Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords, and welcome to an afternoon of four Questions for Short Debate. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes, but, as can been seen from the screens, there will not be a Division. Indeed, if noble Lords do not mind my saying so, I rather wish this Committee was starting half an hour later so that I could ask a supplementary question in the spending review Statement about the importance of science and technology to the future growth of this country—however, it is my job. Indeed, I thought if I sang “Happy Birthday” to the noble Lord on his feet in the Chamber, I wonder how Hansard would report that, but that is a separate matter as well.
Cardiovascular Illnesses
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Booth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the detection, prevention and treatment of cardiovascular illness.
Lord Booth (Con)
My Lords, the idea for this debate came about at the end of January, when I was lying in a hospital bed, where I had been for nearly four weeks receiving treatment for my heart. Those were the later stages of what had been a long journey for me since 2011. One surgeon described me as an interesting case, so I intend, with the indulgence of the Committee, to tell you about my heart history, as it is important.
When I came into House last year, I was told that our individual expertise and experiences should form part of what we do here. It is an area that I intend to pursue further. Since I initiated this debate, I have received lots of representations from different groups; before then, I did not appreciate the significance of cardiovascular disease and its causes, which are considerable.
It is very difficult to talk about your own health; it is a very un-British thing to do. I saw on Facebook earlier this week when someone asked, “What do we do as the British?” an answer was that we say, “I’m fine, thank you”. That is how we tend to react to things. I find coming out to Peers and telling them about my heart and health issues far more difficult than I did the more traditional way of coming out, which I did many years ago.
My heart issues began in 2011, when I was at the peak of my business career. I was fit and healthy; I went to the gym three times a week. I was floored by an illness called endocarditis, an infection that goes around the heart valve. Its detection was very difficult, as were the subsequent detections of the other heart-related illnesses that I have had. I intend to talk about the good, the bad and the ugly, because there have been some very good and very bad responses from clinicians, and I have seen some very ugly things in hospitals in the United Kingdom.
In 2011, I suffered a flu-like illness, getting fevers and sweats at night. I went to my GP, who basically told me that I probably had the flu and that I should go away, rest and take a couple of paracetamols. Unfortunately, that persisted over a number of days, and I presented myself to accident and emergency. There, I was again told that I probably had flu and that I should go away.
It was not until a week later, when my partner insisted that I go back to accident and emergency, that we began to have some results. If I had not seen a young African lady doctor, who was brought up and trained in Africa, the endocarditis would not have been recognised, because it is not very common in this country. It is increasingly common; in Africa, malnutrition causes endocarditis, and in this country, it is more common for people on drugs because, as they progress with serious drug taking, they become malnourished too.
That was my first episode, in 2011. As a result of that, I had angiograms and all sorts of heart checks. They decided that I had had a bicuspid valve from birth. I do not know whether noble Lords know this, but valves in the heart are tricuspid—they have three chambers. However, it is not uncommon for people to have bicuspid valves; 10% to 15% of people do. It is not recognised when you are younger, because you are fit and healthy, but it becomes prevalent as we get older and everything begins to clog up inside. That necessitated a valve replacement. In May 2012, I had a tissue valve fitted—I chose that rather than a metal valve because the thought of something ticking in my chest horrified me, and still does.
That was a life-changing event. I was at the peak of my business career, but major open-heart surgery—I am a member of the “zipper club”—makes you think about everything you are doing in your life. I retired, and we decided to move from where we lived in Brighton to Cornwall. The finances worked out, as in those days it was much cheaper to live there, and the treatment with the valve was at the time very successful.
I then entered what I call the fallow years for my heart, which lasted until much more recently. The only medical interventions I had were in 2015, when I had my left hip replaced, and 2017, when I had my right hip replaced. That is part of the reason why medical people say that I have an interesting history.
In 2022, one Monday morning, I woke up and literally could not move. I was in utter agony. If I tried to move my leg one inch, all the muscles in my leg spasmed. A lady doctor later told me that I had discitis, which she described as like being permanently in birth for six weeks—the pain was that bad. It was at the tail end of lockdown; I managed to get the local hospital to acknowledge my illness, which was again a difficult process, over about 10 days, and I went in. Yet again, the discitis may also have been endocarditis, because the treatment for the two is the same—six weeks of intravenous antibiotics four times a day. The hospital was in lockdown, so they were not prepared to move me around the hospital to find out whether I did have endocarditis.
At the end of that, in 2023, I had a TAVI valve fitted, which is a sleeve that fits inside another valve, because the discitis, and possible endocarditis, was caused by my artificial heart valve leaking. The TAVI valve goes inside. They hoped that the sleeve inside the valve would solve the problem, which it did, so I was very lucky to come out in one piece again.
That was the cardio side of it. The vascular side started in 2023 when I went to my GP complaining of pains in my legs—in my calves—which were sometimes really bad and made it virtually impossible to walk. They did various tests, but did not find anything at that stage. They sent me for scans, which showed that I had a narrowing of the arteries in the leg, which was causing the pain. It is known as intermittent claudication, which is named after the Emperor Claudius, who limped.
I beg your Lordships’ indulgence for a slight amount more; I know that I am coming to the end of my time. As part of the treatment, I was fitted with a heart monitor at the beginning of this year. I was called two days later and told that I had to go into hospital to have a pacemaker fitted. The long and the short of it is I went into hospital and they did the tests for the pacemaker. It was found that I needed two stents. I then acquired a massive hospital infection. I collapsed at home the day after, which is why I was in hospital for nearly four weeks, after which time I had the pacemaker fitted.
That is the history. It is quite complicated. I had intended to go on and talk about all the other people who have sent me information, but I see that I have reached my 10 minutes, so I will cease shortly. My questions to the noble Baroness are on whether we could look more at prevention and diagnosis. I was failed in diagnosis in primary care, so can we look more at diagnosis? The treatment that I had—the surgeries—was excellent, but I found a failure in the aftercare in all the processes that I went through. I am a minute over time, so I will finish now. I appreciate your Lordships’ indulgence.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing this debate, on his very personal account of what he went through and on sharing with us his experiences and what we can learn from them.
As a former Health Minister who had some responsibility in this area, I know that cardiovascular illness can be particularly prevalent in areas of high deprivation. NHS figures show that, in 2023, the most deprived 10% of the population were almost twice as likely to die of cardiovascular disease compared to the least deprived. An NAO report published in 2024 said that, in 2020, deaths in those aged under 75 due to cardiovascular disease were four times higher in the most deprived areas compared to the least.
I recently attended an event organised in Parliament by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vascular and Venous Disease, where I was particularly struck by the points made about those regional variations—not just in death rates but in treatment and prevention. In the South Yorkshire ICB area, only 3.1% of the population received a health check in 2023-24, despite 32% of adults being obese and 23.5% being physically inactive. There are also worrying disparities in amputation rates. In Yorkshire and Humber, there are 12.6 amputations per 100,000 people, which is almost double that of London; only the north-west and north-east of England have higher amputation rates.
I know that the British Heart Foundation has welcomed the Government’s recognition of CVD as one of the UK’s biggest killers and their ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% in the next decade. The foundation has also called for a national cardiovascular disease plan. I wonder if, in her closing remarks, the Minister might address whether the Government are looking at that idea to bring together areas that need to be tackled, such as obesity, smoking, air pollution and increased research.
In the time I have available to me, I want to make a few practical points that could address some of these disparities. Health checks are so important, but the 2024 NAO report said that there was “no systematic” way of
“targeting … those most in need of”
health checks, as well as little incentive for primary care providers to provide them. It also said that
“DHSC and local authorities cannot … access data … so cannot assess the impact”
that health checks are having. Perhaps my noble friend could address this or write to me if she does not have the information to hand.
The all-party group has made a number of points. For example, appointing more nurse practitioners would enable what it called hot clinics. In many ways, this would help to reduce the length of waiting times. At present, there are patients who are at risk of amputation of their legs. Obviously, they need to be prioritised. A hot clinic could do this by having nurse practitioners who could assess the patients, compare their blood pressure on the arm and on the leg, see how bad their condition is, then fast-track them through the system. That is one suggestion from the APPG. Also, appointing multidisciplinary team co-ordinators could greatly assist in keeping track of patients, moving them through the system and reducing the time that consultants have to spend on doing this.
Co-locating services is also vital. For example, if there were ultrasound scanners and access to sonographers in out-patient departments, they could increase the number of out-patients because patients would not have to go back and forth to and from hospital. This would improve the patient journey. Hybrid theatre facilities would allow consultants to do a range of services in the same space, again, without having to duplicate services and the patient having to go backwards and forwards for different appointments.
That brings me nicely on to the fact that, as my noble friend the Minister knows, the Doncaster Royal Infirmary is greatly in need of some investment. The recent announcements of an increase in NHS capital spending are very welcome. Part of the plans would be to help in this important area, so I hope that she might cast a sympathetic eye over the points that I have made.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to and respect for my noble friend Lord Booth for being so honest and brave with us in this Committee about his experience. I know that we all wish him well.
I intend to concentrate on the prevention of cardiovascular illness and the importance of regular physical exercise in the overwhelming majority of cases of CVD; physical exercise is widely considered the most effective preventive measure against CVD. I declare my interests in this subject as a former Minister for Sport and as the chairman of the British Olympic Association in the build-up to, and during, 2012. Also, thanks to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I fortunately succeeded in a campaign to make defibrillators available in every school.
Unless we address prevention with as much urgency as detection and treatment, we will be left lagging behind other countries in a critical area of health policy where we have no excuse not to lead. For, as has been evidenced in multiple randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it is indisputable that exercise reduces the risks of hypertension, cholesterol, BMI values and diabetes, all of which are linked to the development of CVD.
After the first major lockdown of 2020, Sport England commissioned the Sport Industry Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University to assess the social impact and economic importance of sport and physical activity in England. There were two fascinating parts to the research. Part 1 measured the social impact of sport and physical activity, including on physical and mental health, and part 2 measured the economic importance. The results showed that, for every £1 spent on community sport and physical activity in England, an economic and social return on investment of £3.91 is generated. From the point of view of the NHS, the report stated that a huge £9.5 billion was generated through the physical and mental well-being impacts, which included the prevention of 150,000 cases of heart disease and stroke, 900,000 cases of diabetes and 8,500 cases of cancer.
It is important to look at why there are various barriers to achieving activity levels, including motivation, perceived capability and lack of facilities, because the landscape of the UK’s level of physical fitness is bleak and deteriorating. We face high and growing rates of inactivity among both adults and children—both aligned to a growing obesity problem. Although there are tangential positive trends, such as increased gym membership and the rise of digital fitness, a significant proportion of the adult population in England is classified as inactive.
