people have for the countryside. They are happy just to dump their rubbish anywhere. This Bill must be used for that.
I would like to say a lot more about Amendment 28. I like that it does not attack all plastics, as they can be the right solution for the right good in the right place, but they are not great overall. We must find a way to reduce and recycle them better.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend. Like him, I think it unfortunate that we have not heard from those who have tabled Amendment 28. These three amendments have much to commend them. I also pay tribute to the work of the Government and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, who first took an interest in this in the Quality of Life group’s report, Blueprint for a Green Economy, which he co-authored with my noble friend Lord Deben. I am pleased to see that his messianic zeal continues to this day.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 28 and 30, and express my support for all amendments in this group. This is my first contribution on this ground-breaking Bill and I too welcome it. It is wonderful, in many ways, but there is also an opportunity for some tweaks here and there, which could make it a great deal more significant. I speak briefly in the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, will indeed be able to speak; she has more knowledge in this area than I ever will, so my comments are limited.
I am sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House agree that plastic pollution in general is one of the greatest threats to our precious planet. I know that, between them, the four signatories will make this case very powerfully in general terms; my purpose is only to support their arguments strongly.
Amendment 28 is modest in the context of the enormity of the plastics problem. To take the example of just one plastic product, it is hard to get my head around the notion that, globally, personal care companies alone produce some 120 billion plastic sachets each year. Others have talked about putting them end to end, back and forth, to the moon 27 times. It is beyond one’s comprehension, but terrifying. These items are totally non-recyclable and, as the organisation A Plastic Planet tells us, there are many reusable and more environmentally friendly alternatives available. Surely the Bill needs to inject a degree of urgency into preventing the continuation of this situation. If there are alternatives, it is difficult for a simple-minded person like me to understand why we are being so careful or modest about this. Why cannot Ministers set a date by which no plastic sachets should be produced, for example? The same sort of eye-watering statistics apply to many other plastic products, including all forms of plastic packaging. They simply need to be replaced.
Yes, the amendment requires Ministers to set a target for the reduction of plastic use by 2030—and this is indeed most welcome—but it says nothing about the level of plastics use at which the target should be set. There could be a target of reducing use by 1%. I really hope that, before Report, we can work with Ministers to achieve an amendment that really would require the end of the use of single-use plastics by a specific date—or, at least, the end of the use of specified single-use plastic products by specific dates. Obviously, this has to be realistic—producers have to make plans—but, unless we make a very clear target for producing complete alternatives, they will not really know where they are. I have a feeling we can do a lot better. In the meantime, I do wholeheartedly support Amendment 28 for putting this crucial issue on Ministers’ agenda. I hope Ministers will, as I have said, be able to come up with something more robust—stronger—in time for Report.
Amendment 30 focuses on single-use plastic packaging. Again, the amendment is hugely important, although, in my view, modest. It requires Ministers, by regulations, to
“set a target for reduction in the production and import of conventional single use plastic packaging”.
But, again, it does not require a specific target to achieve a specified rate of reduction in the use of these products. Again, I wholeheartedly support the amendment for raising the vital issue and cannot see any reason at all why the Government would not accept this amendment—although, as I have said, I hope we can go further.
The Government have made a good start in this field and I want to applaud them—for the ban on plastics straws, stirrers and plastic-stem cotton buds, as well as the ban on microbeads. These are important steps forward, saving literally billions of these items finishing up in the oceans. But, of course, there are many other single-use plastic products. We now have face masks to add to the problem, which we find all over the pavements. What plans are afoot to deal with those?
Amendment 30 takes a more ambitious line indeed on plastic packaging than the Government’s planned tax on items that do not meet a minimum threshold of at least 30% recycled content from April 2022. Surely we should not accept 70% non-recyclable content in the future. Surely, again, we have to be more ambitious. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these modest proposals. I was impressed by the Minister in our recent briefing meeting; it seems that he has a clear commitment to move forward on these agendas. I would like to think that he will want to work with noble Lords in developing stronger amendments before Report.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, this is my first amendment, too, in the Environment Bill, and I also welcome it.
I was glad to hear the Minister state on the first day of Committee:
“The Government will periodically review targets and can set more, especially if that is what is required to deliver significant improvement to the natural environment in England.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; cols. 93-94.]
I would ask the Minister to examine Amendment 28, to which I put my name, because it seeks a target for plastics pollution which would do just what he says: namely,
“deliver significant improvement to the natural environment”.
I echo the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about litter. I am especially concerned about microplastic pollution. It is a blight found in the highest mountains and the deepest oceans; it is choking our wildlife, creating gut obstructions in seabirds that cause them poor health and even death, and it is present in the food we eat and the air we breathe, posing a potential danger to human health from ingesting microplastics. There are fears that microplastics might inhibit the ability of our lungs to repair damage caused by Covid-19. I also support Amendment 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.
The Bill, as it stands, focuses very well on the end-of-life solutions to plastics pollution. These are, of course, very welcome, but this amendment adds to the Bill’s provision by targeting the problem of plastics pollution holistically. The Clause 1 target for resource efficiency and waste reduction is also welcome, but it will make only a partial contribution to reducing plastic pollution.
The problem is that products can be efficiently designed but and still create plastic pollution. Lightweight polystyrene packaging, polythene packaging and lightweight plastic bottles do achieve a reduction in resource but, when they are discarded, they create microplastic pollution. Litter from plastic bottles is estimated to contribute 33% of plastic pollution entering our oceans. Likewise, fishing nets are seen as resource efficient when made of plastic, as they last longer and use fewer materials. However, when they break and are discarded, they become floating traps for marine wildlife. Microbeads in plastics make the product work better but constitute 8.8% of Europe’s microplastic pollution. The Government have described this country’s microbead ban as world beating, but it covers only rinse-off products such as shampoo and toothpaste, and it still allows microbeads in the majority of cosmetics.
A plastic pollution reduction target on the face of the Bill will ensure the enforcement of measures such as a ban on maritime waste. Subsection (1) introduces a target to reduce plastic pollution that will ensure that major types of plastic pollution are not overlooked. The inclusion of the wording about reducing
“the volume of all non-essential single-use products”
avoids incentivising substitutions of plastics for other single-use materials, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about. It works in tandem with my Amendment 139 to Schedule 9.
I hope that the Minister will see this amendment as a response to the Defra Minister’s reply to a similar amendment in the other place, in which she said that
“we actually want to see a more ambitious resources and waste target … which applies holistically to all materials, not just plastic.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/21; col. 261.]
This amendment will realise this ambition by mitigating against the resource efficiency target when it does not deal adequately with the scale of the present plastics crisis. Proposed new subsection (2) sets outs a specific date for the new target—by 31 December—to align with the Government’s own target in Amendment 22. However, the Government have pushed back twice on long-term targets during this Bill’s stages in the other place. So this date seems like a compromise leaving room for further negotiations during the target-setting process. Proposed new subsection (4) reinforces the objective that a reduction in single-use plastics should not incentivise substitutions with other single-use materials that would create an adverse impact on the environment.
I understand that Ministers are concerned that it would be difficult to measure and monitor plastic pollution. Surely the OEP will be able to work with experts to devise the best way to measure, monitor and enforce a target. After all, such targets have been generated for such complex issues as carbon emissions. The Government are also concerned about the international nature of plastics pollution. Rebecca Pow has said that plastic pollution is a “highly transboundary issue” which needs to be tackled at an international level as part of a UN global plastics treaty. This is, of course, right. However, if this Bill is to be world beating, I hope the Minister will agree that this country must show the way by setting up its own domestic targets for plastic pollution. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as this is my first intervention at this stage in the Bill, I draw attention to my vice-presidency of the LGA and my professional interests, particularly in the construction sector, as well as my membership of the Country Land & Business Association. I warmly welcome all the amendments in this group, for the reasons that have already been given. I could not help a bit of a smile when I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, refer to a well-known roadside fast food operator because, following the lockdown, I knew within about 24 hours that it had reopened by the nature of what was in the roadside verges near my home.
We can all recognise the utility of plastics, as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. For many automotive, construction and household products, they perform a valuable, life-extending and efficiency function in many things that we use on a daily basis. But I wish to add my voice to those who have a fundamental concern about single-use plastics in general, their clear pathways into discards as litter and microplastics, and the fact that many are not recyclable at all or not generally recyclable in this country.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I identify very much with his last comments on the litter all over our countryside, particularly after lockdown, and the way in which communities came together to use their spare time to at least ameliorate a certain amount of this problem.
I worry that some of our plastic litter is being exported. We think it may be reused but, in fact, it is just going into dumps overseas. We must avoid that in every way we can.
I speak in support of Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on this vexed issue. I support her in everything she said, and I also support Amendments 28 and 30. I take the point that we should be more ambitious, but we need to start somewhere. We need to get this issue on the face of the Bill; if it is in at this stage, it triggers certain actions that could follow at later stages.
Of all the issues coming before us today in this massively important Bill, I suspect that there is greater public support for drastically cutting back the use of plastic in all its guises than for most of the other, very worthy aims in the Bill. Of course, one aim should not compete with another in terms of priority.
We accept the use of plastic in many unnecessary ways. We do so without considering how that material is to be disposed of in a manner that is harmless to wildlife on land and in the oceans. We have been totally profligate in our mindless use of plastic, and we now see animals, fish and birds suffering from plastic entering their digestive systems. Surely we must systematically reduce the use of plastic and move in a coherent manner to lessen its impact. To the extent that plastics of certain types are compostable, well, all the better—but that is ameliorating the problem rather than necessarily solving it. We must have a radical root-and-branch approach.
This amendment makes a modest proposal for dealing with this issue by making the reduction in the use of unnecessary plastic a priority area in the establishment of environmental targets in the Bill. This provision could trigger another proposed clause which requires a measurable standard to be achieved and a target date for reaching such an objective. Is that not exactly what we need for a coherent plastic reduction programme? Even if it is not on the face of the Bill, should that not be our aim? If that is the case, what possible argument can there be against putting it on the face of the Bill? I urge the Minister not just to pay lip service to the need for a reduction in the use of plastic but to do something about it. I await his response with interest.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on her amendments, which I am afraid I did not sign. That was a complete oversight on my part. I think her introduction was excellent.
I suspect that not very far in the future, we will think of plastic as the new asbestos. When we first had asbestos, it was hailed as a wonder material. It is highly heat resistant and an excellent electrical insulator, and it has been used in construction, for fireproofing, and even for making clothing and furniture. In fact, archaeological evidence suggests that asbestos was used by humans quite a long time ago to strengthen ceramic pots, so it has been understood as a very valuable resource. Since the end of the 19th century, asbestos has been used in all sorts of buildings; any building constructed before the 1980s is likely to contain asbestos. Now, of course, the word “asbestos” is enough to stop people buying a property because it is so dangerous to human health when disturbed. I think we are going to see plastic as a dangerous material in the same way—probably more dangerous and more pervasive than asbestos.
Obviously, as other noble Lords have said, plastic has a lot of almost miracle properties, and the things that we can produce from plastic are integral to our way of life. However, its versatility and availability have led to exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said: we have used it mindlessly. We have made so much plastic that we are now in danger of being polluted by it ourselves. We have known for a long time that plastic takes hundreds of thousands of years to break down, but only recently we have understood how bad that is. Plastic only breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces; it does not actually ever go away. It just gets tiny and it gets everywhere, with quite damaging consequences.
We now see that microplastics are present almost everywhere, including in our own bodies. Plastics accumulate in the food that we eat, moving up the food chain until it reaches its highest concentration in our bodies and, most concerningly, in mothers’ breast milk. When microplastics get very small, they are referred to as nanoplastics. They are so small that they can cross cellular membranes and actually work their way into our individual cells. We are currently clueless about what that means for our health and the environment, but if it is anything like asbestos then a tiny amount can be incredibly damaging for our health.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about disposal. The noble Baroness said that it should be disposed of well and the noble Earl talked about safe disposal. There is no safe disposal. There is no way to make sure that it is well disposed of; that just does not happen. It is still there. We know that we have produced far too much plastic, and it is within our control to reduce the amount that is made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned masks. I am going to make my regular comment about the fact that—and I am going to try not to look at any noble Lords wearing them—the blue masks that some noble Lords are wearing today in your Lordships’ House are actually highly polluting. They are not paper but plasticised paper; they cannot be recycled; they end up in our seas and rivers; they kill animals; and obviously they are extremely ugly to see. I know it is not easy to replace them, and I would say that at least those noble Lords are wearing masks in the first place, but I have offered to replace such masks with material masks made in my little haberdasher’s down in Dorset rather than still seeing them as I look around the House.
The Bill absolutely has to set targets for reducing plastics because we have to start now to reduce the future burden. The problem is just going to get worse, and if we do not get it into the Bill then we probably will not deal with it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
As always, it is a great pleasure to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do not always agree with her, but she speaks a great deal of common sense—as well as a few other things. I am delighted to see her putting on a mask. She will be glad to know that I took my blue mask off—I am waiting for the one from the haberdasher’s.
The noble Baroness made a very good point about asbestos, but of course that is a specific substance. “Plastic” is a bit of a generic term that covers a great deal. We have to recognise that in its beginning it often brought hygiene where there was squalor and safe packaging where there was danger, but it has now got completely out of hand. No one could have watched programmes like “The Blue Planet” without being completely nauseated by some of the scenes we saw on our screens of animals choked or strangled to death. It causes an enormous problem even in our own countryside and in our towns and cities.
My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to litter. In many ways, litter is the curse of the age. I have been horrified when I have watched “Look North” on our local television station and seen that after the end of various phases of the lockdown people have gone out in their hundreds and thousands and desecrated, and defecated in, our countryside. I say to the Minister that it is crucial, as others have referred to, that we have targets and deadlines. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made a particular point of that and she is right. We keep coming back to the phrase “a landmark Bill” but if this is indeed going to be a landmark Bill then there have to be deadlines for elimination. Of course one has to give manufacturers a degree of notice but we cannot carry on as we are or we will smother ourselves in our own detritus—it is as simple and alarming as that.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief, particularly as I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, will be able to come in after the Minister, so let us leave it to the experts.
I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville for her eloquent and comprehensive introduction of her amendment and the issue of plastics and single-use items. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I think that while there are many issues that we in this House will be touching on in the next few weeks that the public may not be quite so familiar with, plastics and single-use items is one that they understand and on which they will expect fast action. They will therefore, rightly or wrongly, judge the Government on how they address the issue, so we on these Benches welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the Labour Front Bench.
Other noble Peers have touched on the implications and impacts of plastics, so I will be brief and say only that I echo the comments of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the impacts of plastics on litter, and the comments by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the appalling impacts on wildlife. I am not sure that I caught anyone saying—if I did not catch it and have not mentioned them, I apologise—that we need to reflect on the greenhouse gas emissions from the disposal of plastics, which are such a major contribution and which we have to tackle if we are going to meet our greenhouse gas obligations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rightly identified a number of the steps that the Government have taken on the plastics issue—she referred to straws and microbeads—and no one would deny that they are welcome, but they are very low-hanging fruit. Given the scale of the challenge and the need for fast action, I thank that all of us in this Committee, from all sides, would agree that we need faster action from the Government.
These three amendments all share the same sentiments; they tackle the issue in slightly different ways. I hope that, from the debate, the Government have realised that the Committee wants them to set targets for plastics pollution and for addressing the scourge of single-use plastic items. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment today, I hope that he will listen carefully to the suggestion from my noble friend Lady Bakewell that he meets her and others, before we get to Report, to look at how we can come to a realistic amendment to address this issue, which is rightly of huge significance to the public and absolutely critical if we are to get the environment that we need in future.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 13 and 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and to Amendment 28 in my name and those of other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott—I am very pleased to hear that she will make a contribution shortly.
A number of your Lordships have spoken with passion about the scourge of plastic in our environment and the damage it causes to our wildlife and marine environment. That all results in huge waste mountains created in landfill. The environmental scarring that occurs happens at all sorts of levels: the plastic clogs our oceans and rivers; it blights our landscape; and it is in the food that we eat and the air that we breathe. We are yet to discover the full impact that living with plastic is having on our long-term health. I completely understand the analogy with asbestos that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made; because it is a relatively new product, we do not yet know exactly what it is doing to our health.
The public are increasingly aware of the environmental damage that plastic is causing, with 81% of British people now wanting the Government to introduce refillable products to end the plastic crisis, and more than two-thirds saying that the plastic crisis is getting worse. From this debate, I think we would all concur with that. And yet, we know that just 10 plastic products—including plastic bags, bottles, food containers and fishing gear—account for three-quarters of global ocean litter. So the problem is intense, but it is also very specific in terms of what we have to tackle.
Plastic bottles and beverage litter alone contribute 33% of plastic pollution in our oceans, yet we know that alternative drinks containers already exist. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Scott, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others, that plastic litter is the scourge of our urban and rural landscapes. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point that extended producer responsibility really should ensure that manufacturers take responsibility for the litter that results from their products. I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said in praise of litter pickers: we have all done our bit, and we all have great admiration for the people who do it on a more regular basis, including those in my own locality who regularly on a Sunday go picking litter up from the beach.
Several years ago, Coca-Cola sent to my office here a large sack and some plastic gloves, and I was encouraged to go and do some beach-picking. I thought that it had rather missed the point really, because it should be the company’s responsibility to clean up the litter in the first place rather than expect me to do it. I still have the gloves, and they are very useful on the allotment, although they are not being used for quite what they were intended. My point is that extended producer responsibility is important. Companies such as Coca-Cola—I know that it has got better, and I hope that it would not still do something like that—and other drinks manufacturers are trying to cut down on the amount of plastic, but we still have a long way to go.
Incidentally, I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the blue plastic masks are just adding a new layer and source of pollution. We all understand why it was expedient to introduce them at very short notice, but the Government have now had time to come up with a better solution than the regular use of plastic masks, which we are all still encouraged to wear.
We believe that the solution is within our grasp, if only we had the determination to restrict the production of new plastics, to capture all that waste plastic for reuse and to charge manufacturers the full disposal cost of any discarded plastic. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that we already have the experts who can measure and monitor our plastic output; it is not that difficult. We are in a position to capture the statistics and properly report on progress.
We need a concerted effort from the top to drive down the use of plastic and replace it with reusable alternatives. As a number of noble Lords have said, the Government have known this for some time, and they have engaged in the debate and taken some action. I am sure that the Minister will remind us of the steps already taken, for example on banning microbeads and increasing plastic bag charges. All of this is of course welcome, but it is dealing with a fraction of the problem. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, it is in effect picking the low-hanging fruit. Meanwhile, the Minister himself in the debate on single-use plastics on 19 April said:
“action is needed to curtail the use of single-use plastics and their release into the environment.”
He went on to say that it is
“the Government’s intention to clamp down on single-use plastic pollution and protect our environment for future generations.”—[Official Report, 19/4/21; col. GC 245.]
I do not doubt his commitment, but the real challenge is action, which seems to be lacking.
We were provoked to table our amendment by the endless delays in tackling the more fundamental challenges that remain. I have lost track of the number of consultations that have taken place or are in progress without a credible ultimate deadline for action. Our Amendment 28 addresses this need for a deadline. It follows the same format as the Government’s own wording in their “abundance of species” amendment, so we know that it meets the criteria of being acceptable to Government, flexible, legal and politically deliverable. It also mirrors the wording in Clause 2 on the setting of air quality targets, emphasising that it should be a short-term, rather than long-term, target.
Our plastic reduction targets cover plastics and other “non-essential single-use products”. The amendment is worded in that way to ensure that a ban on plastic does not incentivise the use of other single-use materials. This is at the heart of the problem, because these can also be damaging to the environment. One noble Lord mentioned paper bags, and there are other things which are a substitute, but not a sufficient one, when we can just use the same product again and again if we turn our minds to it. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that our proposal is also intended to cover wet wipes and ear buds.
Our amendment works in tandem with Amendment 139—which seeks to amend Schedule 9—in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to which I have also added my name, and which we will debate later.
Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 28 sets the plastic reduction target of 31 December 2030, which, again, aligns with the Government’s own “abundance of species” target. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that this is a very modest proposal, and if the Minister is able to tell us today that the Government have an earlier deadline in mind, we would very much welcome hearing it. We believe that this is a credible deadline that would enable production and retail businesses to adapt to the new recyclable or biodegradable materials that they would have to use as substitutes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said that plastic bottles are rarely recycled into new plastic bottles, and she is absolutely right on that. But the annoying thing is that we have had the technology to do that for years—it already exists; it does not have to be created. Manufacturers just have to find that the cost of using virgin plastic is prohibitive compared to recycled plastics, and then they would switch. But at the moment, it is easier for them to use new oil and chemicals, rather than use the materials that are already in circulation. We can change that only if the Government use market interventions to make this happen, at least in the short term.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and I hope they were reassured by my comments on Monday regarding the Government’s ability to set targets on a wide range of areas through this Bill. I will elaborate further on their specific amendments, although I echo what the noble Baroness has just said: we will be discussing issues around plastic and waste on numerous occasions through the course of this Bill.
I would like to reiterate that the Bill gives us the power to set legally binding, long-term targets on any aspect of the natural environment. That includes waste reduction and resource efficiency. The Government share the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in their amendments on the proliferation of single-use plastic items and the need for urgent action. The effect on the environment, particularly the marine environment as we heard in the very powerful opening speech, is both heart-breaking and, frankly, sickening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also talked about the issue of what we refer to as consumer waste. If we want to get to a point where we have designed waste out of the system, on many levels we should stop referring to it as consumer waste and regard it as producer waste. Most people, when they go to a shop and buy something with excess packaging, do not want it. It is a producer decision, not a consumer decision. As a number of noble Lords have said, that is precisely why extended producer responsibility is so important. Extended logically to its natural conclusion, it will place the onus on the producer, and we will see less waste.
As we know, the Government committed in the resources and waste strategy to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042. Measures in this Bill, such as extended producer responsibility—including for packaging—deposit return schemes and charges for single-use plastics et cetera, will help us to achieve this. Work on implementing these measures has already begun.
I acknowledge the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and agree with her comments about asbestos. I think our plastic wastefulness will, I hope one day soon, come to define our throwaway, short-termist, dysfunctional and disrespectful approach to the natural world. She is also right about masks—a conversation we have had many times. I share her bugbear; these things are completely avoidable. We have had a year of needing them, and surely by now people have had an opportunity to sort out a longer-term solution of a reusable mask.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, also listed a number of single-use items. Again, I emphasise that we can extend the ban on single-use items to other products, and I am committed to doing so. There is also an argument for personal responsibility, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We have taken steps to increase the disincentives when it comes to littering. Fines are now up to £2,500 if conducted through a magistrates’ court. We have raised the maximum fixed penalty from £80 to £150 and have raised the minimum as well. We have given new powers to local authorities regarding litter thrown out of vehicle windows.
In the meantime, there is a role for consumers. Notwithstanding the comments that I made about producer responsibility, it is worth bearing in mind that we have an ability to send a message to producers. Companies selling tea bags that are plastic ought to feel the fury of the consumer. We should not be buying that stuff; I certainly do not buy tea bags made of plastic, and I will never do that, although I have to say that until a few months ago I was not aware it happened. I cannot believe that companies thought it was okay to create plastic tea bags; it is just astonishing.
There is an international dimension that noble Lords mentioned as well. Although this is not directly relevant to these amendments, we are showing international leadership. We have committed £80 million to a whole range of international programmes to tackle pollution. We co-founded the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, which is all about helping Commonwealth counties to develop policies to reduce things like single-use plastics and improve their treatment and management of plastic. More than half of Commonwealth countries have signed up and therefore made the commitment.
There is one last thing on the international point—although it is not the last thing we are doing. It is worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of waste in the ocean is ghost gear: discarded fishing gear. There is a staggering amount. That, too, is where the principle of extended producer responsibility will really come into its own, creating a situation where it is simply a bad financial decision for vessels to just discard their fishing gear overboard.
We have already made important progress in tackling plastics. We have introduced one of the world’s toughest bans on microbeads in rinse-off personal care products and we have brought in measures to restrict the supply of plastic straws, plastic drink stirrers, and plastic stemmed cotton buds. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the latter was going to happen. It has already happened; the ban was introduced in October 2020. She heaped praise on the noble Lord, Lord Deben, particularly for his work on the quality of life review. I agree with her, partly because I co-chaired that review with him and I am very pleased with most of what was in it, although it is a gigantic document.
For the long-term legally binding target on waste reduction and resource efficiency, we want to take a more holistic approach to reduce consumption, not just of plastic, but of all materials. This would increase resource productivity and reduce the volume of waste we generate overall, including plastic waste. Setting a legally binding target on plastic waste in isolation, as proposed by the amendment, may lead to unexpected or undesirable substitutions. For example, we could see more materials whose environmental performance is, in the round, no better than plastic which could, for example, lead to higher carbon emissions.
I look forward to discussing specific measures in the Bill throughout the process that we embarked on on Monday—this Committee. We will be talking about plastic and other waste issues a great deal, but for now I hope that what I have said has reassured noble Lords somewhat and I beg them not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have requests to speak after the Minister from three noble Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank noble Lords who made kind comments about my knowledge of plastic. I do not in any sense pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I do know quite a bit about food and where it connects with plastics.
I am very pleased to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I am sorry I did not get onto the speakers’ list. I assumed that I would be on it as my name was on the Marshalled List, but even when I rang up yesterday to ask to come on it, they said I was not allowed because those lists were fixed. I realise I am still a newcomer. I thank the Minister for his response, which is extremely encouraging, and I thank all noble Lords who have made so many incredibly good points. I am only going to try to make some points which I think can still be made.
I feel our targets are still too low and we could outlaw single-use plastic. Some 69 countries currently have either partially or totally banned its use, particularly in Africa. Single-use plastic is very bound up with the way that food is sold by supermarkets, and in a lot of cases with fruit and vegetables you end up buying more than you want. There is a very direct line—say, when you have a large amount of grapes in a box with a single-use lid, when you actually wanted half the amount of grapes because you happen to be a single person, so some of those grapes are wasted. This suits the supermarket, but it does not suit the consumer and, obviously, it does not suit the planet.
It seems to me that supermarkets are getting away with murder at the moment. They are selling us single-use bags for 10p and also bags for life. Frankly, I am embarrassed by how many bags for life I have because I hate buying the 10p ones, which seem worse—I probably have about 15 bags for life now, which is way too many. This means that the supermarkets made at least £100 out of me on bags because of my laziness—but at least I reuse them.
The Minister and several other noble Lords raised a point about how we export plastic for recycling. Turkey is big on this list: 40% of our plastic now goes there—Greenpeace has been running a campaign on this—and it ends up incinerated or in landfill. I was very interested to hear the Minister say that it is the Government who are taking action, because it is my understanding that, from 1 July, Turkey is banning our waste. I would be interested to find out what the truth is, in this debate or at some point in the next few days.