What is worse is the growing representation of health disparities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, pointed out in her excellent speech. It is the relatively well-off who join gyms. It is the independent sector of education that has overwhelmingly provided the best sports facilities for young people. It is the private sports clubs that have been the backbone of UK sport. Therefore, it is no surprise that we face what is known as the Jubilee line of health inequality, where life expectancy decreases as you travel east along the Jubilee line from Westminster to Canning Town, and where approximately one year of life expectancy is lost for every two Jubilee line stops heading east.
Socioeconomic conditions, access to healthcare, environmental factors and the inequalities that arise from a lack of school and local authority sports facilities, along with a lack of a national culture of sport, health and well-being, drive the high level of cardiovascular illness.
Prevention is essential. In Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I are proposing a national school strategy for sport, health and well-being. After all, well-being is in the title of the Bill, yet in this key cornerstone of the Government’s schools policy there is not a single mention of physical education, physical fitness or sport.
A National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing, published by your Lordships’ ad hoc Select Committee in 2021 stated:
“We are concerned about the high levels of inactivity at the grassroots level, particularly among women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, the elderly, and people from less affluent backgrounds … Numerous underwhelming attempts to boost activity rates and improve population-level physical and mental health and wellbeing have not been as successful as hoped … Our overarching recommendation is the need for a new ambitious national plan for sport, health and wellbeing and a new approach within Government to deliver and fund it”.
That is why the committee on which I sat believed that sport should be moved from the DCMS and placed at the centre of the Department of Health and Social Care. There, it should be aligned with health and well-being at the epicentre of government.
Today, we have rightly focused on the gravity of the CVD problem. Yet we are doing nothing to match or exceed the CMO’s physical activity guidelines, which would prevent many cases of CVD. More than a quarter of adults in England, some 11.9 million people, are classified as inactive. A further 5.1 million average 30 to 149 minutes of activity a week. In a country that has prided itself on sport, fitness and well-being over the generations, successive Governments seem blinded into passive acceptance that 17 million adults in this country do not meet the CMO’s basic recommendation for physical activity. What is in some ways worse is that 30% of children do fewer than 30 minutes of exercise a day and a further 22.7% average between 30 minutes and one hour. This means that more than half our children, some 3.9 million, do not meet the CMO’s recommendation.
It is time to act. It is time to elevate the importance of this subject, which was so well introduced by my noble friend Lord Booth.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for securing this debate. I say as an aside to his opening remarks that if the most common British response is, “I feel fine”, the greatest fear any British person has is of asking someone how they feel and actually getting a detailed response.
The significance of CVD is unanswerable. It is responsible for about one-quarter of deaths in this country and is probably the biggest single contributor to premature deaths and to people leaving the workforce early. It plays a key role in the level of economic inactivity in this country. In pure economic terms, different figures have been put about, but the British Heart Foundation calculates the cost to the UK as £29 billion a year.
Beyond the societal and economic impacts, every statistic that we will cite in this debate today represents an individual and an individual family. We are also faced with the major challenge that whereas mortality rates for CVD dipped in 2019, the figures seem to have begun to rise again after having largely been level over the past decade or so. There is a key challenge about how we can start to drive those down. I suspect that all of us will be united about what we are hoping to achieve—a reduction in the incidence, impact and level of deaths—so it is a question not of what, but of how. I will be interested in the Government’s response on a range of issues.
First, the 10-year plan for the NHS is the correct approach to look at this strategically, and I hope that it will lead to more holistic, joined-up approaches and mean that when it comes to budgeting we can look at things much more strategically. However, it has been highlighted by a range of key stakeholders in this field that there is a need for a specific cardiovascular disease plan. I would be interested in hearing the Government’s response on how we can balance the specifics of a plan with the more general strategic direction that we are seeking for the NHS. Similarly, we know that emerging technologies can play an important role, from AI to data science. Any information that the Government can give on how specifically they intend to harness those in the fight against cardiovascular disease will be critical.
Secondly, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others, prevention is the critical element to this. For many people who suffer from cardiovascular vascular disease, the first symptom is a major event, a stroke or a heart attack. It is quite often symptomless. Within that context, we know the range of risk factors, from smoking to obesity, alcohol and air pollution. I know that the Government are taking action on some of these fronts but, again, there is a concern, particularly given the figures, that we are starting to get diminishing returns on certain elements of behavioural aspects. It will be critical to say that in educating on the risk factors, we can act as a driver to harness that and make a real difference to people’s lives.
Thirdly, on testing, it is important that, for example, blood pressure tests are expanded and rolled out more. We know that NHS health testing could have a critical role in prevention and diagnostics, yet we see a mixed bag of take-up of those tests. In particular, we know that men can be more prone to cardiovascular diseases and have a higher incidence level but are perhaps more reluctant to go to a doctor to get those tests. This can also apply to a range of ethnic-minority groups such as the black and south Asian communities, who have statistically higher levels of CVD. I would be interested to hear how the Government can ensure that we better target testing and perhaps look at the commissioning of testing, and how we can incentivise primary carers to encourage people much more to do testing.
Fourthly, we need to raise our ambitions beyond simply the mortality rates. For strokes, for example, there is a target of a 25% reduction in deaths. I would like to see—and I ask the Minister whether there is an intention to have—a similar target of 25% in reducing severe disabilities as an impact of strokes. Allied to that is a key role for improving review and rehab facilities to ensure that, once someone has suffered a stroke or a cardiac event, it does not reoccur and we are not left with a far worse situation.
Finally—and this is not unique to CVD—there is the question of how we can have a level of consistency. I have mentioned testing already and the need for greater levels of use of community pharmacies, for instance, for blood testing. For something such as thrombectomy, the rates are very different. If you are in London, their usage is at around 10%; at the other end of the scale, in the east of England, it is about 1%. There is a range of issues around how we can drive greater consistency in treatments in the health service. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing the debate. After listening to his story, I am rather glad that we were able to listen to him today. I have also listened to grieving families, passionate campaigners and dedicated cardiologists, each of them urging us to act more boldly on the issue of sudden cardiac arrest in the young.
Earlier this year, I had the privilege of co-hosting a symposium with the Italian embassy and Ambassador Lambertini. We brought together leading cardiologists and sports scientists from the UK and Italy to share insight, evidence and experience on preventing sudden cardiac death in young people. Tragically, it is not a marginal issue. Every week in the UK, at least 12 young people—children, students and athletes—die from sudden cardiac arrest. That is the equivalent of a full secondary school wiped out every year. What is more disturbing is that 80% of those young people had no prior symptoms. They were seemingly healthy, vibrant and active. Sport can exacerbate hidden conditions, putting young people at three times greater risk, yet 80% of these deaths occur in sleep, which means that defibrillators, while essential, cannot be the whole answer. We must move from crisis response to prevention.
I have campaigned alongside Mark King, who tragically lost his son Oliver at just 12 years old during a swimming lesson at my old school—King David High School in Liverpool. Together we pushed for greater access to defibrillators in schools and public venues, but even more pressing is the need for screening to detect these conditions before they claim a young life. One mother, Hilary Nicholls, shared with me the story of her daughter Clarissa. She was just 20 years old, full of promise, physically active and with no diagnosed heart condition or health issues. Her sudden death from an undiagnosed cardiac condition was devastating. Tragically, her story is not unique, so the case for widened access to ECG screening is clear.
In elite sports such as football and rugby, we have mandatory screening in place, led by UK-devised international ECG protocols. But, beyond elite sport, there is a vacuum. Students, grass-roots athletes and local community clubs are largely left unprotected. Compare that to Italy, which I recently travelled to with Hilary to see the model in action. For over 40 years, it has had a mandatory pre-participation screening programme. Young people must present a certificate before taking part in organised sport or joining a gym, and the result is an 89% reduction in sudden cardiac deaths. While I acknowledge that there are different views across Europe on the rigidity of such systems, the outcome speaks for itself. Italy shows us what can be done when there is political will, public buy-in and healthcare alignment. I also pay tribute to CRY—Cardiac Risk in the Young—and its chief executive, Steven Cox, for the excellent work the charity does in raising awareness. It has been doing so since it was founded by Alison Cox in 1995.
I do not propose a copy/paste solution, but I urge the Government and my noble friend the Minister to act on what we already know. What is needed is modest and actionable: first, more specialist training to interpret ECGs in fit and active young people; secondly, increased local capacity to carry out screenings in schools, universities and community sport—I urge the Minister to meet Hilary to look at some of the remarkable programmes in testing that Clarissa’s friends have put in place at Cambridge University; and, thirdly, greater education around cardiac health, defibrillator use and prevention woven into our schools and clubs.
We must listen to families; we must act on evidence; we must catch the condition before it catches our children. These are preventable deaths. Let us not look back in five years and say that we could and should have done more. Let us act now to save young lives.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for arranging this Question for Short Debate on cardiovascular disease and for sharing his emotional and personal experience. The statistics about cardiovascular disease paint a stark picture of a health crisis that demands urgent and comprehensive attention. My thanks go to the British Heart Foundation, the Stroke Association, Diabetes UK and the House of Lords Library for excellent briefings.
The facts are that every day in the UK 240 individuals wake up to the catastrophic reality of a stroke. Stroke remains the fourth-leading cause of death in our nation and a primary cause of disability. Every three minutes, a family loses a loved one to cardiovascular disease and CVD causes more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.
However, nearly nine out of 10 strokes are preventable, often associated with modifiable risk factors such as high blood pressure, smoking and physical inactivity. High blood pressure alone is the largest risk factor for stroke, contributing to 50% of all strokes. The number of people living with diabetes, or pre-diabetes, now exceeds 12 million in the UK, equivalent to one in five adults. Their risk of death from CVD is 4.2 times higher than for those without diabetes. Each week, diabetes leads to 812 strokes and 568 heart attacks. It is therefore vital that we optimise the detection and management of high-risk conditions such as high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation and high cholesterol.
As part of that, we need strongly to support the measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to further reduce the prevalence of smoking in this country, as we have done through successful regulatory measures over the past few decades. We need to support the reduction of other modifiable risk factors, including drinking alcohol to excess and obesity. The measures put forward by the House of Lords Select Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity, which was chaired by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, need to be given much more respect by the Government than has so far been the case.
The current system for health checks, such as NHS Health Check, has the potential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, but more needs to be done to expand those checks, particularly to those at highest risk, including individuals under 40. It remains alarming that millions of people with diabetes are missing essential health checks annually which are crucial for detecting and preventing serious long-term complications.