I will mention the one group of people that of course wants using plastic to go on. There are different types of plastic—I have good plastic, such as plastic cups and picnic plates that I have had for 20 years—and there needs to be really good public education to make us understand that one type of plastic is okay and another is not. We could look at a complete ban such plastic. I am sorry—I have completely lost my train of thought.
Masks have shown that, a year and a half in, the Government are not taking the plastic issue completely seriously. They are allowing these things to be made, and we could have stopped this.
My final point is that plastic is obviously made from oil. The oil companies have one last throw of the dice, and that is in making more plastic. ClientEarth is fighting a huge case at the moment over the big new petrochemical company that is being set up on the Belgian border, which is primarily there to make plastic and flood the world with more of it, as we move towards banning fossil fuels. Please do not let us let this happen. I think we should move to a total ban on single-use plastic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, wisely said, this is an issue where the public are really on side with the Government and will be urging them on for measures that are as tough as they can manage.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments, and I echo those of many others. She is a person of great knowledge and expertise on this issue. I have a note on my phone to contact her tomorrow to talk about something that I assume is connected to what she was just saying—I very much look forward to that. I completely agree with her that we can go further on single-use plastics. We have the power to do so, and I am absolutely committed that we will. This is not a niche concern on my part, or even one that is limited to me; it is shared by all of my colleagues in Defra, without exception.
The noble Baroness said that supermarkets are “getting away with murder”, and that is certainly true of some of them. But it is worth acknowledging when they get it right; it is important that people recognise best practice. Since I am not constrained by BBC rules on impartiality, I can say that Iceland has done extraordinary things on plastic. So far, I have seen that it is delivering on its commitments—for example, getting rid of every single one of those plastic trays beneath its frozen food, and so much more besides. It is worth celebrating that—it shows us what can be done. If its best practice today becomes the norm for everyone tomorrow, we will see real progress.
On the issue of the OECD, Turkey is bringing in restrictions, but I am not sure that it is a full ban—that may be wrong, but it is my understanding. Nevertheless, we are committed to banning the export of waste to non-OECD countries, and obviously Turkey is an OECD country. We have the power within the legislation to extend that ban, should the case be made. Of course, we are looking very closely at the information that Greenpeace has collected in relation to very bad waste treatment in Turkey, but this is not something that I am able to comment on in detail at the moment because I do not know enough about it—I do not think that any of us do.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in his initial answer to the various amendments, the Minister said that it was the Government’s intention to set targets on a wide range of areas through this Bill. Therefore, by way of elucidation, could the Minister indicate whether it would be the intention of the Government, by way of the Bill or by accepting an amendment, to request the banning of sachets for cosmetic items and non-food products, such as household cleaning products? Many of these types of sachets end up clogging up our landfill sites.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, one of our priority areas for targets is waste, so we are committed to introducing at least one target, but, as I said, we can introduce targets on other issues as well. We are looking very closely at where targets are likely to have the best and biggest impact, and Defra is currently looking very closely at the issue that the noble Baroness has raised. I am not sure whether it was in the noble Baroness’s speech, but we heard from a few people, including in the opening speech, about the negative impacts of throw-away face wipes that contain plastic. We in the department are looking very closely at this as well; we are gathering information to see where we can have the biggest impact. I do not want to prejudge that process, but we are clearly committed to moving to a zero-waste economy, which will be reflected in the targets and is reflected in the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in his answer to the debate on this group of amendments, the Minister said that the Government are relying on extended producer responsibility to see a reduction in waste, particularly plastic waste; indeed, he said, “We will see less waste”. I was thinking about a company that produces some of our most expensive electronic goods and which does not have a particularly good environmental record—everyone will know which company I am talking about. If it produces a telephone or device that is worth £1,000 or more, the packaging cost would have to be very large to discourage it from making it look as fancy and as flash as you could possibly want.
Then there is the other end of the market—supermarkets, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, just mentioned. They are saving a lot of money by selling plastic-wrapped vegetables, which forces people to buy more. I did a little price comparison in Lidl in Sheffield, and the loose vegetables were roughly twice the price of the plastic-wrapped ones. That is certainly a reflection in part of the fact that they are cheaper for supermarkets to handle: they need fewer staff and plastic-packed goods can be more roughly handled. You would have to put a very major cost on that plastic to ensure that there is a truly significant deterrent effect. I ask the Minister to respond on his claim that “We will see less waste”—how can he be certain about that?
To pick up the other point, the Minister said that the plastic ban has a risk of encouraging the use of other equally, or similarly, damaging materials. I come back to our debate on day 1, when we talked about the need for a limit on, or reduction to, our resource use in total, and a target to see a total resource-use loss.
Finally, my noble friend has asked me to tell noble Lords—she has been having conversations on Twitter—that if you are now wearing a blue plastic face mask, you can wash these several times and they will survive several washes. Having given that important information, I will sit down.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that final comment. As I have said many times, extended producer responsibility provides us with the apparatus that would, if used correctly, lead to a dramatic reduction in waste. But of course there is an “if”: we have to set the incentives, or disincentives, at a level that will have the desired impact. This is not an exact science, so there will no doubt be trial and error.
The fundamental point is that, whatever the cost, it has to reflect at least the cost to society of the generation of that waste in the first place. The problem at the moment is that there are companies generating waste but leaving the cost of dealing with it to society. In effect, this is an indirect subsidy. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, this very much hinges upon getting those incentives right—of course, it is my intention, and the Government’s, that we will get those incentives right.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his encouraging response but I remain convinced, as are other noble Lords, that some form of plastics reduction target must be in the Bill if the Government are to show that they are serious about this subject.
The Minister said that 2042 was the target deadline, which is far too far away. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Meacher, referred to the scourge of wet wipes and other personal products containing plastics. We have moved some way on this, but there is still a great deal to be done.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, especially about extending producer responsibility. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the movers of Amendment 28 to see if we can reach an accommodation on the way forward on this vital aspect of plastic pollution.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised the issue of the disintegration of brown paper bags. The supermarket that I frequent sells substantial paper carriers. They are compostable and can withstand rainstorms—I have been caught in one with them. They can be used several times before being put to good use in the composter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to plastic litter, especially from fast-food outlets. This is a prime example of where producer responsibility could make a real difference.
It is important that the role of compostable materials be recognised in any target. The Government have a way to go in their thinking on this. I share the Minister’s disquiet at the use of plastic tea bags. We switched several years ago to using loose tea—along with our coffee grounds, we spread it on the garden. I recommend doing this. It is a very good dissuader of slugs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, spoke eloquently about food waste generated by consumers having to buy more than they really need because of the packaging. I support her comments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We must make certain that we have a total ban on plastics, especially those used for food wrapping.
I reiterate my request to meet the Minister, along with the movers of this amendment; I do not think I heard him agree to do so. I hope his office will contact me with a date. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, could come along as well. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 15. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 15
Lord Lucas
“(c) the reasons why that particular target and that particular date have been chosen, and the evidence on which those choices have been based.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to enable people affected by the targets to understand how they have been arrived at.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 15. The targets the Government intend to set will impose substantial costs and obligations on us, one way or another. Any costs imposed on a business ends up with the consumer. These may well require substantial changes in our behaviour. I would like the Government to commit to empowering us, to taking us along with the process they have followed in arriving at those targets, and to telling us why they have chosen those targets and accompanying dates. I would also like them to set out in full and make accessible to us the evidence on which those targets are based.
If we empower people in this way, they become fellows—people who are with us in setting out to tackle the problem, rather than being compelled, often unwillingly, to go along with government diktats. The more we can persuade people, the more we can take them with us, the easier it will be and the further we can go. I would like a system which would clearly incentivise the production of evidence. Where it is weak—regarding the harm done by microplastics, for example—there should be a clear incentive for the Government to sponsor research and investigation to underpin any target they may wish to put in place.
We have a history of legislating in this area based on inadequate evidence. For instance, the original decision to ban tungsten lightbulbs in favour of other systems was based on the idea that the heat they create is wasted. In this country, this is only true during four months of the year; during the other eight months, the heat is extremely useful. The decision to allow only low-powered vacuum cleaners was based on extremely thin evidence and may well have resulted in people expending a lot more energy and time than would have been necessary, had they had higher-powered vacuum cleaners. If we are to use resources effectively in dealing with pollution and other problems, we absolutely must base it on evidence. This evidence, and our thinking, must be shared with the people we want to take along with that decision.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords I shall speak chiefly to Amendments 16 and 18 in my name. I also want briefly to support the sentiments behind Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, generally speaking, history shows us that, as more evidence is collected, regulations and restrictions are far too weak at the outset and need to be strengthened further. I question the two examples he gave but I will not disappear into the weeds of those details.
I also support Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has added her name. This partly relates to my amendments. Amendment 43 talks about a statutory duty to meet interim targets. My two amendments—particularly Amendment 16—say that there should be
“at least one interim target”.
We are talking about targets of 15 years or more.
I asked the House of Lords Library—it is an invaluable resource, and I thank it—to find out how many Secretaries of State in the last 100 years held that single post for more than 10 years. It came up with a list of two: Gordon Brown, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, both of whom were Chancellors. No other Secretary of State held that post for longer than 10 years.
This is a question of responsibility and of people taking action, and being able to demonstrate that they are taking action, over a relatively short period of time. I will not reopen Monday’s debate about our being in a climate, biodiversity and environmental crisis. We are in a crisis, and we need action quickly. Fifteen years is a very long time. If the target is that far away—a minimum of three Governments away and, based on current case studies, perhaps considerably more—it is very easy for it not to be addressed and for no real progress to be made. That is why I am suggesting at least one interim target in those 15 years.
That brings me to my second amendment, Amendment 18, which states that these long-term targets should be no longer than 20 years. In my reading of the Bill—I should be very interested if anyone can tell me I am wrong; I do not claim to be a lawyer—it says that targets will be at least 15 years away; there is no maximum target. The Bill—we are talking about what is written in it—could allow the Government to set a 50-year target for water pollution or biodiversity, which, of course, is no kind of target at all.
These amendments are small and modest, and I am not necessarily wedded to the numbers in them. They are an attempt to open up the debate about the fact that we cannot just say, “Right, here’s a 15-year target, and we can all sit back and worry in 12 years’ time where we have got to.” We need targets set with appropriate reporting towards them. I point out a situation where we have interim targets set. This is by the Committee on Climate Change. In its most recent reports, it has set out the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, which run from 2023 to 2027 and 2028 to 2032 respectively. We are not on track to meet either of those. That demonstrates the importance of setting statutory interim targets and committing to their delivery.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 43 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones, which is also supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I am also pleased to be speaking ahead of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in case he wants to comment on this amendment.
We support the principles of Amendments 15, 16 and 18. It is important that we understand how and why decisions have been taken and are able to ensure that actions and remedies are in place when required. Amendment 43 may be small, but it makes an important point in this legislation. By inserting the phrase “interim targets are met”, in effect it places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet those targets.
As we have heard, the Bill requires interim targets to be set on a five-yearly basis. In the environmental improvement plans, the Government are required to set out the steps they will take over that 15-year period to improve the natural environment. However, environmental improvement plans are not legally binding; they are simply policy documents. This is concerning, because targets are most effective when binding, making it more likely that early action is taken and is sustained by successive Governments.
Indeed, voluntary environmental targets have been badly missed on a number of occasions. I shall give some examples. The target set in 2010 to end the inclusion of peat in amateur garden products by 2020 was badly missed. The target set in 2011 for Defra to conserve 50% by area of England’s sites of special scientific interest by 2020 has been abandoned and replaced with a new target: to ensure that 38.7% of SSSIs are in favourable condition, which is only just higher than the current level.
In the Bill as it stands, an environmental improvement plan, which sets out the steps the Government intend to take to improve the natural environment, needs to be reviewed and, potentially, updated every five years and reported on every year by the Secretary of State. The OEP will also prepare an annual report on progress made towards improving the natural environment and meeting targets, including the interim targets, to which the Secretary of State must respond, addressing any recommendations.
The Government claim that this triple-lock mechanism will be sufficient to drive short-term progress, but this is not the same as legal accountability. Interim targets should be legally binding to guarantee that they will be delivered, and it is vital to have a robust legal framework in place to hold the Government and public authorities to account, not just in the long term but in the short term. As things stand, the Government could, in theory, set a long-term legally binding target for 2037, as suggested in the legislation, but then avoid having to actually do anything about meeting it until 2036.
It is important that the Secretary of State is given a duty to meet the targets, because that then means the Government will have to introduce mechanisms to ensure that they are met. I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to take interim targets seriously, so we must ensure that they are credible, achievable, workable and play a full part in the process of meeting the long-term targets that are set. But there is a lack of focus, drive and certainty. Legally binding interim targets in the Bill would give a sense of direction and be something against which the Government could be held to account.
It is also worth pointing out that environmental targets are interdependent. Because of the complex interdependencies in the natural world, missing a target in one priority area may make it harder to meet one in another. A target to improve freshwater biodiversity relies on meeting water quality targets. Early and sustained action is needed across all priority areas to ensure that long-term targets are met, so interim targets need to be strengthened to avoid the risk of failure.
Politics and government have a notorious reputation for looking only to the short term, yet real environmental improvement requires a long-term focus. The Climate Change Act has demonstrated the difference the existence of statutory requirements can make, strengthening the hand of civil servants, who can tell reluctant Ministers that it is the law to meet emissions targets in the near term.
This is not an issue just for Defra. If we are to meet environmental targets, other departments have to play their part. For example, meeting targets on air quality requires action from the DfT, BEIS, local government and others. Other departments will have their own priorities, so may well need the encouragement of legally binding targets to actually take any necessary action.
To finish, we must not forget about business. The Aldersgate Group, which is a business alliance championing a competitive and environmentally sustainable economy, has said:
“To deliver much needed investment in nature restoration, businesses require legally binding interim targets in the Environment Bill to drive rapid policy action”.
It goes on to say that an amendment calling for legally binding interim targets
“will reinforce the credibility of the Bill’s long-term targets and deliver a much clearer policy and regulatory framework which businesses can invest against.”
Our amendment would hugely strengthen the outcomes of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that it has been extremely useful that she has spoken to her amendment before we all comment on it. I congratulate her on the way she did it and support a lot of what she said.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for sparing the time to have a meeting with me before we started Committee. At that meeting, I said to him that one of my main focuses was going to be how this works in practice on the ground—how it will be implemented in reality, rather than in theory. That is what I want to start to explore with this amendment, in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas. He rightly asked why the targets have been set and how.
We all want better biodiversity—it is on that area that I shall focus in the short time for which I shall speak—but we must have a sensible and practical target for it. If my noble friend issues a target that he wants lapwing and curlew numbers to be increased by 50%, we must look at some hard evidence and facts. Here, I call in aid the work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. It has been researching this area for more than 20 years, combining a productive farm at Loddington in Leicestershire with benefits for wildlife. I urge my noble friend the Minister to visit that farm as soon as practicable, and certainly before Report, because he will be fascinated by the research that the trust has done.
The trust has done research into lapwing. It did a pilot study with Peak District farmers. It was backed up by Natural England. The farmers did all the right things: the grass was the right length, the vegetation was absolutely right. They got full marks, they got a lot of funding, but there was absolutely no increase in lapwing; in fact, there was a decrease. That was because other factors, in particular, predation by animals, had not been taken into account. An awful lot of money has been wasted on projects similar to this.
I back that up with the curlew project in Shropshire that it was involved with. For two years, it monitored and looked after sites, but no chicks survived. Mostly, that was due to egg predation by badgers and foxes, which has caused real problems; indeed, it got to the stage where nests were electric-fenced off to protect them. Three nests hatched but, once the chicks had got out from under the electric fence, there was no stopping the predation. Therefore, I thoroughly support the aims of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s proposal and ask my noble friend the Minister: how will these targets work in practice regarding biodiversity? Given the examples I have just mentioned—and I have a lot more to come out during later amendments—how will this work on the ground for the benefit of wildlife?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish briefly to speak on the two principal targets of these amendments—first about reasons and secondly the targets themselves. I warmly support Amendment 15. First, experience throughout my life has shown that if you are required to give reasons, you make better decisions. I do not believe that this will be burdensome because the civil servants advising the Minister will have to set out why particular targets are chosen. Secondly, I support the view that evidence should be provided, because that enables the cogency of the reasons to be examined and their transparency becomes obvious to all. Thirdly, setting out reasons and the evidence will provide a firm basis for certainty about the targets themselves. This is a small but very important amendment and I do not believe that it will add to the burdens of our very hard-pressed Civil Service because this is the kind of thing that it does internally. Why not follow transparency and make it public?
As regards targets, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, may well be right in her view in Amendment 18 that there should be a restriction on the length of the long-term target because there does not appear to be one in the Bill at the moment. That is why interim targets are so important. As is accepted, it is the interim target that the current Government are likely to concentrate on, not the more distant target—if it is more distant than 15 or 20 years away, no one will concentrate on it at all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has so eloquently explained, there is so much evidence that targets are missed. In dealing with targets in ordinary day-to-day life, it is accepted that unless there is something behind a target to give teeth to it and impose a clear duty, then it can easily be ignored.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has explained, the Government say that the triple lock will work. I do not accept that that is tough enough. Why not acknowledge a duty? The Government accept that there is a duty in respect of long-term targets, why not therefore a duty in respect of the interim targets? We all know that if you are under a duty—both legally and morally—you will seek to discharge that duty. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s explanation as to why the Government simply will not accept a duty.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 43, which places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets. I am merely a pale shadow compared to the previous speaker who put it very eloquently. I share exactly the same position as him and, indeed, the position of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Parminter, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in putting forward this amendment. It is important that interim targets are just as legally binding on the Government as any other targets.
Interim targets have a huge benefit. They keep up the momentum. They give certainty to businesses and, indeed, several business groups have already called for legally binding interim targets. They would also give certainty to local government and the public. The process of setting interim targets under Clause 3(2) means that they can be met, so there is no impediment to the Government accepting that meeting interim targets should be a legal requirement if they have already determined that the targets are able to be met in the process of setting them. It will also have an added benefit that the office for environmental protection will be able to take enforcement action if the Government do not meet interim targets, which I believe it could not do if the targets are not legally binding.
We only have to look at climate change efforts in the past to see how statutory interim targets can really drive change. The Climate Change Act introduced statutory interim targets and they do drive change, as opposed to the non-statutory early programmes which, quite frankly, wallowed and did not get cross-government buy-in in any way. Ministers and Governments come and go, but legally binding interim targets march on and will provide certainty for all. I hope the Minister can accept this amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 43 on the need for binding interim targets. I also support Amendments 16 and 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and, in many ways, support Amendment 15 about the need for evidence, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The Government’s position on interim targets, as presented by the Minister in another place, Rebecca Pow, appears to be that legally binding targets would not be appropriate because of the unpredictability of the environment. In other words, events may make the targets hard to achieve. However, by this logic, the Government should not set themselves any targets at all, as unpredictable events will surely intervene.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Young of Old Scone, all referred to the Climate Change Act as showing us the value of legally binding interim targets. As we have already heard, the Climate Change Committee advises on the five-year carbon budgets that are—I underline this—the cost-effective road map to net zero. One important point that the Climate Change Committee makes is that you cannot back-end all the actions because it will cost you more. You have to take early steps to save later on. So far, the Government have accepted the first six carbon budgets, taking us through to the mid-2030s, so they are legally binding commitments. These budgets not only provide us with transparency about whether the Government are on track but also a clear indication of where progress has been good and where it has not. That is why we know that the Government, in spite of good progress in some areas, are not currently on track to meet their longer-term target of net zero by 2050.
I see no compelling reason why we should not do the same for nature’s recovery. I admit that in some ways it is more complicated than cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The path to net-zero emissions by 2050 can be measured in a single, common currency—carbon dioxide equivalents—and we have clearly defined ways of decarbonising our economy, whether it is through renewable energy, better insulation of homes or electric vehicles and so on. For nature’s recovery, there is as yet no single, common currency nor are there the well-defined building blocks for achieving long-term targets.
However, the Government will have to work out the answers to these questions if they are to meet their longer-term targets, so why not start right away and meet legally binding interim targets? Statutory interim targets would enable all of us to see how the targets are being calculated—which relates back to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—what progress is being made and what needs to change. You can see what happens without binding interim targets by looking at progress on climate adaptation. In contrast to the Climate Change Committee’s advice on mitigation—cutting our greenhouse gas footprint—its advice through the Adaptation Committee on building resilience for the inevitable future climate change that we will experience is not translated into binding targets. I should note in parentheses that I served for eight years as the first chair of the Adaptation Committee, as a member of the Climate Change Committee itself.
Last week, the Adaptation Committee reported on its latest climate change risk assessment. It said:
“Alarmingly, this new evidence shows that the gap between the level of risk that we face and the level of adaptation underway has widened. Adaptation action has failed to keep pace with the worsening reality of climate risk.”
That is what happens if you do not have binding interim targets, and I fear that without legally binding interim targets we will find exactly the same failures by the Government with regard to the commitments in this Bill.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I always feel rather humbled when I follow such eminent noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
I added my name to Amendment 43 and support the general thrust of these amendments with regard to targets and interim targets. If we are not careful, targets just become aspirations. Without being too flippant, I have a target to lose a number of pounds—perhaps stones—in weight, but, without a statutory requirement to do so within a particular period, I am afraid that the time slips by and I find a good excuse, whether it is lockdown, the weather, all sorts, not to do it now but to do it next month. If we are serious about this, it is important to have interim targets that are statutory. I will not go on, except to echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Caithness in very highly recommending to my noble friend the Minister a visit the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Allerton project in Loddington, which has done a lot of research.
My noble friend is absolutely right that you cannot just magic-up these things without detailed research. There are some uncomfortable truths. He mentioned curlews, for example, and he is talking about predation. There is a possible problem that by increasing woodland we are providing more cover for predators, so, where that is near habitat that might be good for curlews and redshanks, we are actually providing more refuge. These things are complicated, but we must have the interim targets on a statutory basis, otherwise they can just get lost in the sands of time.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank those who have participated so far in this short debate on targets. Like other noble Lords, on these Benches we support the principle of evidence-based targets that was made powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his opening remarks, and we also support the principle of the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
As other noble Lords have already indicated, I have put my name to Amendment 43, which would put a duty on the Secretary of State to meet legally binding interim targets. We think that this is an important step forward. I do not intend to say much on the arguments, given that they have been set out so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who made the case particularly coherently, reminding us that there are businesses out there which are asking for this. I know that the Government do not always want to listen to those of us who come from other parts of civil society, or from other groups, but they do tend to wish to listen to businesses. Therefore, the noble Baroness’s argument about responsible businesses asking for a duty for the Minister to meet legally binding interim targets was a powerful one.
Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made the case well that this step will be important to help the OEP do its job. We will come on to a lot of debates about the OEP, including on its overarching remit and function, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we must always be thinking about how this will be translated on the ground, not just in terms of how it will affect the biodiversity of species but in how it is being delivered on the ground by this new organisation that will be set up to be the government watchdog. Obviously we only have an interim OEP at the moment, but I would have thought that this is something that the Government would really want, to help it to do the job that the Government have said that they want it to do and which all of us in this Chamber want to help it to do when hopefully it is set up permanently, later this year.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, dismantled the arguments put by the Minister in the other place as to why the Government were not prepared to accept this proposal. Other Peers have made clear and convincing arguments about why this is an important step and that there is a parallel that we know already works: the Climate Change Act. So, in supporting these amendments, I say to the Minister that he will have to do rather better than he did in his remarks at Second Reading, where he seemed merely to echo the comments of the Minister down the other end. The contentions from people around this Chamber is that this is an important step which is absolutely critical to help the OEP do its job and which businesses want. If we want to deliver on the ground, this needs to go ahead. Therefore, I look forward to his remarks and hope that they will be, to put it delicately, a little more convincing than they were at Second Reading.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and welcome their engagement with this area of the Bill.
Turning first to Amendment 43, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords, to consider the potential effect of this amendment and how it could undermine the long-term nature of the targets framework, which we have purposely designed to look beyond the political cycle of any one Government. No one disputes that there is a logic in having long-term targets. Long-term targets will provide much-needed certainty to businesses and society, enabling us to invest confidently in the innovation required to achieve our ambitions. However, at the same time, we need some flexibility to adapt the interim targets, while keeping the long-term fixed targets, so that we can reflect on what is and what is not working.
With huge respect, I am not sure that the characterisation by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, of the arguments of my colleague, Rebecca Pow, is completely fair. It is not so much about the unpredictability of nature. There may be times when we will want to take actions that are more ambitious but which might not bear fruit in a few years. We must be able to avoid rushed policy-making just to score a quick win, which we would have to do if there were shorter-term legal targets.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I say that there is always a natural temptation for any Government on a five-yearly target-setting process to set eye-catching short-term measures in their manifesto, but everything that we know about the complexity of these environmental targets shows that they transcend any one Administration, or five-year period. We are, after all, talking about living, non-linear systems, and there will be plenty of measures the effects of which will take many years to bear out. For example, in response to my noble friend Lord Caithness, for certain habitats, such as peat bog, native woodland and elements of the marine environment, significant change is unlikely to occur within a five-year period. We would not want to deprioritise key areas of the environment with longer recovery times in order to meet those five-year targets.
There are actions we can take on air quality, particularly those requiring new infrastructure, which may temporarily increase PM2.5 concentrations but nevertheless have significant long-term benefits. For example, building significant cycling and walking infrastructure would deliver long-term benefits through the modal shift from polluting modes of transport such as motor cars, but the construction work to deliver that infrastructure would increase PM2.5 concentrations in the short term, as well as congestion while people get used to a different flow of traffic. All the evidence backs both those contentions.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support that I have received from my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
I am also mostly happy with what my noble friend the Minister has said. It sounds like a good standard Civil Service practice, but I very much hope that, when the time comes, he will go beyond just publishing a summary of the evidence. This ought to be something people can engage with in detail. They ought to be able to see exactly what has been said, to read the underlying research papers, to go in depth into the evidence that has been collected and, with the help of organisations with expertise in these matters, be able to criticise on a level basis the targets that have been set and suggest improvements, with good reasons. That will come if the Government are fully open about the basis on which they have reached their targets. However, my noble friend will not be surprised that I am greatly encouraged by what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 17
Lord Lucas
“(5A) Regulations under this section must make provision about undertaking research into the reasons why a target is not being met, regionally or nationally.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make sure that the reasons why targets are not being met is understood and evidenced so that remedies can be accurately and efficiently targeted.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
When the Government come to review the performance against targets, I very much hope that they will commit to undertake detailed research into the reasons why the targets have not been met, not only nationally but regionally, because for most of them the underlying reasons will be significant at a local level but perhaps not so nationally.
To take the example of air pollution in Eastbourne, where I live, we often record quite high figures, but no one has the slightest idea why. There does not seem to be that much traffic; we do not seem to be in a place where you would expect fumes to be trapped; there is not a lot of wood-burning going on. We end up ascribing things to container ships in the channel. However, all this is soluble if we do a bit of research. Every bit of this pollution has a chemical signature. With some money put into it, we would know quite rapidly what lay at the root of the problems we experienced and could therefore accurately understand what we should be doing over the next planned period to reduce it.
Without that sort of research, we are operating blind. We are operating on a set of national suppositions as to where this pollution comes from—diesel engines, wood-burning stoves, whatever—none of which has any obvious application locally. However, it is locally that the efforts must be made to reduce it. In this amendment, I ask the Minister to put us in a position to take effective action locally to drive through the achievement of his targets. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the amendment in my name suggests that the Government should be talking to other bits of government when creating policy. Its wording might go back to some earlier bits of this clause—nearly one and half days into this, we are not half way through the first clause, but that is quite normal for the start of a Bill. I am thinking here about some of the targets on recreation and enjoyment of the countryside. If I do not like it, I should have stood up earlier and said, “Move it”, but we are where we are.
The Department of Health has a considerable investment in, and has spent a lot of time, making sure that people take exercise. The countryside is an incredibly good potential facility for getting more people to take exercise in a pleasant manner. They will not do it if the environment they are in is unpleasant, dangerous or difficult to reach. We can go on in this way for quite a long time. Will these two departments work together coherently? We may discover from the Minister that “They should possibly consult, that is definitely a good idea”, but in reality they will not, because we have two people defending their own little bailiwicks—“This is where we have authority; this is where you have authority—get your tanks off my lawn.” They might throw a few expletives in there as well, because that is the normal relationship. People like to be in control of what they are doing.
This is an attempt to make sure that two bits of government that should be working together are doing so. It might be the case that we go back and put in a couple more amendments about the new office for health promotion—by naming it I might be expanding this slightly—but if we are to make sure that activity can take place outside, we must know what is going on.
On the other hand, if you are suggesting that everybody should go out and march up and down hills, you have to know how much damage you will do to the environment in certain circumstances and whether that should not happen for environmental reasons. We have talked about mountain bikes ripping up paths, and will talk about it again. We will talk about where walkers are and where they should not be. All these things should be discussed sensibly in government, with somebody having some duty to make sure there is some form of coherent whole coming out of this.
I could expand at considerable length about certain well-meaning groups in the countryside finding themselves totally at the throats of other well-meaning groups in the countryside. They all want similar things but none are prepared to compromise—“And, by the way, we normally fight, don’t we?”. Okay, I will say it: the canoeists and the anglers. If we are going through this, we need some form of guidance from government to make sure they will work together. I suggest that giving some idea of how this will happen in future would not hurt the Bill in any way.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have one amendment in this grouping, Amendment 34. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Teverson. It is quite a tightly worded, small amendment in some regards and aims to require the Secretary of State to seek the advice of the OEP on whom to consult before setting targets. As it stands at the moment, the Secretary of State gets to set the targets and choose the advisers the Government consult on what those targets might be. That seems to be not a very rational approach and not a very solid process.
I suspect that in summing up, the Minister will say, “Well, under Clause 29 of the Bill, we can ask the office for environmental protection for advice on such matters”, and of course that is reasonable—but it is only that they can ask. If we look at the parallel body, the Climate Change Committee, although I know it is not an exact parallel, we see that the Government have to seek the advice at the start of the target-setting process.
It seems to me that the OEP should be involved right at the beginning of the process of setting the targets for the future of our environment and should therefore be asked to have a say in who the Government should consult—the best experts who can provide the best current advice, from which the Government can then cull a view on what those targets might be. If it does not do that, it seems to me that the Government have undue discretion. I therefore urge the Government to accept this small but important point of process.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer with forestry and renewable energy interests, chairman of the Fleet District Salmon Fishery Board and a director of the Galloway Fisheries Trust.
I will speak to Amendments 36, 38, 45 and 50 in my name in this rather wide group. They all relate to the same issue: that the Bill does not take account of any negative impacts, risks or costs that may arise, inadvertently or otherwise, as a result of the environmental targets set under Clause 1. I noted what the Minister, who is not in his place at the moment, said on the last group about impact assessments for targets, which was very welcome, but there is nothing in the Bill with respect to that. This is important, because we do not always get it right. Most environmental actions involve some form of trade-off or cost, whether environmental, social or economic. That is not to say that we should not take the actions, but surely it cannot be controversial to say that we should ensure that the costs or damage that might result are not disproportionate to the benefits achieved.
On 10 June, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—not renowned for being unenvironmental in their outlook—jointly sponsored a workshop report, Biodiversity and Climate Change. I believe that the Minister was at that workshop. The report points out that actions taken to deal with climate change can have negative impacts on biodiversity—and the other way around, although that is less common.
The report gives examples of such negative trade-offs. For example, it says:
“Afforestation, which involves planting trees in ecosystems that have not historically been forests, and reforestation with monocultures, especially with exotic tree species, can contribute to climate change mitigation but are often detrimental to biodiversity”.
That is a subject very close to my heart. Living in south-west Scotland, as I do, I see every day the damage that can be done. I am a member of the Fleet catchment steering group, which is working to try to reverse the damage to watercourses and peat-land caused by Sitka spruce plantations from the 1960s.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow that last contribution, because important points arise in the context of having to balance one risk against another. There will be trade-offs, and we have to establish the priorities. Clearly, some of the global priorities must take precedence, but that may not be the view in every country. Therefore, it is an immensely difficult challenge to legislate in a meaningful way to meet these issues.
I will address Amendments 41A and 41B, standing in my name, shortly, but first I wish to speak to Amendment 17. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in moving this amendment. As someone who, prior to entering Parliament, was a financial controller in the manufacturing industry, I know full well how easy it is to establish targets and then, with 1,001 plausible excuses, find ways of explaining away any failure to meet them. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, given his background in accountancy, may well share my view.
A target is of no earthly use to man or beast, or to the environment or government, unless there is a means of assessing whether it has been met and, if not, a systematic and detailed analysis of the reasons why and a pinpointing of personal responsibility for allowing that failure to occur. If there is reason to believe that there may be different levels of performance from region to region, and if responsibility is likewise distributed on a regional basis, then a regional review of performance against target is absolutely appropriate. Hopefully, such a systematic approach will lead to identifying the factors that led to failure; determination of the necessary remedies, as rightly stated in the explanatory statement to Amendment 17; a reallocation of resources if necessary; and a better performance in future, with a higher likelihood of hitting targets.
This is all fundamental to any system of management by objectives and is basic in the world of industry. But I sometimes wonder whether the necessary culture and discipline exist in governmental sectors to apply such an approach systematically and rigorously to their responsibilities. It is to the Government’s credit that they are willing to apply a target-driven approach to these issues in the Bill, but that approach will not deliver unless there is a commitment to follow through with remedial action. Amendment 17 tests the seriousness of the Government’s intention to see their targets lead to real change, and I therefore support it.
Amendment 41A seeks to clarify the applicability or otherwise of regulations made under Clauses 1 and 2 to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendment states quite simply that any of these regulations shall not apply to the three devolved nations without the prior consent of their respective Parliaments. Environmental matters are overwhelmingly devolved, and if aspects of Westminster policy apply in any of the devolved territories, it is both sensible and courteous to solicit the agreement of the devolved Governments. If the Government wish to legislate in any of the three territories under the umbrella of this Bill, will the Minister give examples of such topics? Surely, he accepts that it would be both sensible and courteous to secure prior agreement, rather than foisting policies on them without agreement.
I realise that Clause 138, the “Extent” Clause, states that Chapter 1 applies to England and Wales but not Scotland and Northern Ireland—that this goes beyond the normal issue of England and Wales jurisdiction. Indeed, Clause 1(9) implies that regulations may be introduced through this clause that will apply to Wales. Can the Minister explain why there is this difference in approach to the Bill’s applicability to the three devolved nations? Can he give an example of where he foresees legislating for Wales under the provisions of Chapter 1? If so, what steps does he foresee being taken to avoid acrimonious disputes arising in relation to the devolved powers?
Amendment 41B relates specifically to the vexed question of the control of water resources in Wales. I will not rehearse the difficult history relating to water abstraction and the drowning of valleys, of which the Minister and the Committee will be well aware. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister please accept this amendment or bring forward his own to the same end, so there will be no doubt that control over water resources and attendant water policies in Wales lies firmly and unambiguously with Senedd Cymru? I shall be grateful for his response.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Lucas in moving the amendment. I also listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I hope the Minister will read his speech with care, because what he said was hugely important to the proper functioning of our aims.
I turn Amendment 48, in my name, which would amend Clause 6, entitled “Environmental targets: review. I wish to amend subsection (3), which relates to the “significant improvement test.” The clause says the test ticks the boxes if it
“would significantly improve the natural environment in England.”
I do not think “improvement” is good enough. It is not sufficient, as it provides no condition or basis by which to judge the improvement. I take it for granted that my noble friend does not want to encourage a “trash and improve” system, but that is what is going to happen unless this amendment is accepted. An approach like that would be detrimental to biodiversity and the natural environment. Therefore, I have proposed what I think is a much more sensible and appropriate wording. Instead of “improve the natural environment,” I want to insert
“improve the maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment.”
There are many places where the natural environment is in very good condition at the moment. No significant improvement test will be met when it is in good condition now. But if it is maintained in an excellent and pristine condition, it should meet the significant improvement test.
I hope my noble friend will give more consideration to this amendment than he gave to my comments on the last amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is dedicated to these issues. I want to speak to Amendment 34, which I put my name to. First, I offer my support to my noble friend Lord Addington, who constantly fights against silo management within government and makes sure that the health aspect is always included in these debates. I also want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, whose comments I found particularly interesting. As he so eloquently said, the recent meeting between the secretariats of the United Nations climate change organisation and the biodiversity secretariats was a landmark one from which very important lessons can be learned.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
First, I wish your Lordships a happy Brexit day. I am sure that, like me, you all have happy memories of that time five years ago.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
There are a couple in. Indeed, one of the reasons why so many millions voted to leave the EU—not Europe—inspired by the democratic spirit, was to escape top-down, immovable regulations imposed from on high. What grated was that any challenge to subsequent policies was met with a shrug: “There is no alternative—they are the EU rules”, given an extra moral force when associated with international agreements. In that context I support the very sensible amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, maybe with a different reasoning, but I thought he put forward an excellent explanation of his thoughts.
These amendments all contain the spirit of flexibility and call for us to consider, as well as environmental concerns, what the social and economic costs of meeting targets in the Bill might be, to ensure that they are not disproportionate to the alleged benefits. The amendments ask us to take into consideration the possibility not just that circumstances might change but that evidence might mean a rethink, and that would mean a different cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analyses are essential in a democracy to give both politicians and, more importantly, voters a choice of priorities—a sense that there is always an alternative. I therefore want to address targets, not so much missing them or whether they should be long-term or interim, but rather the dangers of making them overbinding.
It is important to ensure that citizens know what is being legislated for in their name, that the social and economic costs and trade-offs of environmental targets are not removed from public debate with a “There is no alternative; it’s binding and in the law” dismissal. Make no mistake: targets in one area regularly have a cost elsewhere. For example, the net-zero target is regularly bandied about as an aspiration we all agree on reaching at any costs, but when Andrew Neil asked the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, on GB News last week to break down those costs and put figures on them, that was not so comfortable, and there is no transparency when there are no figures. What is clear is that net zero as a target will have a cost, not only for the Treasury—potentially at the expense of other spending priorities such as social care or job creation—but it will land exorbitant costs on householders in terms of making their homes net-zero compliant, such as the compulsory demand to replace gas boilers. I have noticed when I have raised this issue in the House that the regular reply is: “We need to take the public with us. We need to educate the public so that they understand why they need to change their behaviour and why we need to reach net zero”; in other words, reaching the target is treated as a given—a fait accompli. I note that this means the target usurps choice, so I want to reflect a little on choice.
If you say to the public, “You should support this net-zero target because it’s necessary to save the planet from climate catastrophe”, of course it is a no-brainer. However, if you say, “Do you support the net-zero target with its trade-offs, which could mean reducing living standards?”, or if you say, “We’ll abolish every petrol or diesel car and discourage driving in general, but if you insist on driving we’ll make it an expensive electric car”—and, by the way, yesterday I googled electric cars and the cheapest I could find was £18,500, and the most popular UK electric, Tesla, is an eye-watering £42,000, which for most people would be quite a challenge—or if you describe in detail the impacts on individual lives of decarbonising the economy, there may be less enthusiasm for the target once the trade-offs are known. People have a right to know.
With this Environment Bill, if we tell the public that it is about reducing fly-tipping and toxic pollution, stopping sewage being dumped in rivers, reducing flooding or protecting wildlife in the country, I am sure there will be lots of nods of approval, including from me. But if you explain that legal targets throughout the Bill could mean regulatory barriers to economic bounce-back, holding back industrialisation, and creating material limits to much-needed housebuilding and economic development, there might be a different response.
I said at Second Reading that a tension is already being posited between this Bill and the planning Bill, or planning reforms. I fear that the result of the Chesham and Amersham by-election may fuel this, with an unholy alliance of shire nimbyism and green activism. I am very much on the side of relaxing planning regulations and releasing land for new building, infrastructure and housing and, yes, even some building on the green belt. That is not because I want to concrete over the countryside or because I am opposed to protection of green spaces per se but because the green belt is being treated as sacrosanct or untouchable, yet is 13% of England’s total land and is much larger than the 7% of developed land. So it at least needs to be looked at again.
For me, the social priorities are solving homelessness, tackling the problem of young people excluded from the housing ladder, and the distorted and ever-growing costs for renters. But that is all just my opinion. Many people here do not support it, and that may not be a popular set of opinions outside of here. However, it is precisely these sorts of arguments, weighing up the costs and benefits and the trade-offs of policies, that we need to have in the public sphere. I fear that immovable and overbinding targets in law can only obscure transparency and rule debate on the implications of this Environment Bill off limits.
My final thought is that targets can too easily become the end, not the means to an end. During the 15 months of the pandemic we have seen targets taking an almost Soviet-style command and control form, with daily reports of numbers tested and Nightingale hospitals built—even if not used. Too easily, targets can be bean-counting exercises: the impression of activity but often a cover for the lack of transparency over detail.
I therefore hope that these amendments are adopted and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, does not mind me backing him. I am sure we will not agree on many things but I thought they were very important. These amendments could at least remind the Government to conduct cost-benefit analyses of actions associated with the legislation, and they are an important acknowledgement of the importance of social and economic challenges, as well as solving the practical problems in relation to the environment. It is also an antidote to the ubiquitous demand here, in every amendment that I have heard, that there should be ever more binding targets, because I fear that these could undermine democratic accountability.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I should briefly offer a defence of targets—particularly the target of ensuring that everyone in the UK has a warm, comfortable and affordable-to-heat home. I hope that no one would disagree with the target of ending our utterly disgraceful excess winter deaths that come largely as a result of the poor quality of our housing stock. I also wish to defend the targets that we are talking about here in terms of our natural environment, on which our entire economy and lives depend.
I will be fairly brief. I want to speak in favour of Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, that would seem to be an easy, obvious amendment for the Government to accept. As the noble Baroness said, their ability to ask the office for environmental protection for guidance on the targets is simply not good enough and does not reflect the provisions of the Climate Change Act. We are very much creating a parallel here between action on climate and action on biodiversity. To mirror those two things would seem to be an obvious, simple and not difficult step.
On Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I would go broader than consulting the Department of Health and Social Care. The noble Lord in his introduction spoke particularly about recreation and the value of the natural environment to recreation. When we think about the health of human beings, the health of the natural environment is related in much deeper ways. I should point noble Lords to an interesting United Nations scheme called HUMI—the Healthy Urban Microbiome Initiative—which addresses a fast-growing and developing area of science: understanding the human microbiome and how it is related to our physical and mental health, and how what is happening around us in the natural world is utterly integral to a healthy microbiome.
I also wish to speak in favour of Amendments 41A and 41B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Again, we are in what could be described as no-brainer territory. We surely should not be imposing anything in terms of environmental regulation on the devolved nations without their “prior consent”—words that are important. This matter also raises a subject that we have not broadly discussed and might like to think about further. As the noble Lord said, rivers and waters do not suddenly get to a national border, stop and turn around, saying “Oh, I’m Welsh water and am staying in Wales”. That is also true of birds, insects, mammals and the whole ecosystem. A question to the Minister, either for today or a future date, is on how the Bill, this Act-to-be, will fit within the common framework and co-ordinating efforts of the nations of these islands. How will that work? I think also of many of our debates on the internal market Bill, now an Act.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. It is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
When I first read this series of amendments, I wondered whether they were really necessary. However, the more I reflect, the more I have become concerned and I now believe that these amendments, or something like them, are required. The Government will set targets as permitted within the Bill and we will debate that matter again later. However, it will be difficult to determine the unintended consequences of setting targets, which can distort behaviour, as we know. We have seen this in the NHS and other sectors in which the Government have intervened and set targets.
I understand the need to have a clear sense of direction and the discipline of knowing what we are driving to achieve within a given period. However, let us be clear, as far as possible, on the need to be aware of the costs involved and the consequences of fixing targets. Even the best-researched impact assessments with a range of assumptions can be wrong. I therefore encourage the Minister to take this issue seriously and establish systems with which to monitor the potential negative consequences as well as the benefits.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendment, Amendment 17, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As he explained, it aims to ensure that the Government commission the relevant research so that they understand what they are doing when they aim to meet environmental targets.
If we take biodiversity targets as an example, it is one thing to set a target of halting the reduction in biodiversity but it is quite another to figure out how to achieve the target. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, entertained us a few minutes ago with stories of lapwings and curlews, and the research carried out by what used to be called the Game Conservancy Trust but, I believe, now operates under a different name. If noble Lords will forgive me for a short digression, I will complement the noble Earl’s story about lapwings and curlews with the narrative of the large blue butterfly.
That butterfly was extinct in this country by 1979, despite over 50 years of effort to halt its decline. Today it thrives in 33 different sites in south-west England. This is one of the classic cases of how restoring a species and increasing its abundance depended on detailed research. The secrets of success lay in the complex life history of this species, the caterpillars of which are taken into ants’ nests and tended and protected by a particular species of red ant, called Myrmica sabuleti. In return, the caterpillars secrete a nutritious liquid for the ants to feed on—an example of a mutualistic relationship. Professor Jeremy Thomas, then at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, discovered that the ant species is sensitive to temperature, which, in turn, depends on the length of the grass in the ants’ habitats. Changes in agricultural practice, combined with the decline in rabbit populations due to myxomatosis, had resulted in a small increase in grass length sufficient to cause the ants to disappear and, hence, the butterflies to die out. As a result of his research, slight changes in agricultural practice allowed us to maintain the grass at the right height and successfully restore butterfly populations.
Unfortunately, that conservation success story is the exception rather than the rule. As Professor Bill Sutherland of Cambridge University has documented, many, if not most, government-led initiatives to enhance biodiversity and restore nature have failed because they were based on hunch rather than proper scientific evidence. This includes the CAP Pillar 2 environment schemes. I know that from my own experience. My research group at Oxford was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, as it was in those days, for many years to work out how to alter arable farming practice to support winter populations of farmland bird species. Although we discovered simple and effective remedies, they were never implemented.
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of evidence on which to base the targets. However, in closing, my question for the Minister is: who will commission and pay for the necessary research to underpin the ambitions of the Bill and ensure that we do not blunder blindly, as we have done all too often in the past? The major research funding body in this country is UK Research and Innovation, whose website I checked this morning. Although the environment is one of eight priority themes, if one looks within that theme, no mention is made of biodiversity, habitats or conservation. Furthermore, UKRI is facing a £539 million cut in its funding this coming year, which will mean that all its research programmes are likely to be reduced. If not UKRI, who is going to fund the research that we will need if the Bill is to achieve its high ambitions?
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I loved that story about the blue butterfly, because I have been to one of those sites, beside a railway line, outside Somerton, so I know about that brilliant ant. The noble Lord is absolutely right and I would also like to know the answer to the question he asks the Minister: who is going to fund this? After all, we all know that the Aichi targets have been more or less a total failure and nobody knows quite why. I also support the proposals on health from the noble Lord, Lord Addington; it could not be more important.
Primarily, I want to support the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and her Amendment 34. The Secretary of State has to seek advice from the OEP. Over the years, we have seen how advice can be handed in by cronies or the local person you know on the end of the telephone. Think of some of the really bad things that have happened: advice about how particulates in the air do not matter to health, advice that smoking is fine, or advice that fossil fuels will not cause damage. We have to make sure that when, say, you want to put an endless chicken farm on the bank of the River Wye, you get advice from someone who has been passed and guaranteed by a body such as the OEP. Of course the Minister does not have to take this advice but, if this amendment is passed, he will at least have to explain why he took the advice that he did and, if it is found wanting, he can be challenged.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am going to speak about something a bit different and refer back to Amendment 41A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, with which I am very much in sympathy.
As the noble Lord pointed out, the amendment has to be read in the light of Clause 138, which defines the extent of the Bill. We are told in that clause that Chapter 1 of the Bill, of which Clauses 1 and 2 form part, applies to England and Wales only, except for Clause 19, which deals with statements about Bills. At first sight, therefore, the Secretary of State would not have power under these clauses to make regulations that would be applicable to Scotland or Northern Ireland, to which the amendment refers. That must be so, in so far as regulations might seek to make directions as to what may or may not be done there. So it might be said that the amendment is directed to something that in those parts of the United Kingdom could not happen.
However, these targets relate to the natural environment itself, which is not capable of being divided up or contained in that way. Its effect, for good or ill, spreads across borders. Rivers flow, winds blow, and birds and animals move about, irrespective of whether national borders are being crossed. Measures taken in one part of the country may affect what happens in another, because that is the way the environment works. Just as no man is an island, because we all depend on each other in one way or another, so it is too with the environment which we enjoy in the various parts of the United Kingdom.
In its report on this Bill, which has just been published, the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, stated that
“Close co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved administrations … will be important in improving environmental protection across the UK.”
That makes obvious sense, for the reasons I have just been giving, and, it could be said, is really what this amendment is about.
I would prefer it if the words
“if they are, or may be, applicable in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland”
were expanded, so that they said “if they have effects which are, or may be, applicable” to them. That is what this amendment is really talking about. The message it conveys to the Secretary of State is that targets that he may set for the natural environment in England and Wales may affect other parts of the UK too. That is something to which he should have regard; it is not just sensible, but a matter of courtesy. I also agree with the suggestion in the noble Lord’s amendment that, where appropriate, consents should be obtained.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments about targets. Without ambitious targets being set in the Environment Bill, the Government will not achieve their goal of increasing biodiversity, tackling pollution and climate change, and moving the country forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right to want to ensure that we fully understand and evidence the reasons why we are taking targets and why they are not being met, so that remedial action can be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others have supported this. However, unless targets are set and strategies set to reach them, we will not move forward in the way the Minister hopes for from this Bill, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will be missed.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave us an excellent example of conservation success based on scientific evidence. My noble friend Lord Addington is right that the health of the population, taking exercise and the state of the environment are inextricably linked. Improving the environment improves the sense of well-being of each of us, and therefore improves our health, both mental and physical.
My noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, supported by other Lords, made a very strong case for the Secretary of State to obtain the advice of the OEP about consultation on the regulations in Clause 1—although my noble friend Lord Teverson would prefer that the advice come from the Climate Change Committee. The OEP is a vital body that will need considerable strengthening to be effective and deliver. It has expertise provided by the excellent chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, and her newly appointed non-executive members, but it needs legal independence and authority to operative effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, quite rightly reminds the Minister that the Government should not make decisions that are applicable in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the consent of the devolved Administrations. This is particularly important when it comes to water.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pressed for the inclusion of the maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment in the targets. Again, this is vital if we are to return to our biodiversity of former years. Some areas are in very good condition, but many others are not.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, made a powerful argument, especially around trade-offs, but I regret that I remain to be convinced. Setting ambitious targets and having realistic strategies to meet them is what the Environment Bill is all about. While the cost of meeting targets may appear high, in some cases the economic cost to the planet of not meeting our biodiversity and environmental protection targets is incalculable. The diversity of species in plant, animal and insect life has for too long been a question of cost. The cost of the loss of that diversity has now reached epic proportions and must be halted and reversed, otherwise the cost to humanity as a whole, as David Attenborough has reminded us, will be utterly devastating. To my mind, the case for a cost-benefit analysis has been made but, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, demonstrated, there is no indication of how the measures in the Bill will be funded. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these comments and the questions posed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 34, to which I have added my name, and all the other amendments that were so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained, Amendment 34 addresses the specific question of where the Secretary of State will get his advice from before setting any environmental targets. As the wording stands, it is for the Secretary of State to determine who is independent and who has relevant expertise. As we have already begun to identify, this concentrates considerable power in the hands of the Secretary of State, who will, under this wording, effectively determine not only what targets are set but who will advise him on what targets are appropriate. Our amendment would make the simple but important change to require the Secretary of State to seek advice from the OEP on who these experts might be. It seeks to add an extra layer of independence into the target-framing process.
It is also worth noting that there is no requirement in the Bill, at the moment, to seek any independent advice on the setting of interim targets. Compare this with the requirements for the Climate Change Committee; it sets the targets and it decides which independent experts to draw upon. It is a much more robust and independent process, which is why there is considerable confidence and respect for its final recommendations.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes a good point about the evidence and research and the fact that, if targets are not being met, we need to be sensitive about the remedies that can be introduced. I welcome that approach, but I was concerned to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that UKRI does not even have any details of funding for biodiversity activities on its website, which again raises the rather urgent question of where that research is going to come from. We agree that the target-setting and evaluation process should have enough flexibility over the course of the term to be adapted and amended if the details of the research change.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope it will reassure them to know that targets will be set through a robust and evidence-led process. I have already spoken about our published targets policy paper, which provides an overview of how we intend to develop and bring forward targets by October 2022. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the process will seek independent expert advice and provide a role for stakeholders, other government departments and the public, and it includes scrutiny from Parliament and the OEP.
In relation to Amendment 19 in particular, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the process also involves regular discussions with other government departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care. For example, we are working closely with Public Health England and the DHSC and its expert committee to ensure that our process of developing air quality targets is informed by the latest health evidence. Defra also intends to work closely with the new UK Health Security Agency and the office for health promotion, as soon as they assume their full functions.