Beyond prevention, we need to consider many issues concerning treatment and care. There is still a critical lack of imaging capability for diagnostic testing, all of which delays patients’ access to specialist stroke units and time-sensitive treatments such as thrombectomy.
We need to ensure 24/7 access to acute stroke treatments, including thrombectomy and thrombolysis, through pre-hospital video triage and access to specialist stroke units. We need a dedicated plan to drive action to address CVD and its risk factors. I know that the Government have committed to a 25% reduction in deaths from CVD and stroke by 2035 but, to achieve this, we need steps to reduce disability.
Scientific research and innovation are the basis of progress in this field. The British Heart Foundation, a leader in cardiovascular science, funds more than half of independent cardiovascular research in the UK. It has powered advances that have nearly halved the number of people who die each year from cardiovascular disease. We are in an era of immense scientific opportunity, with revolutionary advances in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics and regenerative medicine. BHF-funded scientists are already using AI to better predict heart attack or stroke risk.
For those who have suffered a stroke, prioritising and investing in rehabilitation, in line with national guidelines, is critical to prevent recurrent strokes, as one in four survivors will experience another one within five years. Every stroke survivor should be offered a six-month post-stroke review to tailor recovery plans. Beyond this, we must continue to inspire the nation to learn CPR and continue to ensure greater provision of public-access defibrillators, as survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are significantly higher in countries where bystander CPR is more prevalent. We must address the basic glaring issues of health inequalities in order to address these problems.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend for securing this important debate and, as other noble Lords have said, for sharing his own experience in a very moving way. It really brought home to us that this is about not just figures or statistics but the human side of this story. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is not a particularly political debate; across the political spectrum, we can agree that we should work as constructively as we can together to try to address these issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, reminded us, cardiovascular disease is the cause of one in four premature deaths in England. More than 6.4 million people suffer from it and it has resulted in 1.6 million disability-adjusted life years. According to the British Heart Foundation—many noble Lords will have read the excellent briefings that we have received from many organisations, to which we are grateful for informing us—this disease may be inherited or it may develop later in life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, said, those in the most deprived 10% of the population are twice as likely to die prematurely from these diseases than those in the least deprived 10% of the population. The highest premature mortality rate is in the north-west region, and men are twice as likely as women to die prematurely from this disease.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, the NHS has identified high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, diabetes, kidney disease, inactivity—to which my noble friend Lord Moynihan referred—and obesity as risk factors. We also know that those at increased risk of developing this disease include people of south Asian and black African and Caribbean backgrounds.
The King’s Fund think tank has estimated that there are 220,000 admissions for coronary heart diseases and 100,000 admissions for stroke a year, costing the NHS an estimated £10 billion and the economy £24 billion, so the human and financial cost are alarming. We must think about how we can work on this together, across the spectrum, to improve our use of resources and to reduce the number of deaths.
As noble Lords discussed, in January 2025 the Select Committee on Health and Social Care considered the NAO’s report, alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, on progress in preventing cardiovascular diseases. Following this, a letter of recommendation was sent to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention on improving data collection on cardiovascular disease.
When we were in government, we set out ambitious plans in the NHS long-term plan to detect and treat people with the risk factors of developing these diseases. This is not party political; any Government would have done that, because it is important. It included the NHS health check and face-to-face check-ups for adults aged between 40 and 74 in England. It was commissioned through local authorities and delivered through GP surgeries, to help spot early signs of heart disease. Indeed, many noble Lords spoke about how we identify and diagnose, as well as how we prevent. We also introduced a digital NHS health check to operate alongside the in-person NHS health check, to reduce the pressures faced by GP surgeries, particularly as more people now are aware of digital technology and are happy using it.
These Benches also welcome the current Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver a renewed drive to tackle the biggest killers—cancer, cardiovascular disease and suicide—while ensuring that people live well for longer. I understand completely that the Government are in their early days, but, unfortunately, we are yet to see action in some of those areas. I admit that we were slightly disappointed that the new Government scrapped the major conditions strategy. I also understand, however, that we are waiting for the 10-year plan, and if these issues are integrated into the 10-year plan, as I hope they will be, that might be a better approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, we should look at these things not in isolation but as part of an overall integrated plan. We would welcome any announcement from the Government on whether and how they would form part of the, I hope, more integrated 10-year plan. Like many other noble Lords, we eagerly await its publication.
I conclude by asking the Minister some specific questions. How do the Government plan to improve support for vulnerable communities who are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, including men, those in more deprived areas and people of south Asian and black African or Caribbean backgrounds?
On 18 June, I will host an event with BRITE Box, a wonderful prevention charity that helps families from deprived areas to budget and to cook healthily on a budget, as a family together, to improve their health. I thank the Minister for agreeing to speak at that event. What specific programmes are the department aware of to improve this sort of prevention, including healthy diets and physical activity? How are the Government working with non-state, local community civil society organisations, such as BRITE Box, to make sure that we tackle these issues?
My noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke about the role that physical activity plays in support and prevention. What other specific steps are the Government taking to close the health inequalities of communities in the most deprived areas, especially those faced by some ethnic groups? What progress have the Government made to ensure that those commissioning and delivering health checks are obliged to collect and report on the demographic data so that we can improve the data on age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, so that we can target better?
My noble friend Lord Polak spoke about Cardiac Risk in the Young. I was slightly disappointed that when I wrote to one of the Minister’s colleagues in the department, they declined to meet with Hilary Nicholls, whom I had met to hear her daughter’s story and those of other people. I hope that the Minister and her officials will be able to accept the invitation from my noble friend Lord Polak, so that at least one person from the department can speak to Hilary Nicholls and Cardiac Risk in the Young. I hope that the Minister can confirm that this will be part of the overall 10-year plan.
I understand that I have asked lots of questions and gone over time, as usual in my typically Socratic way, like other noble Lords, but I look forward to the Minister’s answers. If she does not have them now, I know that, thanks to the wonders of technology and her wonderful officials, she will write to us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing such an important debate. I am very grateful to him for doing that on the back of his personal experience. It shines a light and, while I realise that it is difficult, what he has done is worthwhile. Many of us will be affected by cardiovascular disease, either directly or indirectly, which is why we heard the noble Lord’s message so clearly.
As we have all said, too many lives are cut short by CVD. In 2023, an estimated 6.4 million people were living with cardiovascular conditions and almost a third of CVD-related deaths in England occurred among the under-75s, which gives us the scale of the challenge. Over 1 million people report cardiometabolic conditions as being the main or secondary reason for being out of work due to long-term sickness. This is a challenge on so many levels.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Weir, for understanding that this requires a systematic approach across government, which we seek to have. In seeking to build a health and care system that is fit for the future, we are shifting the focus of our NHS from sickness to prevention. That is supported by the investment and direction of the Chancellor’s spending review of just yesterday. It is also why our health mission sets out an ambition to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by a quarter within a decade.
It is important to go straight to the points that have been raised. Many noble Lords rightly raised prevention. As they are aware, around 70% of CVD cases are linked to preventable risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar and smoking, to mention but a few. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about the importance of exercise and I certainly share his view on that. I assure him that we work across government on this and I take his point that this is not particular to my department. We work very closely with the DCMS to ensure a joined-up approach.
I remember hearing the noble Lord’s solution some years ago, I think on the Health and Care Bill. We have not committed to it, but the principles behind what he says are absolutely right. For example, we are working on better health resources, which include free evidence-based apps, websites and other digital tools, which will help people make and sustain improvements to their health. To take one example, I know the popularity of Couch to 5K. We will continue this work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, referred to the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill that is progressing through your Lordships’ House, which will help deliver our ambition for a smoke-free UK. We need to remember that smoking still claims some 80,000 lives every year. It is a cost not just to individuals and their families and communities but of some £3 billion to the economy, yet this is a preventable cause of death. Noble Lords will have heard in yesterday’s spending review that we are investing at least £80 million per year in tobacco cessation programmes and enforcement to support the Bill.
The noble Lord also referred to obesity. There is a wide range of weight management services, from behavioural support in the community to hospital-based specialist services. This year, we will extend the NHS digital weight management programme to people living with obesity and awaiting knee and hip replacement surgery, which picks up on his point about preparation for treatment where necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, expressed disappointment in the Government’s response to the Lords committee report on food and nutrition, which I very much welcomed. I am sorry that he is disappointed, but I have drawn to the attention of his noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that, just this week, following a recent Question in the Chamber, there was a change in the advice given by the department on the use and appropriateness of prepared baby foods, which she was rightly concerned about.
A number of noble Lords talked about the NHS health check. It supports people to manage their risk through referral to weight management or smoking cessation. It is free and aimed at those aged between 40 and 70. It prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. It is about identifying early.
I absolutely accept the points made by my noble friend Lady Winterton and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall—I am particularly interested in this matter—about the National Audit Office report and the Health and Social Care Committee’s inquiry on doing more to extend engagement with and take-up of the check. One of the things is a new development that will be piloted from this summer: a new NHS health check online, which people can complete at home. It will be piloted through the improved NHS app and, specifically, we will be independently evaluating the impact on equalities to inform the development and rollout.
We have also engaged community pharmacy by investing heavily in blood pressure checks. Nearly 3 million checks have been delivered in over 9,000 pharmacies in the past year, and we are also embarking on new trials. So we are looking at ways in which we can engage better and, if I may say so, improve the NHS check as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly raised the great potential of AI and technology. I can tell him that a considerable announcement on this was made just this week when I was in Cambridge. We are slashing red tape that currently inhibits innovation while protecting patient safety and encouraging innovation—something for which the industry and many others have been calling for some time. We are also getting the regulatory regime in the right place and investing in research, innovation and being up to date. Some years ago, we could not have dreamed of regulating AI but, now, we are absolutely right to look at how we do that. As the noble Lord said, technology and AI are absolutely key.
I turn to the points on inequalities made by the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lady Winterton. Our approach is called Core20PLUS5 and it is a national approach to support the reduction of healthcare inequalities at both the national and the local system levels. One of the five clinical priorities in that framework is the treatment and management of high blood pressure, which is, of course, a key risk factor for CVD. That is just one of the areas.
Noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Winterton and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked whether we would commit to a CVD action plan. We have already set the ambition. We are committed, as noble Lords are aware, to publishing a 10-year health plan in the not-too-distant future and to delivering that shift from sickness to prevention. In all of that, we are considering policies—along with, of course, our workforce plan, which will be published in the summer on the back of the spending review, as well as all that will follow from that. We are carefully considering the policies, including those that have an impact on people with CVD, as we develop the plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly raised that men may be less likely to come forward to seek advice. We are in the consultation phase of developing a men’s health strategy, to which I hope he will contribute, and part of that is about recognising the point that he made. We are determined to close the gender gap in care. We also know that, among people with CVD, women are less likely than men to achieve target cholesterol levels. That has to change, so we will pursue it.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on his work in this area. I believe he introduced me to Hilary in the House. I heard his request for a meeting, and I will pick that up with the department. While I never like to disappoint him, the position at the moment follows the advice given by the UK National Screening Committee, which concluded that introducing population-level screening for sudden cardiac death in young people would run the risk of causing more harm by misdiagnosing some people and by providing false reassurance to those at risk of sudden cardiac death whose risk may not be picked up by screening tests. However, I am sure we will have the opportunity to pursue this further.
A number of other points were raised, which I will of course review. In closing, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, that I absolutely hear what he said about recognition, diagnosis and issues in aftercare. We will address this through the number of future developments that I referred to and the NHS long-term plan that is already in existence. I hope that he will be less disappointed should he or a loved one have to seek treatment, care or aftercare in the future, and I thank him.
European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to apply to reinstate the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this short debate. I have an interest to declare in that I live in the Isles of Scilly much of the time, to which the only passenger access in the winter is by air. There are a few problems there, which I shall come on to. In my short speech, I shall cover the many safety benefits of EGNOS, the benefits for pilots, the history of it and what happened before and after Brexit. I still see the cancellation of EGNOS at the time of Brexit as a very unwise and, frankly, stupid decision, but I shall come on to that.
I will first introduce what EGNOS is, because it may be that not all noble Lords understand what it is. It is a geostationary navigation overlay service, which enhances the standard GPS signal and provides accuracy, integrity and other improvements. In simple terms, it is a way of being able to land your plane at and take off from a small airport without all the very expensive, but very good, equipment that major airports have around the country and the world. If you do not have EGNOS, you cannot fly. It is not unique; it is used all the way across Europe. I think there are 700 airports using EGNOS-enabled LPV, and in the United States there is a great deal more of it.
Just before Brexit, the UK introduced EGNOS at a handful of airports, including Guernsey, Alderney, Cambridge and others, and many airlines had installed the equipment in planes that would enable it to work. The estimated cost for installation then and, I think, now is about £35 million a year to cover the whole country.
In my many discussions with Ministers—including with some colleagues here—we have always been told that the Civil Aviation Authority was dead against this. It was unsafe, it would not work and it would like to see something else. Last week, I had a very useful meeting with the CAA to hear from the horse’s mouth, if one can call it that, what its view was, which I shall try to summarise. It is a technical necessity, not a political concession. All it needs, I am told, for us to rejoin is a service agreement with the European Commission.
During those discussions, we had many chats about alternatives. Ministers in the previous Government said that we ought to go for something else: a sovereign UK satellite-based augmentation system, or SBAS. We went to see it, and the only problem was that it would require a £1 billion investment over 10 years—assuming that the Government would commit to 10 years’ funding, which is probably rather unlikely—and the operational costs would be even higher than EGNOS. Many people have asked why we should introduce a new system when we can get the whole EGNOS system for £30 million, which is one-third or more of the price of the other one. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. Maybe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be interested in that after her announcements yesterday.
To summarise the benefits, it is not just a “nice to have”; it is an essential safety and commercial add-on to safe flying. I fly as a passenger to the Isles of Scilly. Other noble Lords have much more experience in this. It is quite clear from talking to many pilots that they cannot fly in unpredictable weather because they cannot navigate properly. There are regional airports on coasts in many places, but if you cannot land and take off safely, your businesses are not going to enjoy it very much. Then we have to think about local communities. We have air ambulances around many parts of the country, including Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and I know of many cases where they have not been able to fly because there has been no EGNOS. All in all, there are really good reasons for reinstating it.
I shall try to summarise where I think the CAA has got to, which was extremely helpful. It said that it is working closely with the Department for Transport and the UK Space Agency on the operational benefits, airspace modernisation, resilience and future readiness. Basically, from a regulatory point of view, it ticks all the boxes. We all know how good the CAA is at organising safe flights and everything.
It really surprised me that, although it had done all this work in the last two or three years—the reports are available on the website—at the end of 2024 it will hand over responsibility for the next phase of the SBAS initiative, which is EGNOS, from the Department for Transport to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the UK Space Agency. It is jolly nice to have the Minister from the Department for Transport here answering questions, but is that the right department?
I have put down several Written Questions in the last few months, and they were all answered by my noble friend Lord Vallance of Balham. It is worth reading one out: what is the cost of reinstating our membership of EGNOS? The response from my noble friend was:
“The Government is considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system, following our withdrawal from the EU’s European Geostationary Navigation Overlay (EGNOS) system. This work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made. The Government engages with the European Commission and European Space Agency on space programmes but has not specifically discussed access to EGNOS”.
My question to the Minister is: why have they not discussed this and when will they? People are just sitting there while businesses and transport are suffering. We just seem to be getting nowhere.
A very interesting comment came from one of my colleagues in the other place, the Labour MP Stella Creasy. She said that it made no sense to separate the EU and the UK from an aviation perspective. She is right because, if you look at a map of the different aviation systems around the world—there are all kinds—one for just the UK would very much be the smallest.
Are we prepared to sign agreements of 12 years for fish and four years for produce, just taking EU rules without any challenge? Why do not we not sign one for aviation? I do not know whether it would be for four years or 10, but I suspect that it would be much longer, because once people have got used to having EGNOS again, they would struggle to change it.
I hope that, when my noble friend responds, he will say that we are about to start proper negotiations on EGNOS with the European Commission and other agencies in order to produce a service agreement. A service agreement is not a political agreement; it would get us back into the fold and help a large number of people who rely on short-haul or small planes to get around their business in a very sensible way, with minimal delays. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I always feel that I learn things by participating in debates with him and following him in debates, but I am also grateful to him for raising this interesting issue.
I wanted to participate in this debate not because I profess to any expertise in aviation matters—I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower in that respect—but because I want to explore the relationship between programmes in which the United Kingdom has participated in the past and those in which it may wish to participate in the future. EGNOS is not the only one of those; there is also, for example, Galileo, which is distinct from the Copernicus project that we rejoined two years ago.
I have an interest as a member, this year, of the UK Engagement with Space Select Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is also a member. However, I emphasise that any view I express is entirely my own and not that of the committee.
In our discussions, one of the questions we are trying to devil away at is whether some of these programmes are accessible to the United Kingdom if we wish to join them. There are two parts to that. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says that he thinks we probably do wish to and there is a benefit in doing so. My question is different: is it accessible to us if we want to join? He may say it is a service agreement, but, from the European Commission’s point of view, it may be a political decision, and there are difficulties that may be associated with that. I suppose that part of the issue that I want to explore with the Minister is whether the circumstances and the political circumstances have sufficiently changed that it may now be accessible to us and we should therefore have exactly the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has initiated—and, I would say, about not only that but Galileo.
I will not dwell on Galileo, but EGNOS is a good example. We were involved at the outset. National Air Traffic Services was one of the co-funders of the original design scheme through the European Space Agency. The whole point is that, once it was all set up, it was then operationally transferred to the European Commission. Where it stands at the moment is that, as far as I can see, it is funded and operated by the European Union, so it is not available to us through the European Space Agency. We are members of the European Space Agency and ESA programmes are entirely available to us, but this is not, in that sense, available to us in the same way as the ESA programmes are.
I hesitate, because I know the Minister replies for the Government, and this will definitely be the Space Minister bit, as it were, which is in DSIT, but there is definitely a question here that I want to put. Insofar as EGNOS is a good example, we may have a valid use for it, and there may be alternatives. EGNOS is not fully developed, as I understand it, for all the civil aviation purposes for which it might be developed. There are other issues; for example, the extent to which we could use it with other satellite-based augmentation systems, because it is interoperable with them. We could perhaps use others, although I do not think the coverage in Europe is available for those. We have the two ground stations, as it were, in Swanwick and Glasgow, so we are in this system; the question is whether we can use it. Really, the question is this: it accessible to us? If I can, I attach to this, although it is not EGNOS itself, the question to the Minister of whether Galileo is accessible to us.
From my point of view and, I suspect, the Government’s point of view, there is a bigger issue: GPS. We have access to it and, for military purposes, have access to the military codes for it. None the less, GPS is one system for position, navigation and timing. As I know from a visit I made to NATO headquarters last week and discussions I had, there is always a question of whether there is a genuine security requirement for backup systems, and Europe might see a benefit in having the development of Galileo as a backup system to GPS. Galileo has certain technical advantages, and GPS has certain advantages from the resilience point of view, so there is a trade-off; it is not obvious that we would want to be in Galileo. I am just using this debate, if I may, to ask that question: if we want, now, in changed political circumstances, to examine the practical case for these two programmes—Galileo and EGNOS—and can see that there may be potential advantages in access to these systems, would they be accessible to us? I do not think they form an obvious part of an industrial strategy for space, since the Galileo contracts have pretty much already been given, and I do not see that there is likely to be any chance of any of the EGNOS operational activity being additionally undertaken in this country: it all seems to be in the hands of a French company in Toulouse—which, for those people involved in space matters, is not surprising.
If I may, my question to the Minister is this: are these programmes accessible to us if, taking the well-argued points by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we wished to join them?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and learn of his interest in satellites. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for—and, indeed, congratulate him on—gaining time for this debate, as well as for his relentless work in pursuing the issue of EGNOS. I declare my interests as the vice-president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK and as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation; I am an aviator and have particular interest in this matter. Much of what I want to say has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I hope to add some detail to it. I come to this from a general aviation perspective.
The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, commonly referred to as EGNOS, is designed to improve the integrity and precision of GPS services. To give it its correct title, it is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service. Those three words—safety of life—are particularly important and significant. In the world of aviation, EGNOS enables users of GPS services to be confident that the information being supplied to them is accurate and precise. It is used when operating into airfields in inclement weather conditions; examples of this include when descending through cloud, foggy or misty conditions. Descending through cloud and relying on the EGNOS system allows the aircraft and the pilot to arrive blindly but safely at the end of the runway. This is of use not only to aviation but to the maritime sector, in avoiding obstacles or perhaps entering a port in fogged-out conditions.