On Amendment 34 from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, there is a concern that it could be difficult for the OEP to act impartially when investigating complaints regarding target-setting if the OEP advised on the experts used to set those targets. I want to provide assurance on the substantial role of the OEP in relation to long-term targets. Each year, the OEP will comment on the progress reported in the EIP annual report. That provides the opportunity for the OEP to flag up early on where it believes there is a risk that the Government may not meet their legally binding long-term targets. It may make recommendations as to how progress could be improved, to which the Government would then have to respond.
If the Government have missed a target, they must, within 12 months of confirming that they missed it, publish and lay before Parliament a remedial plan, which is covered in Clause 5. The OEP could highlight in a report on the implementation of environmental law whether the steps set out in the remedial plan would be sufficient to ensure that the target was then achieved. I hope that will also reassure my noble friend Lord Lucas that his Amendment 17 is not needed. The OEP will also have the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including their duty to achieve long-term targets.
With respect to Amendments 36, 45 and 50 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, while the Bill does not specify particular matters that must be considered when setting targets, as part of sound policy-making the Government will look to identify and consider a wide range of matters. These are likely to include environmental, economic, social and fiscal factors, as well as international commitments. When we consult on the proposed targets in early 2022, we will provide an impact assessment that will consider the environmental and socioeconomic considerations associated with each target. We think the target-setting stage is the most appropriate time to consider the costs and benefits of individual targets, rather than when conducting the significant improvement tests. That is because the significant improvement test considers targets collectively, which allows for a more holistic assessment of improvements across the natural environment.
The Government are developing their plans for implementing the significant improvement test. My noble friend Lord Caithness has provided some useful ideas for how improvement might be understood for the purposes of that test. However, his proposed Amendment 48 would take away important flexibility, and I therefore cannot accept it.
In response to one of the points that my noble friend made, I shall briefly explain how the significant improvement test works. At least every five years a Government will look to assess whether meeting the legally binding targets set under the Bill’s framework, alongside any other statutory environmental targets, would significantly improve the natural environment in England. The Government will then be required to report to Parliament on their conclusions and, if they consider that the test is not met, set out how they plan to use their new target-setting powers to subsequently close that gap. In practice, that will most likely involve plans either to modify existing targets or to make them more ambitious, or even set new ones.
It seems appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to consider how significant improvement should be understood in relation to the natural environment, because the natural environment is complex and interconnected and requires a considerably more complicated approach than would be expected, for example, simply in relation to carbon. Aspects of the natural environment such as water quality could respond slowly, even to ambitious interventions. Furthermore, our understanding of environmental change will likely evolve over time, as new data sets become available and the evidence base improves. I add that we take “significantly” to mean that only a marginal or fractional improvement of the whole natural environment, or on the other hand dramatic improvement in only a few narrow areas of the environment, would not be acceptable.
My noble friend mentioned at the end of his speech that he felt he had asked a question, presumably on interim targets, that I had not addressed, in which case I apologise. I have gone through the notes and cannot see any gaps, so I am afraid I am going to have to rely on him. If he wants me to follow up on that, I am happy do so by telephone or in writing, but I might need a bit of guidance from him, so that I know that I am responding to the appropriate point that he made. I apologise for missing that question.
Moving on to Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, government can only lower or revoke a target if satisfied either that meeting the existing target does not result in a significant benefit compared to not meeting it or meeting a lower target, or that the costs of meeting the existing target would be disproportionate to the benefits due to a change in circumstance. I also note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on that point. She made the perfectly valid point that, if we are to embark on something as profound as achieving net zero by 2050, it is important that people are aware of what the consequences and implications are. But that is not just about the costs of meeting net zero; it would need to include the opportunities as well. It is hard to imagine an economic transition of the sort and scale we are talking about without numerous opportunities arising at the same time. For example, we are already seeing that investment in new renewables globally greatly exceeds investment in fossil fuel infrastructure in terms of new capacity. That has been true year on year for quite a few years.
In truth, the market for low-carbon technologies greatly exceeds any of the predictions we have had in recent years. For example, solar prices have dropped by 80% since the banking crisis, which I do not think anyone predicted. We would also need to factor in the costs of not achieving net zero by 2050 into any such analysis, although this is much more complicated. If any of the predictions on climate change are accurate, the costs of not achieving net zero by 2050 at the latest are severe, to put it mildly. But I do not dispute the central argument that the noble Baroness makes, which is that we need to have that discussion and that it needs to be an honest one—warts and all.
To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the long-term targets may be amended or revoked only by secondary legislation subject to affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament would, of course, have a vote. This opens up the process to parliamentary approval and creates a strong check on any future Government, while still providing for some flexibility for government to respond to changing circumstances and evidence.
On Amendments 41A and 41B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I reassure him that the Bill’s environmental targets clauses extend to England and Wales only, and this is set out in Clause 138. I will write to him to provide more assurances, and I will copy in the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, both of whom also raised this issue. But, in addition, Clause 1(9) prevents the Secretary of State making any provision in any targets regulations, relating to water or otherwise, which would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd Cymru. We are committed to ongoing co-operation with the devolved Administrations on environmental matters, and the dialogue and exchange between my department and theirs has been thorough and will continue to be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about funding for research, and his question was supported—or perhaps repeated—by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I shall answer it in two ways. The first is to talk about the expert panel we are creating to advise on target setting. There are already a number of well-established advisory groups in place for things such as air quality target development—for instance, the Air Quality Expert Group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. But we have set up new groups of independent experts, where they did not previously exist, for priority policy areas we have outlined in the Bill to advise on developing evidence for the targets we are obliged to introduce.
These expert groups are providing guidance on evidence processes bespoke to individual targets, and their advice might include appropriate analytical methods, datasets, the evidence to be used, et cetera. They are advising Defra on how to produce the best available evidence, and the terms of reference for these groups are available on GOV.UK. In addition to that, as with any department embarking on important initiatives and projects, we will be bidding greedily at the next spending review to help secure the funds we will need to deliver these ambitious targets. We need to make the case and the Treasury will then respond. It is very hard to predict how that will go, but we will of course do our best.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, may I press the Minister a bit further on the local nature of pollution, particularly air and water? To pick another example, phosphate in rivers can be a problem, but in the southern Hampshire rivers it is a particular problem because of the sensitivity of the estuarine ecologies to excess phosphate, whereas it might not be such a problem in another ecology. In that circumstance, it becomes crucial to know where the phosphate is coming from; how much comes from agriculture and sewage; which particular bits of land it comes off; and what practices are available to reduce it and are effective in reducing it in those circumstances. That needs a local level of focus and research, and I did not hear anything in his answer—and indeed there was a good deal to worry about in what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—which gave me a clue about where that evidence can come from.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. In addition to the answer I gave the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, where new skills are needed—and, as the noble Lord says, new skills will be needed—we are committing, and we have committed throughout the Bill, to support local authorities, delivery partners and other relevant stakeholders in properly developing or, if necessary, acquiring those skills. There is no doubt that there is a gap, but our commitment is that, with government support, we will ensure that it is filled.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the assurance that he is working well with Ministers in the devolved nations. Indeed, in Wales we now have a climate change Minister. Could he clarify, in the event that one of the devolved nations sets a target or policy which does not align completely with one coming from central government—I expect that the local one for Wales may be more stringent than the one coming from Westminster, given the concerns over the environment in Wales—which legislature will take precedence? In the event of legal action being brought against, for example, the Welsh Government for having tighter controls which someone in industry perhaps does not wish to comply with, what will be the position on compensation for legal fees for the Welsh Government?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. This is relevant where the contaminant or the issue that we are talking about crosses the border. Sorry, that is a clumsy answer. Where the issue crosses the border—and an example was put to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—that is where the complication arises. So, if the problem, if there is a problem, is contained one country or another, or one region or another, I think the question that the noble Baroness has asked would be moot. Where the pollution or the problem crosses the border, my understanding is that the targets that are set in this Bill, by this Parliament, are the targets that would prevail. I will have to write to her to confirm that. She raises an important point and I want to make sure that the answer I give is correct, so I will get back to her and I will publish the answer in the Library.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support I have received from my noble friend Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Krebs. I remain concerned. Perhaps it is inevitable, in the structure of government, that it can find the funds to create a target and do that well, but to promise money for a few years down the road to see if that has actually turned out well, and why it has not, is a much harder thing for Governments to do. However, I accept my noble friend’s assurances.
I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on costs and how we need to look at them and not just the benefits—again, not just initially, but on how it works out. What is happening? What effects are the target having? What costs actually turn out to be real? It can be really difficult to predict what negative effects a policy will have, because people find all sorts of interesting ways of adapting to it. A lot of the things one fears do not, in the event, happen, and other things do happen that one had not expected. It is very important to have a process where you revisit initial assumptions and really question how the process is going.
I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was saying. It really echoes an amendment I was chasing yesterday, on connecting people with nature. If you do not give, in the structure of what you are doing, a real incentive—a focus on being connected, one department to another, together with the people—those things get neglected because we have set out other priorities. I hope this is a general area that we will return to on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 20
“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3,(b) so far as practicable, follow World Health Organisation guidelines, and(c) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, In moving Amendment 20 I shall also speak to Amendment 49, both in the name of my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I express support for my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 21, and Amendment 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I shall also speak briefly to Amendment 156 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Amendment 20 sets parameters in the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. Amendment 49
“strengthens the significant improvement test outlined … in Clause 6 by requiring explicit consideration of the extent to which air quality targets under section 1 and the PM2.5 air quality target under section 2 are compatible with WHO guidelines.”
It also requires the Secretary of State to outline,
“in the event of divergence … why they believe this is in the public interest.”
Air pollution has been breaching legal limits across the UK since 2010 and is recognised by the Government to be the single largest environmental risk to health in the UK. It is linked to cancer, asthma, strokes and heart disease and, in the UK, contributes to the early deaths of an estimated 40,000 people. Toxic air also drives health inequalities. Government analysis confirms air quality tends to be poorest in the poorest communities, and that those communities are also more likely to have health conditions that make them more vulnerable to the effects of polluted air. This Bill gives us the opportunity to address this crisis of pollution and set the UK on the pathway to become a global leader in environmental protection, but without ensuring the PM2.5 targets as in our amendment we will waste this opportunity.
The Government should be ambitious in what they set out to achieve, as it is possible to make sufficient improvements in urban areas to achieve the WHO target. The Mayor of London, for example, has produced evidence to show that London can achieve WHO guidelines, even in the hardest areas to tackle. Recent monitoring data shows that parts of the city are already meeting this standard, demonstrating that it could be achieved across London, and in cities across the country by 2030. Without this vital provision, not only will action be unacceptably delayed but it will be possible to remove or even to water down targets should they prove challenging to meet, which would fundamentally undermine the whole purpose of target setting. Due to the Government’s constant delay in action to meet existing legal limits for air quality—I remind noble Lords that this led to the Government losing a number of court cases—greater urgency and ambition is now needed for the protection of human health.
Amendment 156, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, addresses air pollution and public health and we strongly support this amendment. The coroner’s conclusion that exposure to excessive air pollution contributed to the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in 2013 has underlined the need for all levels of government to do much more to tackle the deadly scourge of air pollution. In April this year, the need for legally binding targets based on WHO guidelines was raised by the coroner as an area of concern in his Prevention of Future Deaths report and is even more urgent given the emerging evidence linking air pollution with the most severe impacts of Covid-19. In response to this report the Government have said they will launch a consultation on new targets for PM2.5 and other pollutants next year, with the aim—I repeat: the aim—of setting new targets in legislation by October 2022, and will also develop a more sophisticated population exposure reduction target.
Only this week, medical leaders are urging the Government to cut levels of air pollution to below WHO limits in response to Ella’s death. Leaders of the BMA, more than 20 nursing colleges, the Lancet and the British Medical Journal have written to the Prime Minister to urge the Government
“to use this bill to make a legally binding commitment to reducing fine particulate pollution … in the UK to below the maximum level recommended by the WHO by 2030.”
This Bill clearly provides the Government with the opportunity to implement the coroner’s recommendations through our amendments, and through those in the name of other noble Lords. What response have the Government made to this letter?
As the UK moves to a post-pandemic, green recovery, action taken through the Environment Bill to tackle air pollution is crucial to ensure a healthy, resilient population. I beg to move Amendment 20.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the appearance of Clause 2 in this Bill, but it would be seriously sharpened up and given impact by the adoption of Amendment 20 by my noble friend Lady Hayman. I support that amendment and Amendment 156 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy.
My Amendment 21 is slightly different. It is, in essence, a probing amendment. It starts to deal not with the setting of targets, but the way in which those targets could be delivered. It is arguable that the amendment should come somewhat later in the Bill, but Clause 2 specifically deals with PM2.5 and I thought it was relevant here. I will not press the amendment with its current wording, but it is intended to provoke a discussion and, hopefully at later stage, a form of words to address the practicalities of delivering an effective air quality strategy for the targets to be set under Clause 2, particularly in relation to PM2.5. Indeed, it should extend to ultrafine particles, which were not previously covered by EU regulations.
The focus on PM2.5 as the cause of the most harmful lung and pulmonary diseases is important. My noble friend has underlined the implications of the recent coroner’s recommendations following the tragic death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in south London. The target needs to be ambitious, much more challenging than current standards in the EU and elsewhere, and to reflect the WHO targets, as my noble friend said. For it to be delivered, we need to focus on the key role of local authorities and others and ensure that they are fully effective. That requires resources, in terms of both money and powers. It also requires their efforts to be brought within a coherent national strategy, as well as a system of parliamentary reporting on progress all the time—particularly on the interim targets.
However, the targets will not work unless we have a proper system of monitoring toxic and noxious emissions and very small particulates. We also need a strategy for the specification of increased quality of air quality monitoring. Currently, most monitors measure nitrous oxides and derive from those measurements an estimate of particulate exposure, mainly from road traffic. Ideally, we need to be able to measure the particulates directly and it is important that we have a clear quality specification of the technical parameters of those monitors. We also need a clearer strategy for the placement of monitors: by the roadside, away from the roadside, at schools—since children are the most susceptible to lifelong lung malfunction from diseases induced by particulate ingestion—around construction sites, around self-standing generators and on some industrial premises.
Most importantly, we need a system of communication. There is no use in even extensive monitoring unless we both inform the public and follow up with analysis where the targets are not going to be met and where there are exceedances or near exceedances by location and with particular forms of action that are needed. Communication to the public is therefore key; we need to link the monitoring system to automatic warnings to the population in the streets, at bus stops, outside schools and colleges and so on. We also need to ensure that local authorities, particularly highways authorities including Highways England and Transport for London, have the legal responsibility for establishing the network of monitors, collating information from them and informing the public of the levels of poison gas and particulates including, in particular, PM2.5.
I recognise that Amendment 21 as worded envisages a regulation on local authorities, but it also requires regulations elsewhere in terms of transport vehicles and machinery specifications. I accept that there must be a better way to reflect the need for those specifics in the Bill. I am looking to the Minister to come forward before the completion of this Bill with a way of ensuring that local authorities and others are both required and resourced to set up a comprehensive system of monitoring and communication to the public, and that there is a clear follow up where limits are exceeded and targets not met. That is what the amendment is about.
I should declare my interests as president of Environmental Protection UK, once known as the National Society for Clean Air, which has focused for decades on this issue. I ask the Minister to come forward before the end of this Bill with a better version of this.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am delighted to see all these amendments and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Kennedy, for bringing them forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, gave an excellent introduction. I just have one slight problem with it: while the current Mayor of London is doing a lot on air pollution, he is also building a road that will negate virtually everything he is doing and has done. The Silvertown tunnel should be stopped immediately with not another penny spent on it. We all have to understand that building new roads is a mistake anywhere in the country, but especially here in London, when we should be concentrating on better, cleaner methods of transport.
I have worked the issue of air pollution on since 2001. The mayor at the time, Ken Livingstone, made a very good stab from a standing start at reducing air pollution, even though at the time it was just a warning flag that we were about to break EU limits. He did what he could in terms of the congestion charge and encouraging cycling, even though he was not a cyclist himself. Sadly, as soon as the mayoralty was taken over by the current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, things went a little bit skew-whiff. He did not get the whole issue of air pollution and that is a big problem because we know that, if you do not have targets for reducing something, it is likely to not get done. If we are going to clean up our toxic air, this Bill has to set binding targets.
The sources of air pollution are widespread: industry, transport, buildings and agriculture are all major contributors. We have to understand how each of those can be cleaned up and improved, not just for all of us who breathe it in in the cities, but for farmers who also experience a huge amount of pollution in their daily lives.
Air pollution has been found to cause death after a coroner ruled it was a cause of death for Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. I pay tribute to Ella’s mother Rosamund, who campaigned and fought for so many years to reach this verdict. Ella is the first person to ever have air pollution as a cause of death and it is now official that Ella’s painfully cruel death was unnecessary, preventable and should never happen again to any child or adult. If the Minister is in any doubt about putting targets on air pollution into this Bill, I urge him to meet Rosamund, who fought a fantastic campaign virtually alone when she was suffering immeasurable grief from losing her eldest child. I think he would be convinced and would take it back to the department to insist that we put targets on air pollution into this Bill.
The coroner in Ella’s case said that
“there is no safe level for Particulate Matter”
in air and recommended a reduction in the national pollution limits to bring them into line with World Health Organization guidelines, which is exactly what my Amendment 29 would do. It would hook air pollution targets to the latest WHO guidelines and require the targets to be updated as the science develops. I believe this is the only safe way to proceed and the only way to be true to Ella’s legacy, so that no more children will die from choking on toxic air.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I support the intention behind all the amendments in this group today. I agree with the contributions of my noble friends Lady Hayman and Lord Whitty, and with virtually everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said. However, I will restrict my remarks to Amendment 156 in my name in this group.
The amendment seeks to put Ella’s law into the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, on 16 December last year, the coroner in the case found that the death in 2013 of nine year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, who had a severe case of asthma, was caused by “excessive air pollution”. Ella lived in Lewisham, in south London, very near to where I live. The fact that this poor child suffered a terrible death from breathing in toxic particles should be a matter of concern for us all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, did, I want to pay tribute to Rosamund, Ella’s mother, for her tireless campaigning over seven years to get the verdict on 16 December last year. Ella is the first person in the UK to have had air pollution listed as a cause of death. We all know that thousands of people die every year due to respiratory failure, but Ella’s doctors, and others, were clear that the filthy air she was breathing was suffocating her and contributed to her death, and that is now recorded on the death certificate.
Amendment 156 in my name seeks to place duties on the Secretary of State in the Bill to ensure that the health of members of the public is put centre stage. I hope that the Minister and all Members of the House will support that. The amendment may not be perfect, but it sets out clear targets for the Secretary of State for particulate matter, at WHO levels, and a plan to achieve compliance, along with the monitoring of air quality, the publishing of live data and providing information to the public. It also seeks to ensure proper education, training and guidance for healthcare professionals.
I am hoping for a very positive response from the Minister today. I want to hear him say very clearly to the House that he is prepared to meet me, my noble friend Lady Hayman, Ella’s mother Rosamund and members of the Ella’s law campaign to see if we can get an agreement to put this in the Bill before we come back to this issue on Report. I assure the Minister that we will come back to this issue on Report, and I hope to be able to do that on the basis of co-operation and agreement. I look forward to the Minister confirming, at the end of this debate, that he is prepared to meet me and the other people I have listed.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to support this group of amendments, because this is the point where general environmental and climate change benefits directly coincide with health benefits. It is therefore plain common sense to give them total priority.
Reducing emissions of NOx, CO2 and PM2.5 are vital targets. I read this week that research by Imperial College London has revealed that, in London and other cities, there is still lead in our atmosphere—in the air. Lead was banned from petrol 20 years ago, so we need to bear in mind how long it takes to produce a long-term solution to these problems.
The problem with the Bill as it stands is that, although it commits to targets, they are too vague and much too far in the future. The Environmental Audit Committee drew attention to what it called the “needlessly long timeframe”. The details of the target will not be in place until the end of next year, when it could be in place as soon as the Bill passes through both Houses, and there will be no requirement to meet the target until at least 2037. That is so distant as to absolve the current Government, and the one after that, of any sense of responsibility and incentive to take the difficult decisions required. Even the aviation industry, which has the greatest technical challenges in dealing with emissions, is urging the Government to set shorter-term interim targets. It argues that only shorter-term targets will incentivise investment in nascent clean technologies.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will not be taking part in the debate, so I will move straight on to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have found this a fascinating debate. I put my name to Amendment 49, but I support the general approach of all these amendments. Clearly, air pollution is a key issue for the Government. I hope that, when we look at this, we do so in the round.
I cannot agree with the some of the statements, I am afraid. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, say that we have to ban all roads and we must not build any more. That assumes that those towns and cities that are being heavily polluted because the roads go through the town centre should have to put up with that. Similarly, she referred to the Silvertown tunnel. The argument for that is that the current Blackwall tunnel constantly gets blocked and the traffic queues cause more air pollution. There have been many occasions during this debate when people have said that we need to look at the evidence—we do.
More generally, I regard the investment that the Government are making in more cycle lanes as fundamentally important, as is encouraging young people to cycle or walk to school. The irony of it is that those children who think—or whose parents think—that they are safely protected in their SUVs are actually breathing in more pollution than if they were out walking or cycling. Of course, if they were doing those activities, they would also be getting the benefit of exercise. I welcome the targets; they are important. How we achieve them, through monitoring, et cetera, is important.
I too read that article on leaded petrol, which remains in the city 20 years on. Above that article, and perhaps even more interesting in some ways, was one on smart traffic lights smoothing the way to reducing emissions by a quarter. It said:
“A new generation of smart traffic lights could be introduced after a government-backed trial showed that eliminating unnecessary stops at junctions can cut emissions by a quarter.”
That stresses the importance of ensuring that we do not forget that innovation will play an important part in reducing these emissions. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will take into account—I am sure that he will—a holistic analysis, if you like, of what the Government are doing.
There may well be more cars on the road because people are a bit reluctant to travel on public transport at the moment. As someone who cycles every day and has had an electric car for a few years—I am lucky to be able to afford one—I like to think that I play my part. We are seeing changes in attitude. There are many young people these days who are not bothering to learn to drive or do not own their own car—they hire or share—so we should not be too pessimistic about the situation. It is serious, which is why I put my name down—I felt that this was a necessary probing amendment.
I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will give us that holistic analysis of how the Government intend to meet these targets and how they feel that they can respond to the very real and present impact of particle pollution, whether it is nitrous oxide or carbon emissions.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 20 and 49, but I support the general thrust of all the amendments in this group. I am old enough to remember that, when I was a very young boy in 1962, my father had to wear a mask—we have got used to them these days—because of the smog in London. It was not the Great Smog, which was a few years earlier, but it was a serious incident of air pollution that killed a significant number of people. At that time, it showed up that, although the Clean Air Act had been brought in in 1956, there were serious gaps in it: it dealt with emissions of smoke but not sulphur dioxide. If we are not careful, there is a danger that we will think that we have solved this problem and things are getting better—there are indications of that, but we are far from perfect.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I have been raising this for a long time: I remember having an Adjournment Debate in the other place in 2003 on air quality in London. That was based not just on my concern for the welfare of my fellow Uxbridge citizens but on my own experience of how I could feel the ill effects of increased pollution. Where we live in west London, there is Heathrow and the major roads, and we often seem to exceed the legal limits.
We have already mentioned one thing that convinced me that we have to go further: Ella’s campaign. A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to meet Rosamund, Ella’s mother, and I have not met a more courageous and forceful advocate for this. Despite the obviously terrible tragedy that she endured, she was able to be extremely convincing in all the arguments; she did not have to rely on the personal issue. We owe it not just to Ella but to all the other young people. As has been mentioned, it is very often those who live in less well-off areas.
There are difficult decisions. Of course, sometimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has just said, there are occasions when traffic congestion could be eased, and smart traffic lights could provide one of those. The only trouble that I have with building more roads is that they inevitably get filled up. I remember that, when the M25 was first built—little sections of it—it was a joy because no one was on it, but it filled up quite quickly and sometimes is the largest car park in London, as I think many noble Lords will agree.
This is a really serious issue, and the Government must take forward the view that we must have ambitious targets. We should accept the WHO targets. This is something that I feel very strongly about.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I think the last time I spoke after him was to congratulate him on his maiden speech. He brings, of course, great focus and authority to this debate. I welcome this group of amendments generally and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the other noble Lords who have tabled the amendments on bringing forward the issue of targets and particularly the PM2.5 measure.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I accept the importance of these targets while pointing to other types of air pollutant of possibly equal toxicity and potential for harm. I am informed about this because over the years I have had many emails in my parliamentary mailbox with personal accounts from those whose health is significantly and adversely affected by air pollution, particularly by being near to major road systems.
Fundamentally, all these targets have to drive a culture change. I think of my three London-resident children who during the pandemic reported how air quality in the metropolis had improved and, sadly, how it has once again deteriorated as things return to what we might call normal. While I commend municipalities bringing in ultra-low emission zones for urban centres, I think that permitting owners of polluting vehicles to pay for the privilege gives the wrong message.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to a range of non-vehicular polluting activities, including those from construction with which I am familiar. Not so many months ago I witnessed a group of contractors engaged with public pavement repairs using a petrol disc cutter to trim concrete slabs. This was taking place in a busy London shopping street. I will not bore noble Lords with a detailed description of the noise, uncontained dust and odours that were released into the air, but it could just have easily have been welding, sanding, atomising sprays, evaporating solvents or material handling that was releasing pollution into urban air. I also observe that far too many food premises emit odours and fumes at unacceptable levels. One I know well in a major Surrey town blasts motorists as they wait at traffic lights with the outpourings of its extractor system. I suppose one might say that that was a form of poetic justice.
Only recently I learned that the metropolitan Clean Air Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred, permits the burning of firewood in homes. I thought that had been banned a long time ago. The Prime Minister’s comments about insisting on seasoned firewood are very welcome, but the wood also needs to be dry, kept dry and not be full of resins, as are some softwoods. As somebody who uses a wood burning appliance—but not in an urban area, noble Lords will be glad to hear—I question how good the understanding is of these factors concerning supplies of firewood and the knowledge of consumers. Urban atmosphere is, after all, a vital common good for health and well-being, tourism, productivity and, in turn, commerce.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, is right that we cannot simply all take a hairshirt approach and that the laws of unintended consequences beset us as we try to move from one mode of transport, perhaps, to the other. He rightly referred to the role of innovation. However, to repeat my earlier comment, most of all we need collective cultural change, better information and regulation that drives such responses as we wish to see come out of this Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling Amendment 20 which triggers other important amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for introducing this group of amendments in such a knowledgeable way and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her very pertinent contribution on transport-related pollution.
I spoke about the problems of air quality at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, spoke about the London smog in the 1950s. I was a student at Manchester University in early 1960s and I recall bus conductors having to walk in front of their buses because the smog was too thick for the driver to see the front of the vehicle. This problem, which has come very much more to my attention during the Covid lockdown, has come for the converse reason. I have found myself constrained to the finest possible surroundings in Gwynedd, two miles from Caernarfon Bay and the Menai Strait and some six miles from Snowdon. I did not visit London for fifteen months until yesterday. That is the longest period since I was a toddler for me to be confined to the delights of rural Wales.
Of course, it has been enjoyable despite the tragic backdrop. One of the unexpected benefits has been the very noticeable, even tangible, improvements in my health, in particular my lung and chest functioning. I have even been able to get back on my bike. It is only now that I have come to realise how detrimental to my health is the poor air quality in Cardiff and London. I have increasing sympathy for industrial workers—coal miners, slate quarrymen, cotton workers and many others —whose exposure to industrial diseases is exacerbated by poor-quality air that they struggle to breathe.
Since speaking at Second Reading, I have received a volume of information, drawing detailed attention to the research work that has been undertaken on the impact of polluted air on human health. I am grateful to everyone who has contacted me. I have not yet been able to read all that material; I hope to do so between now and Report and, indeed, to study more generally the information available on these matters. In this time of Covid, we are surely obliged to ensure that this Bill addresses this issue. For now, I thank colleagues who have drafted these amendments, which I support wholeheartedly. I am sure the Minister will want to see some strengthening of the Bill on this matter which must be affecting millions of our fellow citizens and even our children, as the tragic case of Ella has taught us. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am just popping up, as one does in Committee, to add my support to Amendment 20 and to most of the other amendments in this group. I do not have much to add to what the proposers and subsequent speakers with their great expertise have said. I support the ambitions behind this group. I am not quite sure whether—or for that matter why—the Government might set their sights on a target more damaging to health than the WHO recommendation, but I believe that we should insist on having challenging targets.
I have read that between 2010 and 2017 there were reckoned to have been more than 30,000 premature deaths per annum in the UK due to air pollution, many of them stemming from excess PM2.5 particulates. In the EU, the figure was reckoned to be 390,000 premature deaths per annum. It occurred to me that if these deaths were being caused by a respiratory viral infection from Wuhan, I suspect that we might have to be in permanent lockdown. However, this pollution has built up gradually and somehow we have become complacent about it.
There are many different sources of PM2.5 particulates and if we tackle them all in a measured way with the right research and a variety of regulations and encouragement, it should be possible to make a big difference. After all, we have managed to achieve a big reduction in nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide—NOx and SOx as they are called—in recent decades without impinging too much on anyone’s quality of life while actually enhancing everyone’s quality of life. I am confident that we can build on that success with the right research, encouragement and regulation and, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, public information.
I realise that a target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre is going to be hard to achieve by 2030 and even measuring it is, I believe—and as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, confirmed in his excellent speech—not a simple matter. For the safety and health of our children alone I believe we must be ambitious on this issue, so I strongly support these amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to two amendments in this group, Amendments 20 and 49. These amendments deal with the same fundamental problem—the impact of air pollution on health. I declare my interests as I chaired the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee inquiry into allergies. I am a Bevan commissioner in Wales. Sadly, I also have family who are exposed to very high levels of pollution because of schooling.
The dignified campaign of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s mother, following her daughter’s tragic death, has shown us why health must be at the centre of air pollution strategies. These amendments are widely called for from across paediatric and child health, chest medicine and related disciplines, and by the Royal College of Physicians, the British Lung Foundation, Asthma UK and others.
Simply meeting limit values is not enough because there is no safe level of pollution exposure. Research in the last five years has shown that air pollutants reach every organ of the body with deleterious effects, ranging from damage to the foetus’s developing lungs in the womb, and the heart and brain, right through to damage to the adult body, causing accelerated ageing of organs throughout life. Very small particles—less than 2.5 micrometers—from anthropogenic sources are a particular problem. They stay suspended in the air for prolonged periods and have a propensity to penetrate deep into parts of the lung where gas exchange occurs. Ultra-fine particles are especially problematic because, in many ways, they behave like a gas. These particles damage the end organ in the lung, the alveoli or distant air sacs where essential lung function occurs.
The UK has the worst death rate from asthma in Europe and is one of the countries with the highest incidence overall. Exposure to air pollution is likely to be a key driver in this disorder, which takes lives and costs the NHS dear. As particles become smaller, their relative surface area increases, which means that chemicals carried on the surface also increase. They are then released into cells and, internally, within parts of cells such as the mitochondria where energy is produced, and they are the source of damaging oxidant chemicals.
The WHO guideline values for particulates are health based. They must be the basis of the minimum targets set, recognising that, in July this year, these will be further revised downwards. Large epidemiological studies have shown that there is no safe level of pollutant exposure and therefore no safe threshold. We have a huge problem. Eight thousand schools are in places which exceed air quality limits. Some 25% of all car journeys are school runs. One in four hospitals and one in three GP surgeries is in an area where air pollution is above the WHO limit for fine particulate matter. Twenty years ago, the Government’s own Air Quality Expert Group recommended,
“Impact analysis of policies or specific developments, whether for industry, transport, housing etc., should take account of the interlinkages of emissions of air quality and climate change pollutants.”
To the shame of us all, this has not occurred.
Simplistic thresholds are not good enough for health. Health will not improve unless the chemical characteristics and sources of particles are tackled. Those from anthropogenic sources, such as diesel engines, and road and brake wear are likely to be far more toxic than particulates originating from geological or natural sources.
Daellenbach and colleagues’ recent research, published in Nature last November, points strongly to this type of man-produced particulates being most closely associated with adverse health outcomes. This type of particle is closely associated with tissue damage. They derive principally from traffic—from diesel, brake wear and tyre friction on the road surface, as well as from domestic biomass burning, such as log burners. Simply eliminating diesel engines will not be enough, unless braking systems, road surfaces and activities that generate particulates are tackled. It is worth noting that, during Covid, there have been reports of such air pollution actually worsening in some areas, due to the large number of small lorries and trucks involved in domestic deliveries.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a sufferer from asthma. I add my congratulations and thanks to Rosamund Kissi-Debrah on her effective and courageous campaign for clean air. She, and anyone who knows anything about health promotion, knows that we should not rely on the Department of Health and Social Care alone to achieve it. It is the responsibility of the whole Government. Defra and the Department for Transport play particularly important roles.
Anyone who knows anything about ill health will also know that prevention is better and cheaper than cure. As my noble friend Lady Randerson pointed out, this group of amendments is about the prevention of ill health. My comments are from this standpoint. As my noble friend also pointed out, the beauty of the amendments in this group is that they bring together two vital issues for our country—the promotion of human health and the health of the planet. The prevention of global warming protects the future of our species. The practical measures needed to reduce PM2.5, which will prevent sickness, will also contribute to saving the planet.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, mentioned, these amendments also provide an opportunity for our innovators and industry to show what they can do to achieve the target by giving us a clean, green and more healthy recovery.
Amendment 20 requires an ambitious target, equivalent to that of the World Health Organization, for reducing air pollution, and it futureproofs the Bill. Amendment 49 puts pressure on the Secretary of State to do it quickly. We on these Benches support the spirit of Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Amendment 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which summarises a lot of our objectives, as well as Amendments 20 and 49, to which I have put my name.
In this debate we have heard about the massive number of people whose health and development are seriously affected by polluted air, particularly by toxic microparticles of PM2.5 and smaller. We have heard that the Government currently meet their own average target of limiting this fine particulate matter to no more than 20 micrograms per cubic metre of air. However, this limit is too high and is an overall figure; local levels are much higher. We need much more granular measurement and enforcement. I welcome the Government’s commitment to adopting a new exposure reduction target, as this would drive further improvements in areas that already meet WHO guidelines, but this must go along with an ambitious target on ambient concentrations.
We have seen from Defra’s own technical analysis and from work by King’s College London that this is feasible and can be achieved, but it requires political leadership and funding. We have heard from the WHO and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that no level of these microparticles is safe for human health, and that the legal limits in other countries are much lower than ours. We have also heard that the current limit recommended by the World Health Organization is 10 micrograms per cubic metre—half the UK limit—but that this is predicted to be reduced soon. Its guidelines also urge countries to reduce their own levels as quickly as possible. That is what we want our Government to do. The Government plan to set a new target by 2023. It must be an ambitious one. The Government should mandate themselves to keeping within that target and lay down a road map, with dates, as to how it will be done. Accepting these amendments would do that.
This Bill addresses many important issues but this one is by far the most far-reaching for our health, particularly that of our young children. Because these microparticles are so small, they can cross the placental blood barrier and enter a developing foetus, interfering with the development of the brain. If anything else did that, it would be banned by any right-thinking Government. This harm is hidden, so we do not know its human or economic cost. The dangers of rising levels of these particles have crept up on us, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, but they can be stopped.
The Government like to claim that they are the “best in the world” at all sorts of things. Here is an opportunity to really achieve that position on damaging air pollution. If, by supporting this group of amendments, we can persuade the Government to take a more ambitious approach to reducing air pollution, we can save lives, save years of good health, save money for the NHS, stimulate the green economy and help save the planet. As they say, “What’s not to like?”
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this important subject. I start by saying, as a number of noble Lords have, that the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah was an absolute tragedy. I pay tribute to her family and friends, particularly her mother, who have all campaigned so tirelessly on this issue and continue to do so.
Turning to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the Government recognise the importance of reducing concentrations of PM2.5 and the impact this has on our health. That is why we have included in the Bill the requirement to set a target specifically on PM2.5 concentrations. The Government are following an evidence-based process to inform this and the long-term air quality target. I reassure my noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that it will be ambitious. However, at this stage the full mix of policies and measures required to meet the current WHO guideline level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre is not yet fully understood, and nor is the impact these measures would have on people’s lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned the mayor’s study. I am pleased to say that the workings of that study were published last week. Officials are going through them and taking them into account. The letter on this issue recently sent to the Prime Minister by the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, the BMA and a collaboration of medical colleges will also be taken into account.
Until the Government complete the work and consult the public about the type of restrictions that would need to be placed upon us, particularly in large cities, it would not be appropriate for us to write this limit into law. The target is not being ruled out but, as I said at Second Reading, there is work to do. For example, meeting 10 micrograms in London and other cities is likely to require policies such as a total ban of solid fuel burning in cities and reducing traffic kilometres across our cities by as much as 50%. It is not right for us to set a target at the stroke of a pen that would impact millions of people and thousands of businesses without first being clear with people and understanding what would be needed. The Government have committed to setting out detailed evidence, including for public consultation, early next year, ahead of setting this target in secondary legislation, which will come before this House for a debate and a vote.
Turning to Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the Government are working with a broad range of experts to ensure that air quality targets are based on the best available science, including the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, the UK’s air quality expert group, and a wide range of sector experts. We will ensure that our process is informed by the latest health evidence, including World Health Organization air quality guidelines. Given the breadth of potential targets that could be set under this framework, the WHO guidelines might not be relevant to all targets. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to require the Government to take account of the guidelines when setting or amending all targets. Nor would it be appropriate to require the Government to prepare explanatory statements pertaining to the guidelines for all targets, or to require all targets to be reviewed when the new WHO guidelines are issued.
However, we have baked a review mechanism into the target monitoring and review process. At least every five years, the Government must consider whether further policies are needed to achieve the interim and long-term targets they have set under the Bill. This will mean considering new evidence, including in the context of air quality target updates to World Health Organization guidelines.
Turning to Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the Government already make air pollution information available through a range of channels, but we are committed to improving the quality of that information first, to ensure that we have clear messaging and strong platforms to host this information. We will be doing this through comprehensive reviews of UK AIR, and the daily air quality index, and dedicating a significant part of the £8 million air quality grant to improving public awareness in local communities of the risks of pollution. This will also help health professionals in advising patients when poor air quality is forecast. We are also looking at working with relevant health charities on longer-term campaigns aimed specifically at vulnerable groups.
Moving to Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I reassure noble Lords that the Government recognise that in setting new air quality targets, it is important to have in place suitable means to monitor progress and to demonstrate whether the targets have been met. To answer noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, there is an established network of air quality monitoring in the UK, and work is ongoing to understand what additional monitoring would be required to underpin the new air quality targets. As stated in our clean air strategy, we are committed to ensuring continued investment to update and improve this infrastructure, in order to ensure that appropriate assessment is possible and that progress can be tracked. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also made that point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received requests to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government Whips’ Office and the usual channels for sorting out the inadvertent omission of my name from the speakers’ list for this group. I am grateful to them and for being allowed to speak after the Minister. I support all the amendments in this group but, in the interests of time, will limit my remarks to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling his amendment because it gives me an opportunity to raise an issue I campaigned on during my time as the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Wimbledon, when the residents there raised concerns about a proposed planning application to build new homes on a small piece of land on an industrial estate bounded by railway lines. Sole access to it was from the corner of a busy, right-angled bend near Raynes Park railway station, where traffic lights meant that stationary vehicles often idled there and local geography restricted air movement. It was in a designated air quality management area. It transpired that a monitor that had been monitoring air quality there had disappeared. From digging through Merton Council’s report on air quality in designated AQMAs, I found that the last recorded reading showed appalling air quality that breached the EU guidelines substantially, particularly with respect to particulates and fine particulates. No one could say what had happened to the monitor or why it had been moved. It prompted me to start an alliterative campaign called Merton’s Missing Monitors.
I raise this because it is all well and good that a local authority must prepare an action plan to improve air quality in a designated AQMA, as laid out in Schedule 11, but unless air quality monitors are in place to measure improvement the whole exercise is rendered pretty useless. I totally agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about, as well as having monitors, the importance of the siting and methodology that is used for measuring the air quality.
In fact, the whole interface between central government, regional authorities and local authorities on the issue of air pollution is riddled with tensions. Can the Minister say who currently bears ultimate responsibility for cleaning up our air and who will have it after the Bill becomes law? Can he also tell us what the process is for allocating resources between the three levels of Government? Could he comment on whether local authorities have the funds or the skills they need to carry out the action plans?
I would like to raise one other issue, which is the source of fine particulates—PM2.5—from vehicle traffic that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The sources of particulates that arise from the friction between rubber on tyres and road surfaces and from dust resuspension will remain unmitigated even as the EV revolution reduces exhaust emissions over time. Local authorities currently have the power to introduce 20 mph speed limits, which help reduce fine particulates from non-exhaust vehicle sources, both because of the slower speeds and because of the fact that driving at slower speeds involves less braking and accelerating abrasion. But experience has shown that an ad hoc approach by local authorities to designating 20 mph limits gives a patchwork of limits and causes confusion to motorists. Has any thought been given to a default local speed limit of 20 mph, and then allowing local authorities to increase the speed limit on certain roads—that is, to reverse the status quo? It would, of course, have the added benefit of reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads.
I should clarify that I am speaking about 20 mph speed limits, not 20 mph zones, which are characterised by traffic-calming measures such as speed bumps and chicanes—all unpopular with motorists and ambulances. Areas with 20 mph limits are designed with only painted road markings and roadside notification if you are driving too fast. They are popular where they have been introduced. I should also add that 20 mph limits are supported by Public Health England, for obvious reasons, and the UN General Assembly.
This measure would reduce air pollution, help our fight against climate change by making easier a modal shift in transport towards more walking and cycling, and reduce KSIs. Before I end, I should put on the record that I was the founding member of 20’s Plenty for Merton. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I tried to explain our approach to air quality monitoring in response to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but the noble Baroness has taken up the issue as well. There is a network of monitoring across the UK. It is not complete or perfect, but we keep it permanently under review and have committed increased investment both to fill in the gaps and to upgrade and update the infrastructure, just to make sure that the network is doing what it is supposed to.
The noble Baroness asked where the responsibility lies. While the responsibility for meeting the national target that we will set as a consequence of the Bill, the PM2.5 target, will clearly be with national government, there is a huge role for local authorities when it comes to delivering those reductions. This will happen only as a result of partnerships. There are things that local authorities can do to tackle air pollution, but there are things that they cannot do and areas in which they rely on national government. For example, the initiative on cars—the transition to electric vehicles—can be helped by local authorities via charging networks, but fundamentally it will result from national policy.
The noble Baroness mentioned idling. Ultimately, that will have to be enforced by local authorities. I was involved in campaigns of that sort, specifically on idling, as the Member of Parliament for Richmond Park. It was extraordinary how many people would unthinkingly leave their engines on at a level crossing that would sometimes be down for nearly 10 minutes. Once they were politely asked to turn their engines off, they always did—not surprisingly—and we found that behaviour improved dramatically over just a few months. The local authority became better at issuing fines for repeat offenders. That was not the objective—no one wanted to see an increase in fines—but it was effective as a deterrent.
It is a complicated answer because ultimately, if we are to get where we need to go, it will be through collaboration between local, regional and national government.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to this important debate. When I spoke to my Amendment 156, I made a request to him to meet me, my noble friend Lady Hayman, Ella’s mother, Rosamund, and members of the Ella’s law campaign. He did not address that when he spoke, so I ask him again: will he please agree to meet us before we get to Report?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I apologise for not addressing that. Yes, I am very happy to meet. We will be in touch after the debate.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a really important and interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
My noble friend Lord Whitty made some important points about monitoring and the need for proper support and resources for local authorities. We benefited from the extensive knowledge and experience of campaigning on this issue of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and other noble Lords supported the fact that we really should have challenging targets if we are genuinely to tackle air pollution and the damage it causes. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, rightly pointed out the UK’s appalling death rate from asthma and its links to poor air quality. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, powerfully explained even further the hidden damage caused in her detailed contribution.
I also commend my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark for his contribution, and for his support for Ella’s family. I join him, and echo his recognition—shared by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the Minister—of the huge achievement of Ella’s mother, Rosamund. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, we recognise her “dignified campaign” in this area.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 22
“Environmental targets: species abundance
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set a target (the “species abundance target”) in respect of a matter relating to the abundance of species.(2) The specified date for the species abundance target must be 31 December 2030.(3) Accordingly, the species abundance target is not a long-term target and the duty in subsection (1) is in addition to (and does not discharge) the duty in section 1(2) to set a long-term target in relation to biodiversity.(4) Before making regulations under subsection (1) which set or amend a target the Secretary of State must be satisfied that meeting the target, or the amended target, would further the objective of halting a decline in the abundance of species.(5) Section 1(4) to (9) applies to the species abundance target and to regulations under this section as it applies to targets set under section 1 and to regulations under that section.(6) In this Part “the species abundance target” means the target set under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to set a species abundance target, to be met by 31 December 2030. There are amendments throughout the Bill to ensure that the species abundance target is subject to the same regime as targets set under Clause 1.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I rise to move government Amendment 22, and to speak to the government amendments in my name grouped with it. These amendments will require the Secretary of State to set a new, historic, legally binding target for species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature. It is a core part of the Government’s commitment to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.
We hope that this measure will be the net zero equivalent for nature, spurring action of the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis. As noble Lords know, nature has been in decline for decades, and tackling that long-term decline will be challenging. But through this new target we are committing ourselves to that objective. A domestic 2030 species target will not only benefit species; the actions necessary to achieve it will also help drive wider environmental improvements —for example, to the habitats in which they live, and on which they depend.
The details of the target will be set in secondary legislation, brought forward by the end of October 2022, alongside our wider priority area targets. The 2030 species target will be subject to the same requirements as the long-term legally binding targets set under the Bill. Our focus now must be on the detailed work to develop a fully evidenced target. I met stakeholders on this issue just last week. We are developing the scientific and economic evidence to underpin this target, and will consult on all our proposed targets early next year. I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords on this important amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 23 (to Amendment 22)
Lord Chidgey
“(1A) In the range of species which contribute to the target, at least one must be a species that is significant to chalk streams and its abundance an indicator of the health of its ecosystem.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensures that at least one of the species which contributes to the target should act as a proxy for being able to assess the health and abundance of species within chalk streams, which in turn will act as a clear indicator of the overall health of chalk streams.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, allow me first to declare my interests—first, as vice-chair of the All-Party Chalk Streams Group, and as a past chairman of the town council of Alresford, in Hampshire, and a Winchester city councillor at the same time. Alresford lies in the headwaters of the River Itchen, astride the Alre, and it has been around a while—since Bishop de Lucy constructed a causeway taking the road out of Alresford to Basingstoke. Behind it, he constructed a massive freshwater lake, which in the day was teeming with fish of all descriptions. Winchester, of course, lies further down the Itchen, and is a major city of our nation.
Sadly, the eminence of the water pursuits and the value of the river have declined very seriously over the years. This is the primary reason why Amendment 23 in my name, together with Amendments 22, 24, 25 and 26, covers different aspects of the importance of species abundance in our rivers and streams. In this regard, the inclusion of a target-setting framework is a welcome part of the Bill. Putting targets into law brings certainty and clarity, to the benefit of all.
Depletion of species is not a new problem. It is a problem for Governments around the world, which, generally speaking, they have failed to reverse. The UK, however, has failed more than most. We are at the bottom of the league for G7 nations, based on the biodiversity intactness index. The latest State of Nature report showed that around one in seven species is threatened with extinction and more than 40% of species have declined since 1970, according to Greener UK.
Government Amendment 22 is thought to place a very weak duty in the Bill; it does not provide a legally binding commitment to halt the decline in species abundance, which the cross-party Amendment 24 addresses.
My Amendment 23, however, recognises the very great importance of species abundance in our chalk streams and chalk rivers in the south and south-east of England, which are a vital source of clean water, serving the needs of many millions of people across the region. It aims to ensure that at least one of the species which contribute to the species abundance target should act as a proxy for being able to assess the health and abundance of species in chalk streams, which in turn will act as a clear indicator of the overall health of chalk streams.
It is understood that the target proposed in the new clause will be constructed from a range of indicator species, which, taken together, can give an assessment of the level of increase in abundance. It is felt that at least one of these species should act as a proxy for being able to assess the health and abundance of species in chalk streams, which in turn will act as a clear indicator of the overall health of chalk streams.
To achieve the necessary improvements in abundance, action will be required to tackle issues around flow and abstraction, water quality and the need for habitat restoration. In the context of this amendment, it may be helpful to mention some of the indicator species the Government may wish to consider, all of which are good proxies for the overall health of chalk streams. These include the distribution and abundance of: blue-winged olive flies, brook water crowfoot and, naturally, brown trout. In addition, the distribution and abundance of gammarus, a shrimp-like invertebrate measured by riverbed kick samples in chalk streams, are a clear indicator of the overall health of a river.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to what seems to me a fairly simple request. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 24 in my name, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for joining me in supporting it. I apologise to noble Lords for a lengthier contribution than I normally aspire to, but for me and many thousands of others this is a crucial issue.
Like others, I have been pressing for a state of nature target to be inserted into this Bill for some time. Indeed, a current petition has well over 200,000 signatures. I was therefore delighted to hear my honourable friend George Eustice’s recent speech at Delamere Forest, when he said:
“Nature is going to be key pillar of our work as host of the UN Climate Change Conference COP26. We were the first major economy in the world to set a net zero emissions target in law. To meet that target we must protect and restore nature, with nature-based solutions forming a key part of our approach to tackling climate change.”
He went on to say something we all know:
“The UK is sadly one of the most nature depleted countries in the world.”
He said:
“We want not only to stem the tide of this loss, but to turn it around and leave the environment in a better state than we found it. I want us to put a renewed emphasis on nature’s recovery. And, that is why today we will be amending the Environment Bill to require an additional legally binding target for species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature. This is a huge step forward, and a world leading measure in the year of COP15 and COP26. We hope that this will be the Net Zero equivalent for nature, spurring action of the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis.”
My noble friend the Minister has just echoed those words.
After that speech there were many virtual cheers, not only from conservation and environmental NGOs but from those thousands of our fellow citizens who care deeply about this issue, myself very much included. Indeed, I am sure that many Conservative MPs were equally delighted to be able to report back to their concerned constituents that this Government, my Government, were taking the steps required to start the decline of our nature.
At the recent G7 summit, part of the communiqué stated:
“We therefore confirm our strong determination to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, building on the G7 Metz Charter on Biodiversity and the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature as appropriate.”
However, I have to say, very regretfully, that when these much-heralded government amendments were laid they were disappointing—really disappointing. I take no pleasure in saying that so much expectation was dashed to the ground so quickly. I suspect that my noble friend the Minister shares some of that disappointment —I will not press him on that—and that somewhere, the original aspiration and maybe even an earlier draft of these government amendments were squashed. I cannot think where. It cannot be the Treasury, as it commissioned that excellent piece of work, the Dasgupta review, which laid out clearly the economic case for restoring nature. It is all a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps my cynicism is misplaced and my noble friend will be able to assure me that our simple amendment now has the green light. That would save us all a lot of time.
Why is this state of nature target needed? As I said, the Government have accepted the need to halt the decline of nature. I have already said that this has been managed in the G7 nature compact, the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature and the Dasgupta review. The Government have stated their intention to
“halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.”
Previous global agreements to halt nature’s decline failed because global goals have not been matched by domestic implementation. The UN Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 showed that the world had failed to meet any of its targets to halt biodiversity loss set under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Environment Bill is of course largely framework legislation, without a definite environmental objective. Adding a meaningful state of nature target would help upgrade the Bill to landmark legislation, setting a clear direction for environmental improvement.
The Government’s proposal for a species abundance target just does not lock in a level of ambition to halt species decline by 2030. Instead, it merely requires the target to “further” the objective of halting nature’s decline. This means that there would be no fixed date at all for achieving the ultimate objective of stopping biodiversity loss. Under the Government’s proposed approach, the level of ambition for the species abundance target would be set by statutory instrument, along with other targets, in October 2022 at the earliest. Setting half a target of this kind undermines the very purpose of a statutory target. It does not provide a fixed point of accountability, give certainty to investors or create a clear requirement for all government departments to achieve a clear goal.
The Government may argue that it would be appropriate to wait to set the target following consultation. However, I believe that there are three problems with this approach. There is no guarantee of ambition: the final target could fall far short of an objective to halt species decline by 2030 and there would be no statutory obligation to set that target for a later date. This would also show a regrettable failure of leadership. Part of the reason for setting a state of nature target is to inspire action in other countries, but the Government’s approach would mean the target being set after the COP 15 Convention on Biological Diversity talks.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and to commend him, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on Amendment 24, to which the Green group would have certainly given its support, had there been space on the paper for it.