Sadly, as a result of our exiting the European Union, the UK’s participation in the EGNOS programme ended on 25 June 2021. Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that the UK contributed to the Galileo satellite system, this led to a withdrawal of legal indemnity for the use of EGNOS; it therefore cannot be safely and fully utilised by aircraft any longer. Although the signal remains in place, reliance on it that might end in an accident would undoubtedly invalidate the aircraft’s insurance. The upshot of this is that UK aircraft operators cannot use EGNOS Safety of Life any longer; of course, this extends to all other users, such as agriculture, surveying and maritime, but it particularly affects aviation, which has additional inherent risks.
Perhaps it would be helpful at this point for me to explain that large airports have a sophisticated and expensive-to-maintain instrument landing system, commonly referred to as ILS. This uses two directional radio signals: the localiser, which provides horizontal guidance, and the glideslope, which provides vertical guidance. These signals are ground-generated by radio signals or, in some cases, microwave signals. EGNOS, on the other hand, is Europe’s regional satellite-based augmentation system. It is used primarily by smaller airports as it can be utilised at a vastly reduced cost; the onboard aircraft equipment necessary for its operation is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively cheap to install and operate.
The Brexit negotiations removed Britain’s access to EGNOS, not because of technical necessity but because EGNOS is managed under EU governance structures. Post Brexit, Britain became a third country. Unless specific agreements were made, access ceased. Maintaining EGNOS access would have required around £30 million to £35 million a year—trivial compared to the economic damage of degraded aviation connectivity—but we did not retain access.
In 2022, the APPG for Aviation commissioned a report arguing for the reinstatement of the EGNOS system. An excellent report by Oxera in Oxford also convincingly argued the case for continuing the service; I thoroughly recommend its reading to the Minister. Oxera argues the case for EGNOS for several reasons. First, it enables precision farming, which improves the efficiency of field working, fertiliser and pesticide use; this leads to higher crop yields and lower costs. Secondly, it improves safety and efficiency in the maritime sector, supporting UK trade. Thirdly, it provides greater resilience at airports when, for example, ground systems fail. Fourthly, it provides more reliable services, including aviation approaches, to the Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly, where there is no other option but to travel by air in winter.
There is also improved flight safety—EGNOS reduces controlled flight into terrain, one of the CAA’s “significant seven” risks, by a factor of four to eight—and improved reliability of search and rescue and helicopter emergency services. EGNOS enables point-to-point technology, allowing helicopters to operate in poor weather. The CAA has stated that a number of HEMS and SAR operations have experienced accidents and incidents due to poor visibility, and EGNOS was required to reduce these risks. There is also improved access to essential services; with EGNOS, those living on UK islands with poorer access to NHS hospitals will miss fewer appointments every year, which tend to be for urgent treatment or diagnosis. The case for EGNOS is overwhelming.
I understand that the current position of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is that the Government are considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system following its withdrawal from EGNOS and that
“work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made”.
That is to be applauded, but meanwhile this life-saving facility has ceased to function and places those who rely on it at risk—all for the sake of a sum of money, which, in the grand scheme of things, is peanuts when compared to the lives at stake. Does the Minister agree that development of a new system will be years in the making and that, as an interim measure, access to EGNOS would be a positive and sensible way forward? What of the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK’s aviation regulator, whose core work revolves around safety? What representations has his department had from it on the potential dangers to aviation due to the disappearance of EGNOS?
Martin Robinson, the chief executive officer of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK said in a recent article:
“Britain’s aviation future depends on confronting political vanity and embracing real-world cooperation … Restoring access to EGNOS is not just an operational necessity. It is a test of leadership. We rejoined European programmes such as Horizon 2020 … because it was the right thing to do without any political concerns. So why not EGNOS”.
We must act now to restore what is an essential life-saving service to the many sectors that it previously served, in particular aviation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this debate and for his comprehensive overview of the service, the issues and the need for this service.
Before today’s Question for Short Debate and my preparation for it, I was not aware of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service known as EGNOS and the important pan-Europe service it provides as a satellite enhancement navigation system that augments global satellite systems, helping to improve accuracy. As we have heard, it can help enable planes to land in a broader range of circumstances, helping to improve services and reliability. I am sure this will not be the first time I learn something new in my spokesperson role in this place.
EGNOS is a crucial system for safety-critical manoeuvres, such as navigating ships through narrow channels or flying aircraft, particularly for regional airports. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for clarifying that its full title is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service and for the details he has provided on its use.
Last November, when discussing an SI, my noble friend Lady Randerson requested an update on membership of EGNOS, highlighting that smaller airports such as those in Bournemouth and the Isles of Scilly, as we have heard today, are at a disadvantage because they have been unable to operate safely in poor visibility. Leaving EGNOS has been a costly decision for the aviation industry, including causing issues with training for commercial pilots.
Who knew that yet another consequence of leaving the European Union would be that the UK is no longer part of EGNOS? I have to put on record that Brexit has been an absolute disaster in every single way for our country. This is yet another service that we have removed ourselves from, pointlessly in my opinion and with implications for safety, just for a political headline.
Throughout my decades in public life, I have supported innovation where it is needed, but I also strongly support the principle that we do not need to reinvent the wheel and that partnership working is always the best way forward. This is a great example of that. Why should we not be part of this safety-critical system working with our European neighbours? Why would we look to spend money and time creating our own bespoke system at a cost, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of at least £1 billion just to set it up? It makes no sense.
I will ask the Minister questions similar to those asked by other colleagues. Has rejoining EGNOS featured in any of the discussions about the UK’s future relationship with the EU? The past year has been an important reset moment in our relationship with the EU. I hope it is on the table and is accessible to us, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked. If it is not, why not? When will this be on the table? Surely, as we have heard today, this is not controversial. It is a system that we were once part of that helps to improve the accuracy of maritime and aviation navigation. Surely it is an obvious scheme to rejoin. Liberal Democrats strongly believe in scientific collaboration between the UK and the EU, on which I hope this Government would agree. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this important debate on the Government’s plans to reinstate the UK’s membership of EGNOS. We are committed to, and will work with the Government on, upholding the best safety standards for aircraft, pilots and passengers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, EGNOS uses a set of geostationary satellites and a network of ground stations to increase the accuracy of GPS. These signals are acquired by ground stations deployed around Europe and are gathered and processed through a central computing system. It is at this stage that differential corrections and integrity messages are calculated and broadcast back to users across Europe via a set of three geostationary satellites. We recognise that EGNOS improves the accuracy of global navigation satellite systems’ positioning information while also providing a crucial integrity message that allows users to get an extremely reliable guarantee on its residual positioning errors, both horizontally and vertically.
As my noble friend said, we have been made aware of the strong opinion of the head of the UK branch of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association about the importance of the UK remaining part of EGNOS to improve safety and resilience for pilots and passengers in the UK. While there is no doubt about the accuracy benefits of EGNOS and its safety-critical functions, it is essential to determine whether the benefits can justify the funding requests made by the European Union. In government, we sought to continue access to EGNOS services through the UK-EU trade negotiations but did not reach an agreement due to significant financial demands from the EU to secure services. The cost to taxpayers would have been £30 million per annum, a cost that the Government at that time could not justify.
While no decision was made to rejoin the EGNOS programme, we recognised that steps needed to be taken on satellite augmentation. This can be demonstrated through a commitment made in DSIT’s government policy framework for greater position, navigation and timing resilience to a UK precise point positioning satellite-based augmentation system and projects carried out in 2024 that defined a future system and architecture options and trials.
While the current Government have been conducting a wide range of negotiations with the EU, no decisions or details have been set out regarding the UK rejoining EGNOS. The Government recognise the importance of PNT technologies for the UK’s security and prosperity and are implementing the government policy framework for greater PNT resilience.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned, following discussions with the EU, do the Government have an updated figure for the cost of the UK rejoining EGNOS? Given the financial cost of rejoining it, have they discussed with the aviation sector whether it could cover this cost? With moves towards more sustainable aviation routes, do the Government recognise that EGNOS could improve fuel economy and landing and take-off in the aviation sector? Finally, can the Minister confirm whether the benefits of EGNOS could also be used to improve the integrity of location and the efficiency of our rail sector? I look forward greatly to his response.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. This has been an important discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I was not aware of EGNOS until recently. I am afraid that I have also concluded that it is imperative to use acronyms in this speech because I cannot spell it out every time over 12 minutes, which is a shame. The topic has been amply explained by noble Lords and I do not need to explain it again. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for setting out the history of EGNOS, with which I concur. It understandably attracts interest, particularly from the aviation sector and those with an interest in its future success.
I begin by reaffirming this Government’s unwavering commitment to maintaining a safe, modern and innovative aviation system. I welcome the noble Earl’s endorsement of those principles, too. In answer to the question of why this department is here and why I am speaking, the Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That goes much wider than EGNOS and aviation, impacting all parts of our lives. DSIT is leading on this wider work with the Government’s framework for greater PNT resilience, but my department is working across government to understand the requirements for transport.
We recognise the value the sector places on services such as EGNOS in supporting aviation safety and reliability, particularly during difficult weather and at smaller aerodromes. Since the UK’s withdrawal from the programme as a result of leaving the EU, as noble Lords have heard, flights have continued to operate safely with no degradation in our overall safety regime. We are carefully examining all available options for supporting the continued operation of safe and reliable flights, which could well include membership of EGNOS. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is right: we are talking to the European Union and a better relationship will enable us to participate if we choose to. That answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about whether we could join if we so wished, but it depends on whether we choose to or not. He also made a point about Galileo, which I am not equipped to answer, but I will speak to my noble friend the Technology Minister so that he can have an answer in due course.
It is critical that any solution is based on clear operational needs and a strong value-for-money case for both users and taxpayers. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, if the previous Government had considered paying for the system, they could have done so during their time in office. This Government are continuing this work and we will continue to work closely with industry experts and stakeholders to find the most effective and sustainable solution. If noble Lords have further evidence to contribute to a value-for-money case, my department will be pleased to hear it. I note the suggestion from the noble Earl that we should ask the aviation industry whether it would be prepared to contribute to the costs of joining.
On safety, we must be clear that we have a highly robust safety regime in place in the UK supported by navigation aids and procedures that remain fully compliant with international safety. The Civil Aviation Authority continues to ensure that all procedures are managed appropriately. We recognise that EGNOS or a similar SBAS could have operational benefits for small, regional and general aviation airports. It would provide greater resilience in poor weather and support access but, as the noble Lord Davies, said, ILS is used at larger airports which are not affected and this would not be useful to them.