I will, however, go back briefly to Amendment 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, because it is crucial that we acknowledge the importance of chalk streams. It is something I have in the past done a great deal of work on, with concern about the arrival of what has been called unconventional oil and gas extraction and its potential impact on them. I will admit that seeing the noble Lord’s amendment also made me want to revisit amendments that I tabled to the then Agriculture Bill on meadows and hedgerows. They are all things we need to include when we are talking about the species abundance target more broadly.
However, what I mostly want to address is new subsection (4) in the Government’s amendment and the proposed amendments to that subsection. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has already set out extremely clearly, this simply does not live up to the promises that the Government made on the species abundance target: the words we heard from the Secretary of State in what was billed as a landmark speech.
Amendment 24 would leave out the word “further”. The Government’s amendment states that they will “further the objective”, and Amendment 24 says “meet” the objective, which is a considerable improvement. However, I have tabled Amendment 26, which would go further. I apologise to noble Lords, because I realise, looking at it, that in the Explanatory Statement I did not really get on top of the complexities of explaining it. The key difference in this context is that I say, rather than to “further” or to “meet” a target, “delivering an improvement”. We have the Government saying, “We’re going to try to at least not get worse”; Amendment 24 says, “We’re going to at least meet a target for species abundance”; and I say, “We have to see an improvement.” That is what would be written into the Bill.
I shall go back, as did the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to the speech of George Eustice in Delamere Forest. I have a couple of quotes from it. It used the phrase “building back greener”. I put the stress on the “er” in that: an improvement. He said that
“restoring nature is going to be crucial”—
we are restoring, we are improving. He said:
“We want to not only stem the tide of this loss but to turn it around and to leave the environment in a better state.”
I would say that to deliver on what the Government say they want to achieve, they need the words “delivering an improvement”, or words very similar to those, in the Bill to commit to seeing an improvement.
I shall give just a short reflection on what that means, and I shall go to the RSPB:
“More than 40 million birds have disappeared from UK skies”
since 1970. What the Government are offering is, “We’re going to try and stop losing more”; Amendment 24 says, “We guarantee to at least stay where we are”; my amendment says, “We’re going to bring at least some of those 40 million birds back.” That is what it is aiming to do.
We can reflect on a phrase which has been very much popularised by George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist and writer: “shifting baseline syndrome”. Older Members of your Lordships’ House may well say, “Well, nature just doesn’t look like it used to when I was a child”—but their grandparents would have said exactly the same thing. We have had a long-term, centuries-long collapse, and if you could get someone in a time machine from 200 years ago and put them into our countryside now, they just would not recognise it, with its total lack of wildlife.
It is also worth looking at the Government’s reaction. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to the Dasgupta review. The Government have, of course, already put out a formal response to that in which they talk about a “nature-positive future”, which I suggest implies that there has to be an improvement: if you are going to do something positive, you are increasing it. That explains why I have worded Amendment 26 in this way, in terms of delivering improvement.
I want briefly to address the rest of Amendments 26 and 27 on the issue of species abundance. I have talked to some of the NGOs that have been instrumental in the petition that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to—250,000 people had signed it the last time I looked to say that they want an improved species abundance target—I will be very happy if the Minister can correct me, but no one has actually defined what a species abundance target means. We go back to our debate on Monday about what biodiversity means: whether it is biodiversity of genes in a large population which has a large diversity of genes, one hopes; whether it is species; whether it is the fact that to have abundant species, you need a rich ecological environment. All those things fit together. Amendments 26 and 27 are my attempt to get the Minister to reflect now, or if not now, later, and explain to us what the Government really mean by a species abundance target.
What I have suggested, in trying to address those different aspects of biodiversity, is to look at the mass of wild species—we are talking about bioabundance. Keeping a few handfuls of tiny populations of every species going is not enough; we need to have lots of the popular species, lots of all species and also population numbers of red and amber list species, trying to address those rarer species on which a lot of the attention in terms of extinction is focused. I am sure all noble Lords have received many representations about Amendment 24, which is certainly a great improvement on government Amendment 22, but I ask your Lordships’ House, as we go forward to the next stage, to think about some wording in the Bill that guarantees building in improvement, not just ensuring no decline.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She and her colleague from the Green Party can certainly never be accused of falling down on the job. They are persistent; I do not always agree with them, but I salute them for keeping their cause going.
I was greatly impressed by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge’s speech but I must say to my noble friend, whose personal credentials I do not question for a moment, that his amendments this evening are disappointing, to put it mildly. The speech of the Secretary of State, George Eustice, to which reference has already been made, excited expectations. The amendments that my noble friend has tabled do not—if they will fulfil those expectations, there is a great difference between promise and performance. It is not just the road to hell that is paved with good intentions; in this context, the road to extinction is paved with good intentions. It is not a question of my noble friend’s intentions but of the performance that I think will follow.
I suggest that on Report my noble friend should toughen this up. I ask him to convene a meeting of those are speaking in this debate and others to see whether we can come to a consensus and amendments that will really reflect what I believe is his genuine intention, and what is certainly the desire of a large majority of your Lordships’ House. I urge him to do that, because I do not want this to become a politically contentious Bill; it is one that ought to command the allegiance of people in all parts of the country and in all political parties. I salute the Government for bringing it forward, but say to them, please do not fall down on this. It is crucial that in 10 years’ time, looking back upon 2030, people do not say, “There was a great opportunity that was badly missed.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the earlier speakers that this part of the Bill needs to be strengthened. I should say to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith with regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, why just chalk streams? I know how vital they are but any river will tell you about the environment of that area and its quality within the river.
I have a little bit of good news for my noble friend on the Front Bench. I recently spent three days in Dorset and, driving back, I had to wash the windscreen of my car to get rid of the bugs. It is the first time in many years when I have had to do that. If bugs are getting on to windscreens, it means that something is turning around slowly in nature. It is a good start and I hope that we will all be doing what I had to do on a much more regular basis. I agree that it is desperately boring to do, but it is far better to be bored doing it than not to have nature.
Virtually all land in the UK is managed. There is very little, if any, truly wild land left. When we are considering biodiversity, we must not forget that the land also has to produce food for the population. I again ask my noble friend on the Front Bench the question I asked at Second Reading, or possibly on the first day of Committee—I cannot remember. Does he agree with the figure that 21% of our agricultural land has to be taken out of agriculture and put into bioenergy fuels and trees? If that is the case, it means a 10% increase in the productivity of all the other agricultural land. That will mean a lot of intensification but it can be done if we do that cleverly with supporting biodiversity.
Here I want to talk about something that has almost become a dirty word: management—land management and biodiversity management. We could improve the biodiversity in this country very quickly if we followed the simple rules of getting the right habitat, the right species protection, proper winter feeding and control of predators. That is the four-legged chair on which biodiversity depends. I know that the Agriculture Act will address some of that but it will not necessarily address winter feed and certainly not predator control. The winter feed situation has been hugely compromised by the increasingly efficient agricultural machinery that farmers use and the height at which crops can be cut, leaving little for wildlife.
I mentioned foxes and badgers earlier. It was in that context that I felt that my noble friend the Minister had not answered my questions. What will the Government do to ensure that there is proper predator control carried out in a humane way? I am not talking about the extinction of species but getting a balance. If we are going to get back lapwing, curlew and waders, predators will have to be controlled. It is not just a question of foxes and badgers but deer. They have ruined hedgerows for ground-nesting birds and nightjars, and decimated some trees. In an increasingly urban southern half of England, deer control is becoming a major problem to undertake but if we do not do so we will affect wildlife in a hugely different way. It is not just a matter of our actions as human beings but of nature working within nature.
I know there are certain things over which we have no control, such as climate change. It is bound to affect our biodiversity in ways we do not know. As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, will know, warmer winters and cooler summers are affecting salmon migration and its appearance in rivers. It is to be hoped that we will do something about that in long term, but it is not a short-term problem that we can solve. Nor can we solve the problem the north winds this spring have caused the bat population—that is not strictly within our hands. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about the blue butterfly, which is weather-dependent. We have seen a huge increase in the red admiral thanks to a slightly warmer climate, but the other side of that equation is that we have lost a whole lot of butterflies because of the change in the climate. I wonder whether the blue butterfly that the noble Lord mentioned will suffer in the future.
In this debate, on getting an abundance target and improving biodiversity, I hope my noble friend will tell us about the practical problems that organisations are trying to solve. These organisations, such as the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Nature Friendly Farming Network, are doing huge amounts. They will need some more help and some more drive from the Government as well. Rather than just setting targets, it is the practicalities on the ground that matter.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing forward government Amendment 22 and all the amendments in this group. I hope he is not too disheartened by the reaction around the Committee this afternoon. Really, the Government have taken the bull by the horns.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on his industriousness in all the positions he holds. No wonder we do not see too much of him here in the Chamber, but I congratulate him on all his work, at every level of democracy, which he outlined today. I am delighted that he talked about the plight of chalk streams, which I was heavily involved in at one stage in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, highlighted—indeed, it is a theme of the briefing I was delighted to receive from the Green Alliance—that this is not a problem unique to this country. My noble friend the Minister outlined this when he moved and spoke to the amendments before us this evening. It is not so much that this is a new problem as that we need new solutions to be adopted, but I urge my noble friend to be slightly cautious if we go out on our own limb, as it were, and set very ambitious targets. Is it not the case that we are not the only Government who did not achieve the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets agreed in Japan in 2010? Surely, if we are concerned about being a global leader and about biodiversity in the wider world, he should use his good offices and those of his colleagues in government to ensure that other Governments follow our lead. I was slightly disappointed that my noble friend Lord Randall did not touch on that aspect and took, perhaps, a uniquely domestic approach in the words he used.
My noble friend has set an ambitious target in the amendments in this group. How achievable is meeting those targets by 2030? Obviously, it is something we have signed up to internationally, so I would be interested to know how realistic and achievable those targets are. It is welcome that they will be subject—as I understood him to say—to the same legally binding targets elsewhere in the Bill. Will he use the species abundance provisions set out in these amendments to ensure that there will be timely and regular reviews of all the species, however the Government is going to define them? I am wondering whether we have actually defined these anywhere in the Bill, and I would be grateful if my noble friend would point to where those definitions are.
We all have our favourite species. Mine is the red squirrel, and one of the joys of visiting Denmark each summer is seeing how widespread it still is in parts of Scandinavia and elsewhere. I believe that hedgehogs are under increasing threat; I frequently lift one up and move it from the drive so that it does not make its way on to the main road, where I know that, a few days later, I will see that it is no more. Will my noble friend use this opportunity to look at all our favourite species—I would argue for red squirrels and hedgehogs—and make sure that, where they have been threatened but are now in abundance, we take cognisance of that? I think particularly of the protections that we gave to badgers in 1968. Should these now be reviewed, in 2021, along with those for all species of bats and newts?
I was taken by the arguments made by noble friend Lord Caithness about achieving a balance. He is absolutely correct, and I support him in this, that we should recognise predators such as deer. I hope that the green lobby will bear with me and that I do not get attacked like I did when I said this before: we have to recognise that TB is spread through predators such as badgers and deer and protect our herds of domestic cattle from that. I hope my noble friend the Minister will take cognisance of that balance. This may be in one of the amendments and I have missed it, but I would welcome his commitment to a review of each species, perhaps every five years, being considered. However, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I restate my interests: I chair the Cawood group, which carries out analytical testing of soil, water, waste et cetera; and I am a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates, which is involved in ELMS trials and testing. I fully support the Bill and am enthusiastic about its potential. As has been stated numerous times, it needs to sit in sync with the Agriculture Act and I will comment on that later. I absolutely understand the need for the suite of amendments tabled by the Minister, beginning with Amendment 22.
There is clearly a need to have appropriate targets; otherwise there is a serious risk of not being able to measure success. As I said earlier in the debate, it is important to have a clear sense of direction to motivate all involved in delivery. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, in an earlier debate, on why soil quality is not included as a target in the Bill. I have to say that it was not very convincing. If the determinants are still a work in progress, the Government should commit to introducing soil when these have been resolved. The setting of targets is, potentially, one of the most controversial parts of the Bill, as is clear from interest in the topic and comments so far. I will issue a cautionary note, so far as the farming sector is concerned. My old farming business participated in stewardship schemes for about 30 years before I retired two years ago; it was one of the first to enrol in stewardship management. We did halt decline in some species and saw a revival in others.
Modern agricultural practices encouraged by the common agricultural policy and, to be clear, by successive Governments in the UK, to produce cheap food—particularly the move from spring to autumn cropping during the 1970s and 1980s—have had an influence on species loss. Farmers have been following government policies and have been subsidised to produce cheap food for the past 70 years, which is why the Government have an obligation to adequately support family farms through the transition period, as outlined in the Agriculture Act, over the next seven years. The Government also need to incentivise those same farmers to deliver measures within the ELMS to address species loss and help deliver the targets that will be set as a consequence of the Bill. This is where the two pieces of legislation need to be absolutely compatible. I stress again that the Government have an obligation and these family farms are vital to the management of the countryside. They are crucial in delivering economic and social sustainability, as well as environmental sustainability and the outcomes that the Government hope to achieve through the Bill.
I am sure that the Minister will reassure the House that the Government intend to support farmers through the ELMS, but everything depends on the values attached to public goods, including the measures required to deliver biodiversity gain, which are as yet unknown. Establishing the value needs careful consideration. Even though farmers have been pilloried in the past by the environmental lobby as the culprits for ruining the environment in the pursuit of cheap food, in my experience, the vast majority of farmers care deeply about their environmental responsibilities and want to see well-functioning ecosystems.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there was much wrangling over the “state of nature” amendment in the other place. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Randall, also drew the attention of the House to the public petition on this issue, which has now reached almost 200,000 signatures. It is clearly an important issue. I welcomed the Government’s intention to come forward with their own amendment on it but it is a bit of a disappointment. It fails to deliver the Government’s own commitment to reverse, not just halt, the decline of biodiversity by 2030. Other noble Lords outlined the basis of that, but I will simply recap: the Government promised targets that were equivalent to net zero for biodiversity, but these amendments simply do not deliver that.
All this is rather strange because the Prime Minister has played a leading global role in the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature and, most recently, the G7’s nature compact. Both those initiatives aim to halt declines by 2030. This welcome ambition needs to be firmly secured in the legislation and in this element of the targets. If we do not set an ambitious target in the Bill, we will look rather foolish at COP 15 and COP 26.
Government Amendment 22 has some wonderful weasel words in it. It talks of furthering
“the objective of halting a decline in the abundance of species.”
We need an unequivocal statement. The Climate Change Act has the 2050 net-zero target; we need something equally clear and unequivocal for biodiversity. That is one element but the other is that it needs to be a target that refers to not just halting decline but starting to reverse it. In his letter of 8 June, following Second Reading, the Minister said the Government would not set the final target until after COP 15, when global targets are going to be set. In keeping with global Britain, the UK should be leading, not following—not waiting for the global conference but setting the pace and ambition.
After all, for many years we have been fiddling while Rome burns. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, talked about 70 years’ worth of agricultural impact on biodiversity, regrettably. When I was chief executive of RSPB in the mid-1990s, NGOs drove—and the Government eventually endorsed—the Biodiversity Action Plan, which aimed to halt and reverse declines in species and habitats. It was a very worthwhile and inclusive initiative but, by 2020, government commitment to that excellent process had evaporated and it was left without any resources. Let that be an object lesson on the commitment, energy, resource and, in today’s case, the statutory backing required if we are to reverse biodiversity decline. We cannot afford to fail this time, as the rate of species decline and habitat loss increases, irrespective of the noble Lord collecting insects on his windscreen.
A chilling statement was made about species decline and extinction, and I do not think it overdramatic to say that every extinction foreshadows our own. It is that important. I support Amendment 24 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which
“would set a clear requirement for a target to halt the decline in the abundance of species by 2030.”
I also support Amendment 25, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which talks of not just halting the decline, but ensuring the abundance of species then increases.
I also commend Amendment 202, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It restates the need for a target to not just halt but reverse biodiversity decline. More importantly, it lays out the parameters of a target to be more rounded than simply species abundance—a true “State of nature target”. It adds to abundance and distribution of species
“the extent and condition of priority habitats”.
I too would like to see habitats as part of the target.
My colleagues in the green NGOs advise me that we should grab a species target while the going is good, and that a well-designed target in species abundance could, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, serve as a proxy for the overall state of the natural environment. I want the Government to be more ambitious and adopt a habitat component to the target, as well. Species and habitats are mutually dependent. Without habitats, species are a bit like the old Morecambe and Wise joke about Eric’s piano playing; all the notes are there, but not necessarily in the right order. The habitats bring the assemblages of species together.
I hope the Minister will consider embracing the spirit of these amendments. As the Minister knows and regularly tells the House, the Government have launched a large range of initiatives which have the potential, if properly delivered and co-ordinated, to halt and reverse the decline of biodiversity. The Government should have the courage of their convictions and establish a much more ambitious and robust state-of-nature target.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise to consider, as a number of other noble Lords have, the definition of species abundance, and to ask what such targets might mean for land management, particularly at a local level. I echo and endorse the excellent earlier comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and others, on Amendments 36 and 45, noting the unintended consequence of worthy targets. I remind noble Lords of my interests as listed in the register.
I particularly want to speak about the Exminster marshes, a SSSI Ramsar and RSPB nature reserve, traditionally famed and farmed for its early spring lamb—the earliest in England and a staple at Easter Sunday lunches before subjugation of New Zealand’s native ecosystems allowed us to have lamb year-round. The Exminster marshes are now renowned for overwintering wildfowl and waders, as well as ground-nesting birds and much else. I knew the marshes well as a child, which was not yet so long ago, and there is now nothing like the diversity of bird species there was when it was traditionally farmed, even if the abundance of certain species may have increased dramatically.
Since the RSPB acquired part of the marshes, the increase in birdlife has, for the most part, been seen in the non-native Canada goose, traditionally well controlled. Likewise, there has been an increase in the abundance of foxes, badgers and other marauding mammals, as noted by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which has caused the RSPB to surround its field with electric fences to protect the few nesting peewits that remain. In the surrounding hills, the quantities of wild deer are now so high that young tree plantations all fail and Kenton’s allotments are surrounded by deer-proof fencing that makes them look like a prison camp. Meanwhile, the mitigation cost for one pair of cirl bunting on those same south Devon hills is set at £75,000—yet I have never even seen a cirl bunting.
Species abundance, as many noble Lords have commented, is very complex, and interventions to improve it can have dramatic and unforeseen consequences. Indeed, I have heard the Minister’s brother extolling the virtues of rewilding when launching the Devon environment fund last year. He spoke with particular passion on the introduction of carnivorous wild cats to Dartmoor. I hope he consults with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, if he ever considers such a target, as the Dartmoor hill ponies would likely object to becoming their prey.
The Minister has already said there will be consultation and impact assessments completed before any targets are introduced, but could he please expand on the extent of that consultation? In various places in the Bill, notably in relation to local nature recovery, species conservation and protected site strategies, there are explicit consultation requirements set out. But nowhere do I see an obligation to consult with local land managers—the very people who will be most impacted by the targets and are most responsible for achieving them. Land use is a particularly local issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has explained. Each of our landscapes has been developed by local communities over centuries, for particular purposes sympathetic to that specific landscape and those who live and work within it. Centralised target setting, or target setting by national agencies alongside local planners, will not be sufficient.
I also note that the date for meeting the proposed species abundance target is December 2030. While I applaud the Government’s desire to set ambitious nature targets and be seen to be taking action now, I would note that this is only a year or two after the end of the agricultural transition period prescribed by the Agriculture Act. Therefore, at exactly the same time as farmers and land managers are wrestling with the largest upheaval in agriculture regulation in generations, they will be required also to meet as yet ill-defined species abundance targets about which they will not be consulted.
If we are not very careful, we will have dead ponies, no trees and wetlands full of Canada geese—until the badgers get their eggs, too. That is not nature recovery.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise—metaphorically—to support Amendment 25. My support of this amendment is similar to my support of the target for the PM2.5 particulates in the last grouping. In essence, I believe that we have to be ambitious, so I also support Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. But, first, I thank the Minister —he seems to be getting a slightly hard time tonight—for coming up with his Amendment 22 in the first place. However, as others have said, I realise that there are no serious commitments within it as yet—but it is a start and we all hope that we can draw out some firmer detail as a result of this debate.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 24, along with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I also support Amendments 25, 26, 27 and 202.
I was going to speak in some detail to Amendment 24 but the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, did such a brilliant job of introducing it that I do not need to repeat anything he said—he said it far better than I could. What I want to say is this: just over 20 years ago I wrote an article entitled “The second Silent Spring?” Those who follow the environmental literature will know that in the 1960s Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring, which was really the beginning of the environmental movement. She showed how pesticides, particularly DDT, were causing irreparable damage to wildlife. My article analysed how intensive farming practices have silenced the birds in our landscapes. We now understand that reasonably well; as I mentioned in an earlier debate, we have some good evidence on which to change farming practice.
Without Amendment 24—indeed, without going further than Amendment 24, as suggested in the other amendments in this group—I will be able to write an article in 10 years’ time, in the early 2030s, called “The third Silent Spring”, which will talk about how government inaction has left us without nature recovery.
Why is it urgent to act now? I will mention a few reasons; they have already been described in earlier debates. The Minister himself pointed out this afternoon that you cannot conjure up habitats overnight. If you need a habitat such as ancient woodland, lowland heath or marshland, you need years to restore those habitats. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, the species we are concerned about preserving and increasing depend on the habitats they live in.
Secondly, if the cause of decline has been pollution, it will take years for pollution to disappear from the environment and for us to find alternative insecticides or herbicides that are less damaging to wildlife.
Thirdly, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, among others, some species are already affected by the impacts of climate change. In the latest climate change risk assessment, published last week, risks to biodiversity and habitat from climate change are listed as one of the eight priority risks for action in the next two years. It estimates that more than a third of species are at risk of adverse effects of climate change. Unless we take action now to improve the condition of those species, they will disappear.
My final point in explaining why action is urgent now is that some species will be adversely affected by chance extreme events. For instance, the population of Dartford warblers in Surrey declined by 88% in 2009 because of a cold snap in the February, in spite of the creation of special protected areas of lowland heath. That emphasises that if we are to build resilience to future chance events, we have to act now and not dither and delay. A legally binding target will oblige the Government to come clean about what they mean by Amendment 22 and how they will deliver it, and will prevent further dither and delay while some species decline and disappear.
I have two more points. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, among others, asked what the amendment actually means by a “species abundance target”. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that not all species are created equal. For instance, would it be counted as a success if the Government’s policies achieved a target of increasing the abundance of clothes moths, hair lice or food poisoning bacteria such as salmonella? Some people may think those are important species to increase the abundance of, but when people think of halting species’ decline or restoring nature they are surely thinking of a wider range of species—and probably none of those three species.
Amendments 26 and 27 try to provide a more precise characterisation. We have heard a number of suggestions. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, suggested, for example, that species at risk of decline or extinction be a possible starting point. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, suggested the species in the NGO State of Nature report. Another obvious alternative would be to include the 943 species and 56 habitats covered under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
I hope the Minister can shed a bit of light in his response on what sort of group of species will be included in the target. I also hope the target will be strengthened, as the amendment suggests. Can he also suggest how the expert group he referred to will combine these different species into a single metric? This will involve some weighting of their relative importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, mentioned a few minutes ago.
I have one final point. The Government should be explicit about how potential trade-offs, which my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden referred to earlier, might be managed. Restoring a habitat for one priority species may result in loss of habitat for another. Species A may need more marsh habitat, while species B may need dry meadows. The supply of land in this country is very limited, so choices may well have to be made. I hope the Minister will tell us a bit about how this might be done.
In summary, while government Amendment 22 looks at first sight to be a fantastic commitment, the more you look at it, the more questions it raises. I very much hope, as other noble Lords have said, that the Government will take it away and revise it, to meet the concerns that have been raised about its current form.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the Committee will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I much appreciated and enjoyed the previous speeches and I think we have made a very good case for the amendments that propose to set targets. I speak in support of Amendment 202 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which I believe is the most comprehensive of all the amendments as it takes in the vast scope of what we are collectively trying to do. Like many people, I applaud the Government for both the ELMS and the steps they have taken to start to even think about trying to quantify biodiversity and to set targets.
Biodiversity is, as we all know, fantastically difficult; its loss is as much of a threat to mankind as climate change, but it has only a fraction of the public profile. It is incredibly difficult because it is not a thing you can quantify like electricity or transport. It is complicated and messy but, at the end of the day, it is the thing we all care about. I have just a couple of points to make, as many others I wanted to make have already been raised.
The first is the food system which, despite the excellent recent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is neglected across the Environment Bill. It is factually established that food contributes 30% to climate change. It is and has been the driver of biodiversity loss. While the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is absolutely right that no farmer wants a farm that is devoid of wildlife, if you go into certain areas of Norfolk or parts of England with really industrial farming, it is like being in a factory; it is not like being in the countryside.
It worries me that, throughout the Environment Bill, the question of what to do with food is being left at the door of the food strategy. I am an adviser on the food strategy and have seen a lot of what will come on 15 July. I assure the Committee that it is absolutely fantastic and has a huge section on the relationship between climate, biodiversity and the food system. But it still worries me that we do not have more on that in the body of the Bill.
I also support Amendment 202 because it makes the point that everyone must be responsible for this. I have talked about it before in this House, but the Knepp rewilding estate in Sussex is, at this moment, at threat of having 3,500 houses plonked on its perimeter. It is ironic because, just recently, Natural England—the Government’s own body—designated Knepp a national nature reserve. The Government have said in the 25-year environment plan that:
“New development will happen in the right places, delivering maximum economic benefit while taking into account the need to avoid environmental damage.”
Many noble Lords have made the point that we cannot just settle with what we have, we must increase it if we are to turn the tide and increase the amount of biodiversity. Knepp has done some extraordinary things: it has 2% of the country’s nightingales, an extraordinary quantity of purple emperor butterflies and has reintroduced storks, not to mention that you can go there and understand how the interaction of the grazer, browser and habitat really work.
It seems absolutely illogical that planning permission should be given to that estate. However, as Isabella Tree has said, it is a question of the odds, and the level is “build, build, build”. She said:
“As usual nature is shouldered out of the ring.”
For its local plan, Horsham District Council is expected to meet a staggering target of 1,200 new houses every year from 2019 until 2036. That is within one small council. Obviously we must have homes, but can we not have a little more thought?
It is worrying that we do not have enough joined-up thinking, because if we do not have that, all the gains that we make will come back and bite us. The great brilliance of the Dasgupta review is that it has looked across the board at the economic value of nature. If we undermine it at this early stage, in the year of the CBD and the COP, taking one of our “national treasures” of rewilding and wildlife, and, in effect, destroying the corridors around it that enable the animals to keep moving would be a deep irony.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, who is now in his place, for his introduction of the Government’s amendment on the state of nature target. As other noble Lords have said, expectations were high but a word that has been used in response in this Chamber by Members from right across the House is that there has been a level of “disappointment” in the resulting amendment.