The Government appreciate the frustration of those facing delays and disruptions to their flights from poor weather as well as the importance of reliable connections, especially for those living in more remote areas of the United Kingdom. Since I took office, I have heard several times from my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the needs of residents of and visitors to the Isles of Scilly, and I respect his continuing advocacy on their behalf. The Government are already taking important steps to support the connectivity of communities, and we are continuing to look closely at this issue to see what more can be done.
It is also important to be clear that emergency medical and search-and-rescue operations have continued safely and effectively since our withdrawal from EGNOS. These services have access to a range of procedures and capabilities, such as point-in-space approaches, which greatly assist in increasing the utility of air ambulances and helicopters in poor visibility conditions. SBAS services, such as EGNOS, are not currently widely used across Europe to support operational capabilities. We are determined to ensure that the UK’s aviation safety regime remains world-leading, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the United Kingdom. This work is continuing, and no decision has been made.
It is clear that noble Lords who have contributed today, and others, deeply care about having an SBAS such as EGNOS, and we fully recognise that it can have benefits. However, it is also important that every penny of taxpayers’ money, particularly in a time of tight finances, is spent responsibly, efficiently and wisely and that any decision made represents value for both users and taxpayers. We are continuing to consider what an effective, impactful and deliverable solution that works for the UK could look like, and no decision has been made.
The Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That is why we are implementing the policy framework for greater PNT resilience and developing proposals for a national timing centre and enhanced long-range navigation systems. The work around UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system is an important part of that, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the UK’s specific requirements.
I turn to the future of flight because there are constant developments in emerging technologies—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister moves on to another subject, given the particular circumstances in Scotland, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to, and the many islands, if the Scottish Government wished to make a service agreement with the European Union for this purpose, but the United Kingdom Government had chosen not to, do they have any scope to do so?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Rather than filibustering for a few minutes while I refer to the knowledgeable officials behind me, I think I had better write to him about that. I can see an answer coming: it says, “Not sure. We’d need to check”. That is very wise.
I turn to the constant developments in technologies, particularly in drones and uncrewed aircraft. This is an important, evolving area, and the full range of requirements are still being mapped out. There may well be applications where SBAS and EGNOS could be useful. As the Government have ambitious plans for the UK to be a global leader in creating a future-of-flight ecosystem fit for the future, ensuring that we can fully realise the social and economic benefits of new and emerging aviation technologies, we must continue to think about this work. It could be said that I am saying that we are just not doing anything, but we are doing something. These rapid developments, particularly in drones used beyond the line of sight, may well provide an increasing case for this technology and for EGNOS in future.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has given us a very interesting progress report on any discussions taking place with the European Union, the CAA and others, but no decisions have been made. Can he give us any estimate about when the next decision might be achieved?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is a good question because developments in drones, particularly drones beyond line of sight, uncrewed aircraft and flying taxis have been much in the news recently. There are many applications way beyond traditional air applications. There is activity for drones beyond line of sight not only on the railway but in better policing. Those things would affect a judgment about an investment in this and whether the continuing cost of it is worth investing in. I urge my noble friend not to ask us to be too peremptory in making a once-and-for-all decision when technology is changing as, because of that, the justification for doing this might increase and we might get to the answer that my noble friend wants.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions, which reflect the strong interest in maintaining the UK’s continued leadership in aviation safety and innovation. We remain committed to ensuring safety and efficiency. We recognise the real value of systems such as EGNOS, but we must also consider the financial implications and seek solutions that offer the best value for money.
On the contributions of noble Lords about the cost of it, or the cost when it was around £35 million—I cannot confirm whether that might be the current cost or not—if the previous Government could not justify it, in these difficult financial circumstances we have a duty to justify public expenditure. However, noble Lords will have heard me say that we are considering it not only for the benefits from EGNOS for the purposes described in the discussion today but because the future of drone and uncrewed aircraft technology is rapidly developing. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that we are strongly considering it. I am grateful for all that they have said.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but what representation has the department had from the CAA on this issue?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The department is in constant discussion with the CAA on this issue. I do not have any evidence that the CAA believes that reimplementing EGNOS is a matter of the greatest concern, but as the noble Lord asked the question, I will go away, find out what the current position with the CAA is and write to him about it.
Craft Industry: Support
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freyberg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the craft industry.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the Government’s role in supporting the craft industry, a sector that combines our economy, heritage, identity and national well-being. In speaking today, I declare my interests as an artist member of DACS and a former craft practitioner, having studied ceramics at Camberwell College of Arts—a course that, regrettably, no longer exists, exemplifying the very crisis that I wish to address today.
I thank Patricia Lovett, who has worked tirelessly to raise the profile of craft in Parliament as the secretariat for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft, for this and her briefing, and those from the Church of England and the UK jewellery, silverware and allied crafts sector. I thank the Minister for meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me earlier this year to gain a better understanding of the challenges facing the craft industry. Lastly, I extend my gratitude to all noble Lords participating in today’s debate; I eagerly await their contributions.
Craft is not an indulgence. It is profoundly human, combining creativity, skill and joy in ways that connect us to our heritage and each other. It is an economic force, a skills engine, a bridge to education, a custodian of cultural heritage and a foundation for innovation. Yet, despite all this, it remains routinely overlooked in national policy.
Let us begin with scale. In England alone, craft contributes £4.4 billion in gross value added, which is more than the fishing industry and on par with sectors such as electrical goods and sports, recreation and amusements. Approximately 210,000 people are employed in heritage crafts, which is more than in clothing manufacturing. However, reliable and up-to-date statistics remain difficult to obtain. I hope the Minister will commit to publishing new figures to help address the current lack of accurate data, as highlighted in How Do we Measure Craft?, published by the Crafts Council in 2023.
However, economic value tells only part of the story. Numerous creative industries and heritage sectors are rooted in traditional craft practices. Fields such as textiles, ceramics, jewellery, glass, leather, woodworking and metalworking—and a host of other overlooked and unsung heritage crafts that I wish I could single out individually today—demand skills that are not only materially productive but rich in cultural expression.
Craft is also deeply interwoven with wider policy goals. It improves health and well-being, supports education and skills, anchors regional identities, and drives tourism, exports and diplomacy. In short, it sits at the intersection of industrial strategy, education, heritage and soft power.
Yet this vital sector faces an existential threat. According to the latest Red List of Endangered Crafts, 165 crafts are at risk: 94 are endangered and 71 are critically endangered. These include scientific glassblowing—which is essential to advanced research—and the production of encaustic tiles, as found in the Peers’ Lobby.
We are witnessing the transition of traditional skills from viable to critically endangered status, often more swiftly than our support systems can respond. Most of these skills are passed down through person-to-person training. They are not widely taught in schools, nor can they be meaningfully learned online. Once lost, they are lost forever.
We see this decline in real time. Newark College has suspended its musical instruments degrees, the only full-time courses of their kind in the UK. In Stoke-on-Trent, three pottery firms have closed recently, including Moorcroft, founded in 1897. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect systemic fragility. Historical craft is a high-value, low-visibility sector, dominated by micro-businesses and sole traders, with limited structural support.
So what could the Government do to turn this around? First, we need urgently to review how government skills policy works for crafts. The current apprenticeship model is fundamentally unworkable for most craft businesses, which are often sole traders or firms with only one or two employees. They cannot meet the requirement for 10 employers to form a trailblazer group, nor can they afford to reduce productivity in order to train an apprentice while still paying their wages.
We welcome the new growth and skills levy, as well as the introduction of shorter and modular apprenticeships under Labour’s post-16 strategy, but we need these reforms to extend to the craft sector specifically, with direct funding for trainers, contributions to apprentice salaries and a reduction in administrative burdens. The new Skills England body has a clear remit to map skills pipelines across sectors. It must treat crafts as part of the creative economy, not an afterthought. Following yesterday’s spending review, how much of the new investment money for skills and training will be allocated to the crafts industry?
Secondly, we must reverse the collapse of full-time craft training. There are now only two single-honours ceramics degrees left. Courses in bookbinding, horology and instrument making are disappearing. The result is that only the independently wealthy can afford to train. We need targeted funding for FE and HE courses, particularly those teaching endangered skills. Many such courses currently fail to qualify for public funding. As with the performing arts, crafts education should not be confined to the privileged.
Thirdly, the Government should move swiftly to deliver on their obligations under the UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage, which the UK ratified in 2024. Traditional craftsmanship is one of its five domains. Ratifying states must identify, inventory and safeguard such practices, yet no safe-guarding timetable or funding has been published. If we delay too long, the damage will be irreversible; I hope that the Minister can provide an update.
Fourthly, crafts should be treated like other sectors of similar size. Fishing, for example, receives tax breaks worth up to £180 million and has a £27 million seafood scheme, as well as a new £360 million coastal growth fund. Craft, which contributes over five times the GVA of fishing, receives no comparable support. Would it be too much to ask to invest even 2% of that into preserving craft skills? A £10 million annual fund could transform training, stem skill loss, and generate lasting cultural and economic returns.
Fifthly, post-Brexit trade obstacles have significantly impacted makers. Couriers are unwilling to accept small shipments. Export guidance lacks consistency. Items are being held up at customs. Organisers in the EU are becoming more hesitant to accept entries from the UK. We urgently need a dedicated help desk—a single point of contact for craft micro-businesses to access accurate trade advice. Trade agreements ought to incorporate cultural exemptions for crafts, recognising their importance in both diplomacy and commerce.
Sixthly, crafts deserve a place in creative education. They are too often excluded from discussions about arts in schools, yet crafts improve cognition, motor skills, resilience and mental health. They also open vocational pathways for students who may not thrive academically. Let us ensure that creative education includes making and that schools have the resources to teach it. Again, I hope that the Minister can provide an update on how the spending review will support this.
Seventhly, crafts are not only a domestic concern but an export strength—a soft power asset and a driver of regional growth. Labour’s refreshed creative industries sector plan and its cultural global Britain strategy rightly position culture at the heart of our international offer. Crafts must be at the heart of that strategy. From Stoke-on-Trent ceramics to Sunderland glass, from Leicester’s rattan-weaving to Devon’s thatching, crafts are rooted in place. Small investments in such place-based industries boost local pride, employment and tourism; they also reinforce the UK’s international reputation for excellence and authenticity.
If this debate achieves anything, I hope that it establishes that craft is not marginal or an anachronism. It is a vital, economically significant, socially valuable part of our national fabric. We do not need huge sums to save the sector, but we need a strategy, data and targeted support, and we need them soon because, once these skills disappear, they will not return, and we will have lost not just livelihoods, but irreplaceable strands of our national story. Let us act before that happens.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I do not have his credentials as a maker, but I am vice-chair of the APPG for Craft, and I support all the points he made so admirably and succinctly, particularly his emphasis on the economic impact of the craft sector.
People have been making glass since the Bronze Age. The technique of glassblowing was developed by Syrian craftspeople in the first century BC. Across the Roman Empire, vessels and objects were produced in their thousands for drinking, shipping food, storing oils, mirrors, windows and much more. In other words, these handmade vessels were not only beautiful, but immensely useful. The remarkable Charles Ede gallery recently displayed 60 Roman glass pieces, some of them filled with lovely naturalistic floral displays showing that, although now eminently collectable, they are still useful. They are functional works of art transcending time.
That ancient tradition survives today but, like so many other handmade crafts, it is under threat. In his excellent, comprehensive speech, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, highlighted many of these threats: the higher costs of materials and energy; cuts to creative education in schools and universities, reducing pathways into the sector; limited apprenticeships compared to other skilled trades; and an ageing workforce where older crafts women and men retire without successors. These are among the key reasons for the decline, and I share all the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
There are some inspiring rescue stories. The Financial Times has a great track record of showcasing the sheer range and quality of UK crafts. It highlighted recently how two young artisans are reinvigorating the art of rush-seated chair making, which has been practised in Britain since Anglo-Saxon times. They were able to do this through the commitment and backing of one person—entrepreneur and estate owner, Hugo Burge. Just eight years ago, that ancient craft was under existential threat with the retirement of the last full-time artisan in the country. Fascinated by the craft and well-advised by the Heritage Crafts Association, Burge funded two apprenticeships. The Hugo Burge Foundation continues to fund apprenticeships to secure the future of this endangered craft.
This is far too precarious a way forward for the future of our amazing craft industries. There are a number of barriers faced by skilled makers in relation to apprenticeships, such as the impact on makers’ time, and therefore income, of helping to transfer skills. A more imaginative, flexible and focused approach is needed to ensure that craft skills can continue to flourish, and I hope my noble friend will in her reply offer some hope that this is indeed how she sees the way forward.
The very effective secretary of the APPG for crafts has, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, done sterling work in showcasing many of these crafts and, in particular, demonstrating the economic contribution that they make, yet they remain largely invisible in policy terms. I would not necessarily have expected a specific reference to craft in yesterday’s spending review announcement, but I hope that the Minister will be able today to give us some real confidence that it will figure strongly in subsequent departmental allocations, as well as in the soon-to-be-announced creative industry strategy.
I know my noble friend is passionate about this agenda. She made that clear in her recent meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me, and I hope she will reiterate today her determination to raise the profile of the craft sector and ensure that it fulfils its potential. I hope she will undertake to ensure that the new Skills England body specifically recognises crafts as an integral and invaluable part of the creative economy, our national fabric and our shared heritage.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education.
I will speak about an important and brand-new initiative in heritage crafts: the Wren international centre of excellence at St Paul’s Cathedral. It has been created out of a space at the level of the cathedral’s crypt, which was previously used for storage, and obviously named after Sir Christopher Wren, who is buried nearby. The new centre is a workshop and training space for heritage craft skills. Rebecca Thompson, the director of property at St Paul’s, says that it is hoped to be
“a leadership network to address the national shortage of heritage skills”.
Its first apprenticeships will be shortly advertised—in stone-masonry and carpentry—and those appointed will begin practical work in the summer, with concomitant college courses in September.
From 2005, I came into close contact with the heritage skills required at St Paul’s for, as Knight Principal of the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor, I had the job of supervising the creation of a new chapel there for the knights from an area that had hitherto been used as a depository for office equipment. I was able to prepare the preliminary drawings with the Surveyor of the Fabric and to oversee the necessary work, which obliged me to raise £1 million. It required specialist carpenters, turners, masons, welders, enamellers, silversmiths and bronze workers, and was opened by the late Queen Elizabeth and the late Duke of Edinburgh in 2008.
Innovations of the kind now in train at St Paul’s are very seriously needed. As we have heard, the number of people entering the heritage skills sector is in decline, and in many cathedrals such as St Paul’s, there are teams of conservators and crafts professionals with an ageing demographic, with retirement on the horizon and with the unwelcome likelihood that they will not be replaced.
We of course sit today in a world heritage site, and it will face the huge task of restoration and renewal in the coming few years. This will require a large number of trained heritage crafts professionals. Attractive jobs here will inevitably entice talented people away from other sites, such as cathedrals, exacerbating the shortages of skills that already exist.
In our several debates on restoration and renewal, I have recommended to your Lordships that we have a duty to construct, when R&R details become clearer, a Palace of Westminster scheme to showcase apprenticeship. It should be a subject of contract, between the House authorities and the firms fulfilling the necessary heritage craft tasks here, that they will guarantee to employ and teach apprentices. It is vital that restoration and renewal is not just a consumer of crafts skills but an active source of training for future careers in these important heritage areas.
I have recommended that all apprentices working here, or on associated projects off the site, should be registered with the Westminster apprenticeship scheme and, at the successful completion of their training, receive a special certificate. I have already persuaded the Speaker and the Lord Speaker that they should present them when the occasion arises. We want these young people to be proud of being part of the history of the Palace of Westminster and to come to understand the craft vision of Sir Charles Barry and of Augustus Welby Pugin that underpins it. I commend that initiative to your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for securing this debate and for his expertise.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who will speak later, I believe that cathedrals and churches are some of our nation’s most significant and tangible assets, shaping our history and identity, as well as being the beating hearts of our communities. I regret, therefore, that the Government’s decision to curb support for the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme affects our ability to maintain and renew this precious inheritance. I hope this has been recognised in the spending review.
The reality is that the Church of England cares remarkably well for the biggest portfolio of listed buildings in the country thanks to local parish endeavour. That is why the decision to cap support, even for projects that are already contracted, budgeted and otherwise funded, is a real body blow. In my diocese, the impact for Holy Trinity Clapham amounts to £1 million, which puts at risk a programme of works that is already in progress. Another large fabric project has been paused.
Church buildings, as your Lordships may imagine, support a bewildering array of craft skills. Should churches cease to do so, many skills would atrophy. I am thinking of masonry and stone-carving, the intricate textiles of altar frontals, banners and vestments, the ceramics of tiles, painting, stained and engraved glass, and all manner of metalwork in buildings, utensils and liturgical objects, as well as woodwork, both functional and artistic. What would become of the sole remaining bell foundry in England were it not for orders such as that from Holy Trinity Church, Roehampton, in my diocese, for the casting of four bells in 2023? How would the skills needed to repair great organs flourish without the refurbishment of the organ at St John the Divine, Kennington, which is also in the diocese of Southwark? It has a massive local music outreach programme for children, with beneficial social impact. Organ-building is a heritage craft at risk.
Again in my diocese, at All Saints Church in Kingston upon Thames—the place of coronation for West Saxon kings including, in this anniversary year, that of Æthelstan, the first king of all England—there is an ambitious and contemporary textile project depicting seven Anglo-Saxon monarchs. How will contemporary embroidery fare without the commissioning of large and challenging works such as this; or traditional stonemasonry without commissions such as the repair of the tower and wall at St Mary’s Church, Beddington? Indeed, how will any of these skills survive without this activity? Every bishop in every diocese can recite many telling examples. Yet the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not list bell-founding, organ-building, stone-carving, stained or engraved glasswork, masonry or wood-carving as core craft activities. I ask the Minister to explain this and expand the current list.
In summary, the reduction in the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme announced in January and concerns over its future beyond March will have a direct effect on commissions and contracts awarded to skilled craftspeople and artists. It will inhibit apprenticeships and dampen economic growth. As a final point, I ask the Minister, if only on grounds of economic utility, to please guarantee an expanded future scheme.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of English Heritage. As well as looking after 400 of the nation’s most important heritage sites, we are one of the biggest investors in building conservation and heritage management in the UK, so English Heritage is well placed to observe and comment on the state of the heritage skills world.
I am sorry to say that it is not good news. For stone-masonry, roofing and thatching, joinery and metalwork, the demand for traditional heritage skills greatly outstrips the availability of people with those skills. For specialist interventions on heritage buildings, such as flint-knapping, which involves repairing a built form and which is no longer practised in new buildings, we are literally at the end of the line. There are few or no new entrants and hardly any training opportunities to continue this ancient skill.
Horticulture in historic gardens is a specialist and skilled activity—a heritage skill of its own—but it is also an underpopulated profession. At English Heritage, we are proud to have run the Historic and Botanic Garden Training Programme—a difficult phrase to say; it is better known as heebie-jeebies—with the support of the National Garden Scheme. Over almost 20 years, we have supported more than 300 trainees, who are now employed across the heritage world. The vast majority of our horticulture trainees have gone on to be highly skilled gardeners at some of the most high-profile historic gardens in the UK and abroad. Much of the credit for this goes to our soon-to-retire head gardener, John Watkins, who engineered this remarkable revival.
The most recent addition to our portfolio of historic properties is Shrewsbury Flaxmill Maltings. This was the first multi-storey iron-framed building in the world and therefore can claim the title of being the grandparent of the skyscraper.
Between 2017 and 2020, Historic England delivered a programme of heritage skills activities supported by the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation. Work placements, site tours and training events were targeted at all levels, from students to industry professionals. We want a similar commitment to heritage skills training in the delivery of all large lottery-funded projects like this one.
But these are examples of best practice; the picture across the country is far too fragmented—much more Jackson Pollock than Picasso. It is difficult for enthusiasts to find entry points for specialist heritage skills. There are few placement opportunities in heritage organisations and very little on-the-job learning. Once the training is completed, pathways to employment are ill-defined and hard to identify. Employment opportunities are often small scale, insecure and poorly paid. Short-term funding means that even large organisations such as English Heritage can no longer permanently employ in-house teams of construction professionals, as was the case many years ago.
In allowing professions such as heritage skills to dwindle and die, we have not just deprived the country of important construction skills and neglected the UK’s great heritage assets; we have also allowed traditions, customs and local communities to disperse and almost casually disappear. In your Lordships’ House, we are assiduous about maintaining our own traditions. We should also have a care for the traditions and communities of people less high profile, but, perhaps over the long run, even more important than us.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Freyberg on securing this debate and on his excellent opening speech. I thank Patricia Lovett for her excellent briefing on heritage craft and, indeed, whose expertise in this area informs us all. I thank the Minister for the helpful meeting she had with my noble friend Lord Freyburg, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and me.