I shall speak on Amendment 24, which I co-signed, and was ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, but I want to give a nod to my noble friend Lord Chidgey and his championing tonight of chalk streams, and on many occasions. He is right to raise the issue and I am sure that when a target eventually appears, it will look to address the need to protect the creatures in our rivers and habitats. We are right to raise the issue tonight.
I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Jones, for proposing targets that look not just to halt the decline but to improve the quality or our species. They made important points on which I hope the Government will reflect.
I was struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, when he said that the road to extinction was paved with good intentions. That is what we are talking about. We are already seeing extinctions of British species and while we do not quibble with the Government’s, indeed the Minister’s, intention to put our wildlife on a stronger footing for the future, we have to make sure that the footing is the strongest possible. It is clear that the state of nature target proposed in Amendment 22 is not that.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, gave a brilliant exposition of what our amendment seeks to do and I am not going to tire the patience of the Committee by repeating it. I shall add just one point about why the target is important and it relates to the upcoming CBD conference in October. As the Minister will know, the committee that I chair, the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, is looking at the outcomes that we want to see from the CBD and what the Government need to do. I am grateful for the evidence that he gave to the committee last week.
Yesterday, we took evidence from a panel of four witnesses, ranging from the green groups to business representatives and economic experts. We had witnesses from the World Economic Forum, the RSPB, Unilever and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. We asked them what they wanted the Government to do to help ensure that we get the best possible outcome at the CBD in October. They were in agreement—the economists, the business representative, the green groups and the international sustainable development experts—that they wanted to see the Government leading from the front with a strong, legally binding target in domestic legislation in order to drive up other people’s and other countries’ ambition.
We know that this is important because of the climate change situation. This is a bottom-up target, not a top-down target, with countries coming together, being inspired by each other and levelling up, respecting the sovereign authority of individual countries working collectively. We need a strong domestic target in this piece of legislation which says to other countries “Come with us on this journey; come with global Britain and let’s leave the world in a better place.” The strongest possible target needs to be in the Bill. That is why Amendment 24 is critical, and why the Government need to act on it.
In conclusion, I pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done, to the work of the many Green charities, both large and small, right around the country which have mobilised the voice of people who are passionately concerned about species and want something done. These charities have done a great job and a service to our democracy in mobilising that support. The Government now need to listen, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and all noble Lords who have spoken so passionately and eloquently in this debate. I have added my name to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. As other noble Lords have said, he made such a compelling case that we do not need to repeat all his arguments. I will comment also on Amendments 25 and 202, standing in my name.
As I said at Second Reading, what set out to be a landmark Bill two years ago now seems to be behind the curve in content and ambition. Nowhere is this more obvious than in this debate. The truth is that the Government are running to catch up on this issue—and they still have some way to go.
Noble Lords have given a number of stark examples of the crisis we face in biodiversity decline. Reference has been made to the RSPB report, which describes a lost decade in the UK in which 41% of our species are declining and 10% are threatened with extinction. They include red squirrels—a particular passion of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—water voles, ghost orchids and meadow clary. A third of wild bees and hoverflies have now been lost. A total of 97% of our wildflower meadows have gone since the 1930s. This crisis is caused by agricultural practices, pollution, urbanisation, habitat loss and climate change. It needs action now.
At the same time, globally, WWF’s Living Planet Report shows that we are losing forests and habitats at an alarming rate, with a species decline of 68%. The UK is adding to this problem through its huge consumer appetite for commodities, which is adding to global deforestation.
Meanwhile, despite all previous government commitments and targets, biodiversity decline has deteriorated further. As has been said, the Government have missed 17 out of the 20 agreed UN biodiversity targets. The Government’s progress report on the 25-year environment plan shows an alarming number of downward arrows for issues such as species abundance and the distribution of priority species. These are important for conserving biodiversity. It seems that all the trends are going in the wrong direction. Something has to change, and it has to change now.
So we are debating today the government amendment on their species abundance target. Of course, we begin by welcoming the target date of 31 December 2030. But, beyond that, it leaves much to be desired.
I will follow up on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at Second Reading, and which he raised again today. He asked for a definition of “species abundance”, which the Government now seem to favour. He and other noble Lords have raised this issue. I share that query, so can the Minister give a precise reason why this phrase was used? Will there be a clear definition of what it means in regulations or guidance? By what means can we be assured that proper metrics will be produced and that there will be proper measurement? Can you measure a phrase such as “species abundance”?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, and my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for tabling these amendments. Before I respond to them, I must again apologise for not being in my seat at the start of the debate. I do not think I missed more than a few moments of my noble friend’s contribution, and I have been kept up to speed.
Noble Lords have highlighted the importance of setting targets for nature, and of course I share their view, as do my colleagues, on the importance of setting ambitious goals for biodiversity and addressing species decline. The facts speak for themselves, and numerous noble Lords have cited some of the bleaker facts. We know that we are in a period of extinctions that is almost unprecedented; it has been described as the sixth extinction experience. We are told by IPBES that about 1 million species face possible extinction—including, according to Kew Gardens, two of every five plant species. We are losing about 30 football fields’ worth of forest every single minute, and the devastation on land is mirrored by what is happening in the seas. No one can argue that this is not an emergency and a crisis.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that there is no disagreement about the nature of the crisis that we are facing, or that, logically, given everything that we know, this is the biggest concern we face as a species. It is hard to imagine anything that comes close. Interventions cannot be made, or targets set, in isolation so, as far as possible, we are trying, as I have explained on previous groupings, to take a system-based approach to setting the targets. We consider the targets collectively, and understand their interdependencies and how they work together, and this approach will mean that we can set targets greater than the sum of their parts.
The 2030 target for species abundance will therefore sit alongside numerous other legally binding targets in, and developed under, the Bill’s framework. The proposed objectives for these wider targets include improving the condition of our protected sites and restoring and improving the quality of habitats, all of which would improve the “state of nature”. I have spoken already about the importance of ensuring that our targets are based on sound evidence. That is no less the case for this target. Biodiversity is inherently complex and assessing the impact of policies and interventions aimed at recovering our biodiversity demands nothing less than a rigorous, evidence-based process, and that is the approach that this Government are taking.
I reassure the my noble Friend Lady McIntosh, that the significant improvement test—I am not sure which it is—applies to this target as well, which means that every five years the target, like other targets, will be reviewed. That test will assess—and it will be reported to Parliament—whether meeting legally binding targets alongside any other statutory and environmental targets would significantly improve the natural environment in England. The test will capture the breadth and amount of improvement to the whole of England’s natural environment and our new 2030 target will, of course, be captured by this test. The detail of the target, including the metric by which we will measure success, will be set following that evidence-led process. That will include seeking independent expert advice and there will be roles for stakeholders, Parliament and the public. It is really a very wide cross-section of society.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who both made powerful speeches, as an individual with a commitment to these issues but also as part of a team that share that commitment, I am committed to using absolutely every lever I can and whatever political capital I have to make sure that we deliver the strongest possible target at the second stage, one that genuinely can be said, even by people who are sceptical, to match the full scale of the crisis that all of us today in various ways have acknowledged.
Finally—not finally overall but finally in relation to that point—there is a strong case for ensuring that we do not jump the gun with this target, and that we align it as much as we can with our international commitments under the new global framework for biodiversity. We hope and expect that to be agreed at the CBD’s 15th Conference of the Parties, if things go to plan, just before we host COP here. I think we are probably working harder than any other country to deliver the maximum possible ambition at that COP. We have been engaging in diplomacy on an almost unprecedented scale, trying to get countries to step up and make similar commitments to those that we have been making.
The noble Friend Lord Caithness, asked whether it was correct that 21% of our land would have to shift from agriculture to bioenergy and trees. That is a figure —it is not a made-up figure, but it is not a government policy. The simple truth is that nature enhancement, biodiversity recovery and agriculture are not mutually exclusive. Yes, it is the case that unsustainable agriculture, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, pointed out, incentivised through the destructive common agriculture policy, is responsible for much of the denuding of nature that we have seen over recent decades. It is not the case that agriculture is necessarily unsustainable. There are plenty of examples of farms where food is produced and nature is enhanced. Our job is to reconcile the two, and I hope the new system of environmental land management will do that.
Secondly, there is a lot of marginal land which is not much use to agriculture but which could be regenerated, such as land either side of our waterways—not all of it is marginal but much of it is—where we are creating an incentive to plant or naturally regenerate, whatever is most appropriate, to try to create a nature corridor linking up the entire country. That will not take food out of production. There are also highly unproductive areas that are grazed—overgrazed in some cases—by sheep, where the landowner or the small farmer will have a direct incentive through the new ELM scheme to earn money by delivering public goods, by doing things that the market does not currently recognise. There is huge potential there.
In response to my noble friend, our national parks, as many people have noted, do not have the kind of species abundance that we would like. The New Forest, for example, is one of the most beautiful environments on earth but it is massively overgrazed. There are things that we need to do in order to change the incentives. If the incentive today is that you pay £400 or thereabouts for a head of cattle if they are grazed in the New Forest, then of course there are going to be lots of cattle in the New Forest overgrazing. The same is true of ponies, whose numbers have soared to unsustainable levels.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for using this vehicle to make a contribution; I had intended to put my name to these amendments. As I explained to the EU Environment Sub-Committee, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my knowledge of farming was gained mainly from listening to “The Archers”, watching “Countryfile” and growing a bit of fruit and veg in my garden. However, those programmes educated me considerably, and as I look around the Chamber and on the screens, I see that most of our committee seem to be present in this debate.
I do not dispute the genuine concern of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. However, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I feel that the indefatigability of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, cannot be denied; it is the hyperbole and, sometimes, the extrapolation and the certitude that give me concern. As someone once said, “Think you in your bowels you could be mistaken?”
Malthus predicted the end of the world through population explosion, which proved wrong. The Chinese experience to control their population is now taking an about-turn. Never underestimate the ability of the human species to react—not always in the right ways. During the pandemic, surely the vaccine development has shown what we can do globally when we work collaboratively. Innovation will play an important part in combating species extinction.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for reminding us of that seminal work by Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and his warning of a third silent spring. Before I come back to that, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, accused me of optimism: damned with faint praise, in this debate. Actually, I wanted him to give a holistic analysis of the steps the Government were taking to combat air pollution—which, fortunately, he did.
To return to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his warning of a third silent spring—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Can the noble Lord, Lord Young, please get to his question for elucidation?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
I will do in a minute. I just want to make this point. Surely the fact is that we have changed farming considerably: 30,000 miles of hedgerow are not being destroyed, fertilisers are being more accurately applied and there is no tilling.
The Minister has answered most of my concerns. My question is: does he feel confident that the totality of the Government’s approach, whether it is ELMS or the other policies, will indeed enable us to set what he said will be evidence-based targets?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I certainly do. I am brimming with confidence, but we have more to do.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to be present at Second Reading. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for counselling us to take care on these amendments.
I have two questions on the new target in Amendment 22, with a view to informing discussion on Report. First, it seems that we should be concerned about the loss of species and biodiversity in the aggregate and not in any specific catchment. A balance must be struck. The EU-based regulations, which this Bill replaces, made it possible for planning proposals, for a hospital or for homes, for example, to be questioned under planning law in lengthy and expensive inquiries and even turned down if there was a species issue. If there were a loss of some bats or toads or orchids in a certain area, a proposal could be blocked, even if the species was abundant elsewhere in the UK or in a neighbouring catchment. Obviously, that can slow down important and beneficial investment of the kind promised in our manifesto—and the accompanying planting of trees, new flora and so on. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure me on this issue of specific catchments versus overall targets?
Secondly, picking up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has been saying, it is important to have an eye to cost benefit. Will there be an impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis of the plans the Minister is making for the targets or sub-targets? I would argue that this could be very helpful to him in reaching conclusions on the targets that are set in any regulations, and on the arrangements for enforcing them.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
On the second point, yes, when it comes to the individual steps that would be taken by the Government to achieve those targets, they will be fully costed. That applies across the board, whether they are Defra steps or MHCLG.
On the first point, we want a sensible approach. We are choosing species for the targets because, as I said earlier, if we choose the correct indicator species that tells a story about the health of the wider environment. This is slightly different to the point that my noble friend was making, but we also want to move away from a “computer says no” planning approach which is not based on common sense. That is why there are powers in the Bill allowing us to tweak and reform the habitats directive, for example, but I assure the House that the absolute intention there is that whatever changes are made to speed the process up, the outcome for the environment will be at least as good as it currently is under those rules. The whole purpose is to deal with the problems that she has just identified.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
May I remind noble Lords that questions after the Minister are short questions for elucidation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that my proposed amendments and my approach were perhaps too ambitious, and that bending the curve was very difficult. He also said that interventions cannot be made in isolation, but does he agree that over decades and centuries, we have made many interventions that could be stopped?
I refer specifically to the issue of predators. The noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and the Minister, referred to the problem of predators and the impact on populations of waders, for example. Until at least 2019, one of the interventions being made was the release of 4 million captive reared pheasants and 9 million red-legged partridges, which, inevitably, is essentially laying out a feast for predators. Stopping that intervention would have an immediate and strong impact; indeed, Wild Justice has already had such an impact.
Again, there is also No Mow May, a hashtag that many may be aware of. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who referred to all the insects hitting the windscreen. We are seeing big changes happening already, so did—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Could the noble Baroness get to her question of elucidation?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Is the Minister taking sufficient account of the fact that some interventions that are causing damage now could be stopped, and that other things like No Mow May could be introduced very simply?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Of course, there are interventions which are taking us in the wrong direction and could be stopped. That is my point about subsidies. It is a classic example: we spend billions of pounds incentivising destruction, and we could spend the same amount of money incentivising renewal. That is what we are trying to do internationally. In principle, I agree with the noble Baroness: dealing with damaging interventions should absolutely be part of this.
On her first point about bending the curve, it is difficult —although that was not the point I was making. My point is that the curve needs to be bent, and it will not happen today or tomorrow. There will be a point between now and the next eight years or so when, I hope, we will have bent the curve. Until we have done that, there will be more continued decline. That is the nature of the journey we are on; it is an unfortunate and tragic thing. But we are trying to bend that curve. That means accepting and acknowledging that, in the meantime, the curve continues to go down until it has been bent. We just need to bend it as quickly as possible.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on Amendment 23. First, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that whether she sees me or not in the House, much of my parliamentary work takes place with developing democracies, mainly in Africa. That is a long shout from here and tends to be out of the gaze of Westminster.
I thank the Minister for his comments. I am a little unsure and uncertain about how committed the Government are to recognising the importance of indicator species in chalk streams. Some people say that England’s chalk streams are the equivalent of the Okavango Delta—if you know what that is, you will know how important it is. Nevertheless, we will no doubt return to this on Report, so for now I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
(c) the species abundance target,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
(c) the species abundance target set under section (Environmental targets: species abundance) is met.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 52. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 7: Environmental improvement plans
Amendment 52
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(4) An environmental improvement plan must include, as a minimum—(a) measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve any targets set under section 1 or 2 and will ensure that the next interim targets included in the plan are met,(b) measures that each relevant central government department must carry out,(c) measures to protect sensitive and vulnerable population groups (including children, older people, people with chronic illnesses and outdoor and transport workers) from the health impacts of pollution,(d) a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery,(e) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets, and(f) measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens environmental improvement plans by introducing a number of minimum requirements, including (but not limited to) ensuring a link between proposed measures and targets established under this Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 52 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I would also like to express our support for Amendments 53 and 55.
Amendment 52 strengthens the environmental improvement plans by introducing a number of minimum requirements. It seeks to provide clear content requirements for each EIP, including an analysis of how specific measures will contribute to relevant targets, timetables for the adoption, implementation and review of each measure, and allocations for the delivery of each measure. It also seeks to bridge the narrative gap in the Bill by ensuring that the measures in this clause relate back to the targets at its beginning, thus providing a crucial link between targets and EIPs as a delivery mechanism.
Those targets are very important in relation to any environmental improvement plans that will come out of the Bill. Such plans are necessary to provide the comprehensive long-term vision that will guide legislation and policy to deliver better protection and the enhancement of our environment. If we have an environmental improvement plan that does not relate to those targets, there is a risk that it will be nothing more than an abstract, descriptive narrative, with meaningful actions backloaded towards the end of each 15-year period that it covers.
Clause 7 also sets out requirements for the content of EIPs. We consider that these need to be strengthened to ensure that all EIPs include timebound, specific measures which are more explicitly linked to the delivery of long-term targets and the interim milestones.
The Bill describes the process by which an environmental improvement plan can be developed and put in place, but then says that an environmental improvement plan is, in effect, already in existence. A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment is specifically referred to as being the present environmental improvement plan. That document clearly demonstrates why we believe that Amendment 52 is necessary. Among other things, the 25-year plan does not address itself to the structure of the Environment Bill. It says a lot of very interesting things but is essentially a narrative document, containing long descriptive passages, with hundreds of possible actions, many of which are difficult to measure. There is a limited attempt to quantify the benefits of actions and to prioritise the most environmentally effective, or to demonstrate that they will lead to particular environmental outcomes. Both updates on the delivery of the current EIP and future plans need to be much more focused on actions and benefits if they are to drive a significant improvement in our natural environment.
Greener UK has suggested that EIPs should be more like plans to achieve the carbon budgets, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, or plans to achieve air quality objectives, as set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. Both of those require clear plans and steps to meet targets. Can the Minister say why this approach has not been taken for EIPs? Why does he believe it is not necessary to make the link between EIPs and the targets at its start? This amendment comprehensively makes those connections and introduces important minimum requirements that are necessary if the EIPs are really to make a difference. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 53 in this group, which is, in effect, another way of tightening the wording with regard to the requirements on the Government to report on the success or otherwise of meeting the environmental improvement plans. I strongly support Amendment 52, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, introduced so well just now, and which I co-signed, and Amendment 55, from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
As it stands in the wording at the moment, the Government basically have to identify “steps” in the environmental improvement plans to meet their targets. That word is incredibly vague. I could take a step, but it would not be very clear what it is. If they so wished, the Government could argue that a step would, for example, be to set up an advisory group or working group. It is not a concrete, clearly defined action. My very strong feeling is that we should borrow the wording in the Climate Change Act, which says very clearly that the Government have to “prepare such proposals and policies”. That is clear and specific, and those are measurable. To my mind, the term “steps” is insufficient. In this House, we know that words matter.
I am not trying to impugn the Government’s motives; I think it is just an oversight that the word was chosen. But if we are to enable the OEP to do the job we need it to do—to hold the Government to account—the wording in the legislation has to enable it to do that as easily as possible. I strongly believe that asking the Government to outline their policies and proposals, as opposed to just “steps”, would enable the OEP to do its job, which we know the Government want it to do, as undoubtedly does this Committee. In summing up, I ask the Minister to make the case clearly for why he thinks the word “steps” will enable the OEP to do the job we need it to do.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 55 in my name. In doing so, I shall express my support for Amendments 52 and 53.
The purpose of Amendment 55 is to give investors greater clarity and confidence about their potential or expected role and contribution. For businesses to be able to play their full part in delivering future environmental objectives, they need a clear line of sight that covers both national targets and a single delivery plan that sets out the policies and activities needed to achieve those targets. They need to know not only what needs to be achieved but, crucially, how and when implementing measures will be put in place. That knowledge, line of sight and predictability will give businesses the greater degree of confidence and certainty that they need to plan for the future and, more importantly, to invest in the future. Amendment 55 seeks to achieve this by making explicit that environmental improvement plans must include the policies and actions that the Government intend to take to enable long-term environmental targets to be met.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and indeed to build slightly on his points. I speak particularly in favour of Amendment 52, to which I would have attached my name had there been space. I note the strong cross-party support for it. The other amendments in this group also take us in the right direction.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said about steps brings us to the core of the problem, and what the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, was just saying reflects what I heard this morning at an event for the Westminster Forum on net zero, climate change and the food, drink and agriculture industries. From the farmers, land managers and the people who advise them, I heard a real sense of confusion and lack of direction—a feeling like we are being pushed in all these directions and asked to do lots of different things, but no one is giving us a route. It is a step here and a step there, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have all withdrawn from this debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry that I have not withdrawn yet as it might have hastened the business, but I want to support Amendment 52, in the names of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Randall. I welcome the requirement in the Bill for the Government to have rolling statutory plans in place to improve the natural environment. In fact, I am mystified by the extent and detail of this section of the Bill. It rather makes a meal of the review and renewal process. Can the Minister give us a clue as to why the Bill has to go into such paroxysm? Being a suspicious human being, methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. It would be useful to know why from the Minister.
I want to make two comments. First, the current 25-year plan for the environment is to be regarded as the first environmental improvement plan. That made my heart sink, as the 25-year plan is inordinately long and mostly narrative. It has a scatter of actions; many are unmeasured and some are not even measurable. It is a loose and baggy monster. There is no logical thread of targets to be achieved, what policies and actions are needed to achieve them and who should be responsible for implementing the policies and actions, so that they achieve their targets. I would very much like to see that sort of structure going into the requirement for environmental improvement plans.
My second point is that Clause 7 sets out the required contents of the EIPs. I agree with the amendment that these need to be strengthened to ensure that the EIPs have time-bound specific measures, which are explicitly linked to the delivery of long-term targets and interim milestones. I very much support Amendment 52, but also Amendment 53, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Boycott, which mirrors the wording of the 2008 Climate Change Act and requires the Government to set out the proposals and policies, not just steps, to meet all the targets and deliver environmental improvement.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 52, also in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I also support Amendment 53, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Boycott. I will not repeat what has been said about Amendment 52, but add one sentence: for me, the key issue is linking together the pieces of the jigsaw—the environmental improvement plans and the targets.
I want to ask the Minister about one point that has not been discussed so far. In Amendment 52, proposed new subsection (4)(f) refers to
“measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”
One significant type of pollution that we have not discussed so far is noise. In 2018, the World Health Organization published a report entitled Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. It says this:
“Noise is one of the most important environmental risks to health”,
second only to air pollution, and every year
“in western Europe alone at least 1.6 million healthy years of life are lost as a result of road traffic noise.”
The adverse effects of noise on health include increased risk of heart disease, cognitive impairment of children, sleep loss and tinnitus.
It is not only humans who suffer from environmental noise. According to a review published last year in the leading scientific journal Nature, noise pollution reduces the breeding success of certain bird species. A review for Defra, carried out by scientists at Bristol University, entitled The Effects of Noise on Biodiversity, points to an overall lack of evidence, but also mentions species of birds, mammals and amphibians from the UK list of species of principal importance that appear to be adversely affected by noise. Does the Minister therefore agree with me that it would be appropriate to include a target for reducing noise pollution in environmental improvement plans? The technologies for reducing noise are available, so it is a matter of the will to apply them.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
I am sorry, I meant to withdraw from this group, so I do not wish to comment. I apologise for not withdrawing earlier.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has also withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly, as the points have largely been made. In my view, it is essential that Clause 7 is strengthened to give it greater effectiveness. The only requirement currently set out is that the plan
“must set out the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve the natural environment in the period to which the plan relates.”
There can be no doubt that this is far too vague. The proposals in the various amendments tie the plans to the achievement of targets, and the precise language of these amendments is important. My view is that the use of the words “enable” or “ensure” in relation to the meeting or achievement of targets is the best approach, as that would require the plans to set out concrete and achievable steps to enable the target to be met. That I why I think that the language used in particular in the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, contains that specificity.
That is important because specific and precise language will set out what the duty of the Government is. The public must be able to see exactly what steps are to be taken to meet the targets, and then judge for themselves the commitment and realism with which the Government set about the significant changes that will be required. It would be unrealistic to take any position that there will be powerful interests that are adversely affected by such targets, and who—for reasons that may be understandable, but are wrong—would seek to delay the achievement of those targets. The easiest way to defeat such persons who seek to delay is by transparency and specificity, which is generally more effective than court enforcements, to which we shall return later in the Bill. Requiring the Government to set out the steps is absolutely essential; the vagueness contained in the current Bill is the enemy of achievement.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 52, 53 and 55 all make reference to the environmental improvement plans, which are key to the delivery of the ethos and thrust of the Environment Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has very eloquently set out the case for strengthening the environmental improvement plans—the EIPs—supported by my noble friend Lady Parminter and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. In order for the EIPs to be effective, the minimum requirements should be up front, not an afterthought. Ambitious, realistic targets are vital, but there must be strategies in place to provide a route map for delivery. The one cannot be successful without the other.
All three amendments are interlinked and support each other. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, made the case for the EIPs to include the policies and actions the Government intend to support to enable the long-term environmental targets to be met. So serious is the crisis at our doors that both short-term immediate remedial targets and actions will need to be taken, coupled with and supported by the longer-term aims, objectives and targets to ensure that the country does not rest on its laurels but halts our biodiversity decline and progresses swiftly to tackle climate change on a permanent basis.
Progress is not likely to be overnight, but that is no excuse for not taking immediate and long-term action to rectify the crisis we are facing. This will have an economic impact, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, raised on an earlier amendment, but ensuring sufficient investment in strategies and plans to allow the EIPs to be successful is likely to be a measure on which the public will judge the Government. Failure is not an option. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance that he can accept these three vital amendments.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions so far. I am happy to clarify some concerns raised by noble Lords in relation to these amendments, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
I can reassure them that an environmental improvement plan must set out the steps the Government intend to take to improve the natural environment, which the Government expect would include measures needed to meet their long-term and interim targets. We expect this to cover relevant policies and proposals. However, this could also include setting out steps that go beyond this, such as flagging where research is needed to fill gaps. So the EIP must also include the interim targets for each long-term target.
I was slightly surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young; we have not placed detailed requirements on the contents of the environmental improvement plan, as we think it is important that future Governments can assess their own priorities and decide which aspects of the natural environment are most in need of intervention, based on the latest evidence. The idea is that this allows the Government to adapt to changing environmental challenges in future.
To respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on the strength and ambition of the plans, the environmental improvement plan is defined as a
“plan for significantly improving the natural environment”.
Its provisions will form part of environmental law. This means that the OEP will have oversight of the Government’s implementation of those plans, as it does over all aspects of environmental law.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, our 25-year environment plan will be adopted, as she says, as the first statutory EIP. My view is that this sets a clear benchmark against which Parliament, the OEP and others can assess future EIPs. The 25-year plan was very well received when it was published and demonstrated real ambition.
In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that noise should be included as a target, I cannot give him a detailed or specific answer, because we do not want to prejudge decisions that are being made through the process I have already described—but he makes a very good point. Noise clearly is a pollutant and clearly does have an impact, and I would be interested to see any evidence he has—not that I need persuading—to bolster my knowledge on this issue. I know that Highways England has a noise prevention programme which is ambitious and, I am told, has been productive.
On Amendment 52 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the Government are committed to cross-departmental action in the delivery of environmental improvement plans. In fact, cross-departmental action is a prerequisite. A range of government departments will be involved in the development of the plans. For example, the Department for Transport will have a key role in updating on its progress in meeting interim air quality targets on PM2.5, and we will work closely with the Department of Health on the health impacts of our actions, particularly on vulnerable populations. Clearly, planning is central to so much of what we are talking about, so there is a permanent revolving door between Defra and MHCLG.
I hope this has reassured noble Lords and I once again ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it seems that noble Lords agree that this part of the Bill needs serious strengthening. The Minister talked about steps, but the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, quite rightly said that the word “steps” is completely inadequate.
Noble Lords agreed that the connections I laid out at the start of the debate are essential. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, commented on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about the lack of focus in the current EIPs and expressed her concerns over how we will see any outcomes delivered from this. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put his finger on it when he said that the key issue is linking together the pieces of the jigsaw. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said that the minimum requirements would need to be at the front.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 59. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 59
Lord Redesdale
“(5A) It may also set out steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve the conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them (and if it does so references in this Part to improving the natural environment, in relation to that plan, include conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them).”
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 59, I will speak also to Amendments 61, 72, 102 and 111, which are in my name.
Before I go through each individual amendment, let me start by saying that these amendments were brought forward by the Heritage Alliance, which is made up of all the bodies that are involved in heritage. There is a very close link between heritage and the environment. The Minister has talked a number of times about the environmental plan. I also listened to a speech about the problem of overgrazing in the New Forest through cattle and ponies; having lived in the New Forest in the past, I can quite see that that is a major problem.
However, there is also a link between well-managed heritage sites and important habitats, especially for things such as bats and other flora and fauna. Having been on many archaeological sites where there are digs—I speak not as a trained archaeologist but as somebody who took an archaeological degree; there is a difference—I can say that you can see a preponderance of species that are not on many other sites that have been under the plough or suffered a great deal of intensive agriculture. So the purpose of these amendments is to look at how heritage can be included in the Bill.
The rather depressing fact is that, when we looked at the Bill, we saw that the only mention of heritage was to exclude heritage from it, in the environmental improvement plans. That seems to be the wrong way round. Although I know that the Minister and his officials will fight tooth and nail not to add a single sentence to the Bill if it is avoidable, I believe that there is a problem here with the fact that heritage is often seen as the responsibility of DCMS rather than Defra. I believe that, if there had been discussions between DCMS and Defra at an earlier stage, heritage would have been included in, rather than excluded from, the Bill.
This is a massive Bill, of course. It has a number of excellent clauses, but drawing a narrow position without including heritage could pose problems. In the amendments, we are looking as much as anything at how to include heritage in the environmental improvement plans rather than excluding it. The Government undertook to include heritage in the environmental improvement plans in goal 6, but the problem is that, by excluding heritage specifically, the environmental improvement plans will have major effects on funding and monitoring. If a scheme comes forward and needs funding or monitoring going forward, heritage could—indeed, will—be excluded, because there would be a cost implication in doing so.
I very much hope that the Government could look at these amendments. We have set them out at this stage to test whether the Minister is minded to look at accepting them. I would, of course, after 30 years in this place, fall over at that point, because I have never had a Minister accept any of my hundreds of amendments —but one can only hope. And I hope the Minister could think about maybe having a meeting with us to discuss whether it is possible that these proposals could be included, because they have cross-party support, and I think it would enrich the Bill.
Amendment 59 invites the Government to consider heritage in the environmental improvement plans. Amendment 61 includes heritage in line with goal six of the 25-year environmental plan, and Amendment 111 widens the definition of “natural environment” to include heritage. I ask the Minister if it would be possible to talk to his officials and see whether we can move forward on this. I have no intention, of course, of pressing these amendments tonight, but that is the assurance I would hope he can give. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in this debate so I point first to my interests in the register. Specifically, I point out that I own land of environmental and historic significance. My comments are essentially probing ones attached to amendments in this grouping and relate to the Bill more generally.
My starting point is supporting the general gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has said. In particular, I would like to reiterate comments I made briefly during the Agriculture Act, where I sensed that some of your Lordships were a little bit sceptical about the point I was making, but I believe they were not right in that. It is commonplace to say that all landscape in the UK is, in one shape or another, made land by man. But there is a category—I am specifically referring to landscape parks and gardens—in which the natural and deliberately planned fuse in a kind of hybrid, because humans deploy natural materials to create a work of art. They range in scale from being only a few acres to being what Stephen Switzer, the 18th century designer and author, described as
“aiming at an incomprehensible Vastness, and attempting at Things beyond the reach of Nature”.
To use a contemporary form of words, they are a form of land art.
Our great parks and gardens are probably this country’s greatest distinctive contribution to 18th century visual culture and possibly to global visual culture more generally. I hasten to add that “landscaping” is not used in its general contemporary sense of hard or soft landscaping. “Park” in this context does not have its general contemporary meaning of urban or country and, for that matter, “garden” does not merely mean what it means these days, although it may include them. All these are conceived with a complicated and important cultural, philosophical and intellectual framework which links them to all kinds of other disciplines and art forms. Probably the best-known practitioner is Capability Brown, but he has many predecessors and successors from Charles Bridgeman at the beginning of that century to Humphry Repton at the end of it.
These are landscapes that are incredibly fragile and inherently physically unstable. There is a matter of course because of the inevitability of plants dying. This, though, in some senses, paradoxically, can help to preserve them, but they are easily swept away by changes in taste and in rural land use—things like golf courses and urban development, which, in turn, often lead to physical disintegration and dismemberment. Quite how many there are I do not really know, and I dare say not more, anyway, than 1,000. Sometimes, they can suddenly come out of the undergrowth, like, for example, the well-known Lost Gardens of Heligan. Or, equally, they can disappear more or less completely, like Eastbury in Dorset, designed by Vanbrugh and now green fields. As Sir Thomas Browne put it, “green grass grows where Troy town stood”.
The purpose of these remarks is simply to seek confirmation from the Minister of reassurance that such things as these, which are neither solely natural nor solely manmade, but a hybrid, will be given the highest consideration in the context of what this Bill does in respect of land. They are, after all, one of our nation’s glories and give a large number of people in our country both pleasure and inspiration.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow both the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood. We owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for putting down these amendments, drafted, as he said, by the Heritage Alliance, which represents so many heritage organisations in this country.
The poetic speech of my noble friend Lord Inglewood inspires me to think of so many of the landscape gardens I know and love. In my own former constituency of South Staffordshire, we had Chillington, one of the masterpieces of Capability Brown, with its wonderful lake, its Palladian bridges and its marvellous vistas. Just a few miles ago, there is Weston Park, the home of the Earls of Bradford through the centuries. But there are so many, many more, such as Studley Royal around Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire. I could dredge my mind and memory and go on, but I do not want to detain the House for too long at this stage of the evening.
Our landscape—my noble friend Lord Inglewood referred to this—is largely manmade and, even in its wilder aspects, man-moulded. It is a real deficiency in this Bill, which calls itself the Environment Bill, if some of the most memorable and vulnerable parts of our environment are excluded. I talked briefly on this on Second Reading, when I referred to parish churches, which are the centre of most of our villages. I am not suggesting that every historic building be brought within the compass of this Bill, but I believe it is important that we recognise the built environment, which is part of the environment. One thinks of hill forts, some of them dating back to the Bronze Age. One thinks of the canals of this country—manmade. One thinks of dovecotes; there is a particularly beautiful one not far from my former constituency that is owned and protected by the National Trust. These are all parts of our built environment, our environment and our heritage.
I would ask my noble friend, following what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said a few moments ago: would he please convene a meeting of those of us who are particularly concerned about this? I speak as president of the All-Party Parliamentary Arts and Heritage Group, which I founded with the late Andrew Faulds way back in 1974, and which has attracted the support of many of your Lordships over many years.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as on the register. This is a very important amendment which I am proud to support, and I urge my noble friend the Minister to agree to it, or at least to some variation of it if it is deemed to be technically deficient. What is not deficient is the concept; it is absolutely right that the cultural heritage of our landscape should be included as part of the definition of “natural environment”, as Amendment 111 seeks to do. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that his request to the Minister was very modest, in my opinion. I am fairly certain I can say to my noble friend the Minister that, when it comes to Report, unless there is progress on this, there will be quite a few loyal friends behind him who will wish to push an amendment of this sort ourselves.
The case for inclusion has been very eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Cormack, and in the inspirational speech by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. I have been privileged over the last 30 years to live a few miles away from my noble friend Lord Inglewood’s home and gardens, the parkland, the ponds and the well-farmed estate. It is a perfect example of the historical and cultural heritage of this country. Looking at his home, one can see how it has been changed over the years—I think the Scots had some part in changing the configuration of it at one point—and rebuilt according to different architectural styles. The land and the farm have been managed differently over hundreds of years. It is a perfect example of what this amendment is about.
I simply say that if those noble Lords who have spoken, and those who are about speak again—such as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who made this point at Second Reading—who are landowners, and who know all about the management of historic countryside, are in favour of this amendment, then a wise Government should listen carefully to what they say.
Rather than be a poor echo of what those noble Lords have said, I want to put before the House the most brilliant description of the English countryside I have ever read. I regard this amendment as The Road to Little Dribbling amendment—the name of the 2015 book by the American writer Bill Bryson. If Peers have not read it, then I commend it to them. It describes in witty form everything that is so special about rural England. I simply want to put on the record two paragraphs. He writes:
“Nothing—and I mean, really, absolutely nothing—is more extraordinary in Britain than the beauty of the countryside. Nowhere in the world is there a landscape that has been more intensively utilized—more mined, farmed, quarried, covered with cities and clanging factories, threaded with motorways and railway lines—and yet remains so comprehensively and reliably lovely over most of its extent. It is the happiest accident in history. In terms of natural wonders, you know, Britain is a pretty unspectacular place. It has no alpine peaks or broad rift valleys, no mighty gorges or thundering cataracts. It is built to really quite a modest scale. And yet with a few unassuming natural endowments, a great deal of time, and an unfailing instinct for improvement, the makers of Britain created the most superlatively park-like landscapes, the most orderly cities, the handsomest provincial towns, the jauntiest seaside resorts, the stateliest homes, the most dreamily-spired, cathedral-rich, castle-strewn, abbey-bedecked, folly-scattered, green-wooded, winding-laned, sheep-dotted, plumply-hedgerowed, well-tended, sublimely decorated 88,386 square miles the world has ever known—almost none of it undertaken with aesthetics in mind, but all of it adding up to something that is, quite often, perfect. What an achievement that is.”
So says an American writer. Is that not the most magical statement on the English countryside you have ever heard? It is also a definitive description of what this amendment is all about. I am certain that the Public Bill Office and parliamentary drafters would not allow it, but I would love to have that description added to the Bill as an amendment—I would not get away with it.
For the sake of completeness, I said that I would quote a second paragraph, so I must also give the House this one. Bill Bryson writes:
“And what a joy it is to walk in it. England and Wales have 130,000 miles of footpaths, about 2.2 miles of path for every square mile of area. People in Britain don’t realise how extraordinary that is. If you told someone in Midwest America, where I come from, that you intended to spend the weekend walking across farmland, they would look at you as if you were out of your mind. You couldn’t do it anyway. Every field you crossed would end in a barrier of barbed wire. You would find no helpful stiles, no kissing gates, no beckoning wooden footpath posts to guide you on your way. All you would get would be a farmer with a shotgun wondering what the hell you were doing blundering around in his alfalfa.”
Since I am sitting behind the Bishops’ Bench, perhaps I may be forgiven for using the word “hell”, although I do so in a non-biblical sense. I hope that it is not a microaggression to use such a word these days. And I hope, of course, that the Bishops believe in such a place as hell.
The Bill Bryson description makes the perfect case for these amendments. There is nothing more I can usefully add. I rest my case.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a daunting task to follow the splendid oratory of not only the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Cormack and Lord Inglewood. I will do my best.
I declare my interests as set out in the register and add that I am custodian—I use that word on purpose—while alive, of historic monuments on my land. I support the amendments in this group, commencing with Amendment 59 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Blencathra and Lord Cormack, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I hope that I will not cover too much of the same ground that has been so ably covered by them.
My concern is the considerable lack of clarity on eligibility for, and funding of, this all-important man-made heritage. I understand that heritage is included as part of the specific goals in the 25-year environment plan, and that funding could well be part of the environmental land management schemes to be introduced under the Agriculture Act. But that is all vague, and surely we need the certainty of measurement, reporting and funding that would be achieved by these amendments. After all, a plan is just a plan, and the fact that the Agriculture Act enables heritage to be funded is not an actual promise of funding.
It would obviously help if we had some details of the elusive ELMS, but this is still perhaps two years away. But early reaction from the farming community is underwhelming, particularly at a time of respectable prices for livestock and arable crops. If this continues, and the financial viability of ELMS for farmers is not sufficiently attractive, the laudable aims of encouraging biodiversity, funding heritage, planting trees and much more will not be fulfilled. Surely that is a powerful reason for these amendments.
It might help to give a specific example. Where I live, according to the Domesday Book, there was a bloody battle between the Saxons and the Danes, currently undated, which resulted in a series of barrows—burial mounds—and ancient fortifications and a huge chalk cross carved into the hill, which was once visible from many miles away. There is also the site of a Roman villa nearby. All these monuments are in overgrown scrubland, and invisible. They all have permitted access, so there is no problem in that respect. None is an SSSI, they do not form part of farmland registered for the basic payment, and they are not within any managed woodland scheme. Hence there is no current source of funds from any relevant scheme.
For those important archaeological features, there is neither carrot nor stick available to encourage necessary maintenance. Please will the Minister tell us how those monuments, and many others like them, can be preserved and funded, without the assurance that would be given by the inclusion of heritage in the Bill, as well as much-needed clarification of the funding available through the 25-year environmental improvement plan—and, of course, the environmental land management schemes—identified by the Government for this cause?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, there are now very few true wildernesses left on earth. The vast majority of landscapes are the result of millennia of human interaction with the natural world. So when we think of the environment we should not just bring to mind an untouched pastureland; there is no such thing. As we know, the way fields have been laid out has varied constantly throughout the ages; the same is true of gardens.
These acres are also where people have lived, worked and played, and the environment cannot be considered apart from them. The land still betrays the marks of the past, as is dramatically illustrated by the finds at Sutton Hoo, and, to take one example, in the way the great tower of Ely Cathedral rises above the Fens.
I strongly associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who was ably followed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. When we are thinking about the environment, what we are really thinking about is a fusion of the natural world and human creativity over many centuries. I therefore very much welcome this group of amendments, especially the inclusion of the words
“beauty, heritage, and people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”
These words matter, because they concern the environment, which is of value in itself, but also because they have to do with human well-being—physical, aesthetic, and, yes, spiritual. They bring out the fact that being human involves being aware of our past and of the way we are shaped by it.
I also note the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the fact that there are also in the landscape people who have to make a living there. They, too, need to be taken into account.
The word “beauty” is not fashionable among philosophers or art historians today, but, as the great Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote about beauty:
“We can be sure that whoever sneers at her name, as if she were the ornament of a bourgeois past, whether he admits it or not, can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love.”
To put it more prosaically, most ordinary people do know that something meaningful is conveyed by the word “beauty”—and, more than anywhere else, they look for it in the natural world, that creative fusion of nature and human creativity over many centuries.
I hope the Minister will look favourably on these amendments, and that, if he cannot accept them in their present form, he will come back with revised wording that meets their main thrust.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Committee appears to be in complete consensus on these amendments; I too am concerned about the gaping hole where heritage should sit within this Bill. Therefore, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the various amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and would have added my name to them were they not so heavily oversubscribed. It is essential for heritage to be in the Bill to ensure that man’s many historic and essential interventions in the landscape can be preserved and enjoyed for centuries to come.
In his response to these comments at Second Reading, the Minister pointed to the presence of heritage in the 25-year environment plan—our first EIP—but without heritage being in the Bill, there is no requirement that it will be included in the second EIP or any later ones. If it is anything, heritage is a long-term concern and that needs permanent status within this legislation.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I also want to say how impressed I was by my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s rendering of the impressive prose of the American author Bill Bryson. I declare my interest as trustee of the Fonthill Estate in Wiltshire and as former chairman of Endsleigh Fishing Club in Devon.
I will speak in favour of Amendment 59 and the other amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others. As I said at Second Reading, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham,
“our attitudes to nature are being kidnapped by the dogma that nature is good and man is bad.”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1250.]
This might explain why the Bill at present includes nothing built by man, although it purports to set targets with respect to people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. Apart from the difficulty of measuring in a scientific way people’s enjoyment of anything, it is obvious that a large part of the beauty of our rural environment depends on traditional farm buildings, stone walls and other archaeological features. Ancient tithe barns and other buildings have been or need to be restored and repurposed in order to accommodate the increased numbers of visitors to the countryside.
I do not think it is possible to set targets for the natural environment without including this aspect. Indeed, the sixth goal of 10 listed in the Government’s 25-year plan is to achieve:
“Enhanced beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment.”
Why is this the only goal of that plan on which this Bill is silent? My noble friend may say that this is because existing UK legislation, which is derived from EU legislation, specifically excluded heritage, but the Prime Minister last week welcomed the excellent report from the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform chaired by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, who rightly said:
“Now that the UK has left the EU it is important to change our approach to regulation which reflects the needs of the UK. This report shows the way ahead with the move to the proportionality principle setting a more flexible and balanced approach to future regulations and changes to existing regulations.”
Heritage is a key environmental public good and it makes no sense to introduce this important Bill without covering its needs. There is no time to lose as more than half of our traditional farm buildings have already been lost. Will my noble friend confirm that he recognises this? Will he commit to adopt Amendments 61 and 72, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to include heritage in his annual reports and to monitor progress made towards targets covering heritage, both of which are obviously necessary?
Similarly, the OEP cannot carry out its objectives without monitoring heritage as an integral part of our rural environment. Amendment 43 seeks to change the definition of “natural environment” to include heritage buildings in so far as they form part of the landscape, which they clearly do. To accept this change would simplify the task of making other changes to the Bill.
My noble friend will doubtless say that, since heritage is already included in the 25-year plan, it is taken care of and does not need to be covered in the Bill. If inclusion in the plan is enough, why do we need the Bill at all? If heritage is not covered in the Bill, that makes it less likely that it will be covered under the ELM schemes. It will be deprioritised and in practice remain unfunded, leading to its progressive deterioration and disappearance. These amendments are crucial and I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments entirely to speak to Amendments 290 and 291 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—but, as they have not been moved, proposed or spoken to, and nor do they fit at all within this group, I will leave my remarks on them to another time when, hopefully, they will be raised in the right place.
So I had not intended to speak on the other amendments in this grouping, but I will say in passing that I support them all. As a Scotsman from the highlands, I have always really loved the English countryside just because it is man-made. Every tree, hedge, field and parkland—every aspect of it—is the result of some historical figure, from the Middle Ages to the 20th century, contributing to the countryside out of their love of that countryside at the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, quoted Bill Bryson. Bryson also said that one of the outstanding features of the English countryside that is different from the rest of the world is that it is loved to death by every inhabitant within the country. As a statement with which to promote these amendments, you could not find anything better.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, through this group of amendments my noble friend Lord Redesdale has set out the case for heritage assets to be included in the definition of the natural environment. Heritage assets are often the natural home of many varied animal, insect and bird species. My noble friend has been eloquently supported by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Blencathra.
Given the hour, I will be brief. Others have made the case extremely well and I fully support their comments. We debated on Monday the enjoyment that the public get from the natural environment, whether that be by walking in the fells, swimming in rivers or picnicking on grassy open spaces. The benefits to their physical and mental health are well documented. This group of amendments seeks to extend the same benefits to archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural and historic interests. Families’ and people’s enjoyment of all these is important, and in many cases it is the paying visitors who keep these iconic attractions economically viable.
The amendments wish to ensure that the EIPs include natural and built heritage in all its forms, thus preserving them for the future. Many of these iconic structures are well-known to all of us, from Badbury Rings and the Minack Theatre in Cornwall to the Ness of Brodgar in Orkney and perhaps Powderham Castle. Some are inaccessible to those families who are on low incomes but, whatever form they take, they have a fascination and a spellbinding quality that hold us all enthralled at the skill of the men and women who constructed them. Visiting them is definitely life-enhancing and enriching.
Some will have been part of the City of Culture’s categories around the country. It is many years since I last went to Coventry, but I look forward to returning to see how it is faring now that it is the City of Culture. I remember going to Glasgow when it was the European City of Culture. I was amazed as it was very different from my expectations—stunning and beautiful.
I am sure the Minister will agree that many of the examples given during the debate fall into the category of the natural environment, and I look forward to hearing how he sees the EIPs covering them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority. Given the lateness of the hour, I intend to speak briefly.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate for their generous and vivid descriptions of the art and beauty of the place that they hold dear. Each noble Lord, in their own different way, has had a story to tell. In combination, they have made a persuasive point that heritage and historic buildings are a fundamental part of our natural environment.
As the National Trust made clear in its briefing, and as noble Lords have beautifully illustrated this evening, none of our landscapes is completely natural. They are all the consequence of human interaction with the landscape during thousands of years. The variety of ways in which the land has been farmed and grazed, together with the pockets of communities around it—each very different—are a precious part of our English heritage. Everything from dry stone walls and stone circles, to farm buildings and historic churches, tells a story about our history.
The South Downs has had its own settlements for more than 6,000 years. You can still see the remains of the Iron Age fort at Cissbury Ring or admire the mosaics in Bignor Roman Villa. The great estates of places such as Firle, Glynde and Petworth House still enhance our landscape today. We need to value them for their intrinsic contribution to the living landscape and recognise their attraction to visitors, providing welcome jobs in the heart of the countryside. They clearly have a role to play in enhancing public enjoyment of the countryside.
As a number of noble Lords have said, this is already goal 6 of the 25-year environment plan which talks about enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery, while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage. This was echoed by the Minister in his response to the Second Reading debate:
“The 25-year plan explicitly recognises the link between the natural environment and heritage.”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1307.]
However, as noble Lords have said, these aims are not reflected in the Bill as it stands. As we move to future iterations of the targets and environmental improvement plans, it is important that these elements are not forgotten.
The importance of heritage was rightly included in the Agriculture Act as a public good that can receive financial support. It is important that the Government act consistently and cross-reference that into this Bill as well. I hope that, in his response, the Minister can provide some reassurance that this omission will be addressed in some way—perhaps by meeting noble Lords, as has been suggested.
I was sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was unable to speak to Amendments 290 and 291, addressing the economic role of the national parks. The parks have a central role to play in delivering the objectives of the Environment Bill. I hope to return to this issue later in the passage of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for tabling his amendments to include references to heritage and cultural matters in Part 1 of the Bill. I very much enjoyed his speech. I should be happy to meet and will be in touch with him via our office tomorrow.
I will focus first on the legal definitions. The definition of “natural environment” in the Bill, as opposed to in common parlance, was created with two specific aims in mind: to define the scope of the OEP’s enforcement function and to underpin the purpose and scope of the environment improvement plans. This definition, therefore, has specific legal effects which are confined to this Bill. It is not intended to have a wider application.
I worry that, if we were to include heritage in the definition of environmental law, as set out in the Bill, this would then become part of the enforcement remit of the OEP. It would mean that the OEP would have an enforcement remit over such areas as listed buildings—which the Government do not want. I do not think this is what stakeholders want either. This is not the impression I have had from speeches today or from my discussions with stakeholders.
However, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—I pay tribute to his speech, which was beautifully delivered and crafted—and others who raised the same issue can be assured that the historical environment will nevertheless be considered when the Government prepare environmental improvement plans for the natural environment. We recognise the important links between our natural and historical environments, of course, for all the reasons so eloquently laid out today and more—for example, from a purely nature point of view, the peregrine falcons that have made Ely Cathedral their home.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I always find it slightly worrying to make a speech at this—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I am sorry, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, wants to speak. That has not reached me yet. Is the noble Earl there? No? Perhaps we shall continue with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, then.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Wait a minute, the noble Earl is there. Could he speak briefly?
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
I am terribly sorry, my Lords. The Minister says it is not for Defra to handle the funding of heritage restoration, and he directs our attention to DCMS and says that it should handle it instead. But Natural England has long contributed substantial capital grants for existing heritage restoration works. Indeed, this is under the HLS programme. An example would be the award-winning restoration of the belvedere overlooking the Exminster marshes, which was substantially repaired thanks to an HLS and Natural England grant as a historic natural landscape feature. Could the Minister comment on that? I think Defra and Natural England are very capable in this regard.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The examples the noble Earl provided are areas where there is a direct biodiversity value. Not all the examples we have been given today have a direct biodiversity value. I am not suggesting that they have no value; of course they do. But, if we were to squeeze into ELM all the concerns, priorities and projects that have been listed today, it would need to be significantly expanded from what it is, and it is just not practical or possible.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, it is always an indicator when the doorkeepers are standing looking at you purposefully that a speech must be very brief at this point. But I will make just one point. The purpose of the amendments was not to open a massive income stream towards heritage; I do not think that was the intention of the amendments in any form. I quite agree about ELM: it is a pot that, however large, will be spent. I should declare an interest as a landowner who has had HLS and ELS funding, which went to my tenants. Some of that was to deal with access to heritage sites.
I would like to raise the point that we are moving into a different form of agriculture from the European system of funding. In the discussion with the Minister and his officials, I would like to talk not about a new form of funding, or Defra taking on the responsibilities of DCMS, but about making sure that, in any monitoring going forward, heritage could be included, as was set out in the 25-year plan. The problem is that we are ending up with silos.
I finish on the fact that I received a grant from the Northumberland National Park for doing up a stable to retain as an agricultural building. The importance of that for biodiversity is that holes were left in the walls, specifically so that birds could nest—they have been nesting this spring. It is bat friendly, and two types of bat have returned; we have a red squirrel feeding station in one of the last woodlands in Northumberland still to have red squirrels; and I had to get rid of a rather belligerent hedgehog. That is a rather clear example of how a building which has been renovated in accordance with environmental principles can be a haven for biodiversity. If there had just been a DCMS grant, it would have been done but many of those features would have been removed. I think that noble Lords around the House support the idea, not of opening a new funding stream but of looking at how we can, without cost, or without significant cost, look at including heritage in certain aspects of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).