I am a fine artist, so my view of craft is that of a close and equally significant next-door neighbour; indeed, there is considerable overlap in our practice. Yet, whereas we have debates and Questions in this House on many of the creative industries—many on music—I cannot remember the last time we had a debate on craft, so this one is especially welcome, since the infrequency of such debates is sadly also indicative of a public perception about craft that is entirely at odds with the reality of the importance of this area, not least financially.
It is worth repeating the statistic that heritage craft alone contributed £4.4 billion GVA to the economy in 2012, which is about five times more than fishing, which contributed £862 million in 2023. Unlike the fishing industry, it receives no funding from government, while contemporary craft, which is funded through the Crafts Council, still receives nothing like the investment that is made in the fishing industry. I do not want to press this comparison too much, not least because some of the ancillary activities connected with fishing, such as net and withy pot making, are themselves crafts. We should be on the same side, but the Government need to think seriously about a more equitable distribution of direct investment, particularly as they rightly identify the creative sector as a growth area. While it is good that, through the spending review, heritage venues will be better supported—perhaps the Minister can say something about that—the overall cuts to DCMS funding are worrying and deeply disturbing.
I will concentrate the remainder of my remarks on the effects of Brexit on the craft sector. That effect is profound. Europe is the most significant trading partner for craft goods. However, Brexit is not behind us: as in all the creative industries, artists and artisans have to live with it daily. Most immediately, it makes us face enormous concerns over paperwork, costs and delays, but the exchange of ideas, tools, materials, teaching and training between the UK and the EU in the craft industry has all but stopped, including the display of work at European craft fairs and exhibitions. The shop window that such exhibitions afford, even when no work is sold, is hugely important in terms of initial cultural engagement as a precursor to trade. Will the Minister look at this?
Will the Minister consider expanding the list of eligible occupations in the creative sector to include heritage craft practitioners? This would enable knowledge exchange for residencies and collaborative projects under the PPE visa. Will she look at the huge challenges faced by journeymen and apprentices in such areas of itinerant work across Europe due to both Brexit and funding, which is either scarce or non-existent due to rigid eligibility criteria tied to fixed business premises?
Finally, I make a plea that the Government reinstate tax-free shopping for tourists, which would benefit both high-end fashion and craft goods. The Centre for Economics and Business Research found that its removal has deterred 2 million tourists a year from visiting the UK and is costing £10.7 billion in lost GDP, with much of that loss, of course, being the EU’s gain.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing it forward. I echo much of what was said by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Southwark and by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, with whom I worked at St Paul’s.
I would like to stress the importance of capacity for long-term funding in order that long-term planning can be undertaken by these fragile groups. I was disappointed that this morning there was no response from the Minister in the Statement on the spending review to indicate that there will be certainty about the future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme beyond 2026, which is essential for so many churches, parishes and cathedrals, nor a review of the capping system of the VAT application, which once again destroys much of the benefit of knowing that there is funding ahead.
Though I could simply echo some of the comments about the forms of arts and crafts seen in cathedrals, I am not arguing for special treatment for the Church of England as a discrete group that wants to be okay alone. This is about the impact that the Church of England—its parishes, churches and cathedrals—has in the wider community. For example, the masons’ team at St Paul’s Cathedral offered people, many of them from Essex, the opportunity of a career in masonry. They were often the children of people who had a career in masonry at St Paul’s. This sense that there is something ahead of us is a very important part of the investment that cathedrals contribute through their renovation programmes.
My second point is about the use of conservation—both developing conservation skills and the benefit of conservation for others. In two cathedrals, Rochester and Durham, the display of their inheritance is not only of interest to tourists, which I will come back to, but of profound interest and an education to pupils in schools. School visits are one of the most important ways of introducing children to their inheritance. Both Rochester and Durham are places where there are levels of deprivation which can be very destructive for children, until they discover that they are the inheritors of this beautiful history, which is theirs. Cathedrals have an educational and a formational contribution to make to these communities.
My third point is about textiles. When I was at St Paul’s, we were fortunate to be funded, through the generosity of many of the livery companies, to commission textiles. This was not simply for the use of a small group of people worshipping in that building; it put us in touch with Central Saint Martins, which ran a competition for international students to win the prize of commissioning and designing these textiles. As a result of that, a group of local people who were interested in broderie was started, and it continues now. It gives the local community—not necessarily Christians but beyond that confine—an opportunity to identify with something that will create a heritage for the future.
Finally, I turn to music. For children, access to cathedral choirs is one of the most important ways of enlarging their educational experience and giving them intergenerational experience of working with adults in a professional way. It has also been used by the Probation Service as a way of bringing people who are at risk of offending into finding purposeful skills for which they receive applause.
These are all ways in which crafts overflow from the Church into the wider community.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak about the crisis approaching us in building craftsmanship. Here we are, in this temple of British craftsmanship—we are very proud of its history—yet we are in real danger of losing many crafts as the last craftsmen reach the end of their careers without apprentices. On the other side of the equation, we currently have around 923,000 young people not in education, employment or training; that is one in eight 16 to 24 year-olds. These are young people whose potential is being squandered.
You may think that it is a rather unbalanced equation. When you hear “heritage building crafts”, it is easy to think just about the big prestige projects, such as Notre-Dame and the Houses of Parliament, but that is one of the mistakes we have made. We have ended up with specialist crafts all in their own little niches and struggling to be sustainable.
One-fifth of all our housing stock in the UK —5.9 million homes—was built before the First World War, using traditional methods and materials generally different from those used in the past 50 years or so. These all require maintenance from craftsmen, such as the plasterers who know how to work with lime and the carpenters who can fix a sash window frame. Some £28 billion-worth of work is done annually on these buildings. Equally urgently, these houses need retrofitting to higher insulation standards to help us meet net zero, as well as an understanding of how their fabric works. Then there is the conversion of old industrial buildings to new homes to help meet housing needs. There is a continuum of building craft skills, from the needs of the small, everyday houses to those of our most treasured and visited heritage buildings. Overall, the numbers of building craftspeople needed are very large.
Now think about the pipeline needed to feed this—that huge pool of young people who do not want to sit in front of a computer or at a desk, seeing their jobs replaced by AI and uninspired by corporate management structures. How do we match them with the thousands of self-employed building craftspeople, mostly in their 40s or older, who are ready and willing to give one-on-one mentoring—absolute training gold dust—leading to well-paid, satisfying jobs that are ideal for those who want to take pride in being able to see something they did and did well?
Here in the Lords, we know all too well that the hereditary system of jobs being passed from parent to child has pretty much gone. That potentially opens up opportunities more broadly, but we need to provide its replacement. Surveys show that half of young people have never considered a career in trades; nearly 40% said that they were discouraged from them. We need to inspire them with what these careers can be, and we need to make the pathways for them clearer and easier. Hands-on and heritage skills need to be part of all mainstream construction training.
Then there are the individual apprenticeships and small courses sponsored by the Church of England, the King’s Foundation, the parliamentary R&R programme, English Heritage, the traditional craft guilds and so many more. They are all doing their absolute best, but they need to be greater than the sum of their parts. Thankfully, though, there is no shortage of enthusiasm, ideas and—crucially—deep knowledge and understanding of what can be done. We have some really good reports, and so many organisations are ready to help. I thank especially the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Building Crafts College, Cadw, the parliamentary R&R programme and the Natural Stone Industry Training Group for helping me understand the situation.
What we need now is to bring together the vision and knowledge from industry and the Government’s ambitions. I spoke to Marianne Suhr, one of this country’s leading experts in traditional building crafts and the presenter of the BBC programme “Restoration”. There is no one more inspirational. She is absolutely fizzing with ideas, passion, deep experience and knowledge to help. Will the Minister and others in government please meet Marianne and a small group of experts to see how we can turn their great ideas into reality? To borrow the motto of the movement in France that seeks to support its traditional crafts, Les Compagnons du Devoir, be one of those who build the future.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate in such a powerful way; he is a trained craftsman himself and a staunch supporter of craft. I also thank Daniel Carpenter from the Heritage Crafts Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. How sobering it was to receive the latest list of endangered crafts recently.
I also pay tribute to Patricia Lovett, a wonderful calligrapher who has been the driving force behind the All-Party Group on Craft, of which I was a founder member. She has been instrumental in introducing us to a bewitching range of specialists in gold, glass, leather, printing, sewing, neon lighting, clock-making, instrument-making and too many other skills to mention. The meetings always leave us inspired and enriched, which is sadly not something we can say of all meetings in Parliament. As a winder, I regret that four minutes does not permit me to mention all the great contributions to this debate, but I thank all noble Lords.
This country is rich with heritage crafts but, sadly, a number are lost each year as the number of young people coming forward to spend time and trouble on apprenticeships to learn them is not sufficient to ensure their lasting appeal. Often, the practitioners are sole traders or very small businesses, who need financial support if they are to take time from practising their craft and earning a living to teaching it. Why can there not be a dedicated point of reference to help craftspeople through the myriad complications of trading, particularly —as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said—with the EU? It used to be a rich source of customers and colleagues.
We are aware that further education colleges do a great job in supplying teachers and opportunities, but, of course, they are beset by funding limitations. These skills require patience and attention to detail, which was part and parcel of my generation but is often a far cry from modern-day instant results. Setting up each letter in a printing press, having to mind the Ps and Qs, and, indeed, the need to type accurately with a typewriter are processes outwitted by the speed of computing. However, the satisfaction of a job well done is not matched by the speed of automation.
Craft skills and creativity are key to the country’s economy, as we have heard from various noble Lords, but we have lost many of the teachers who encourage the young into practical skills. Many state schools no longer offer woodwork, metalwork, cookery, needlework and pottery, which used to be part of our educational offer and enticed many young people into learning when maths and English were not their forte.
Part of the problem we have with the disturbing number of young people not in education, employment or training—the NEETs—is that their interests and skills were not on the timetable at school, so they lost interest in learning. Among them, there will be many potential craftspeople, who could be encouraged into work if their craft skills were recognised. Can the Minister say whether the curriculum review will recommend that opportunities for craft should be available in all state schools?
There are organisations, enthusiasts and livery companies who work hard to regenerate enthusiasm. In the livery world, we know that goldsmiths, leather-sellers, carpenters and many others promote the crafts on which they were founded, often many centuries ago, but which still have relevance today. We have heard from both right reverend Prelates about the importance of the Church, which has such beautiful buildings and artefacts that are of course made by craftspeople. When we allow this crumbling building to be renovated, we shall need all the skilled craftspeople available. We should not allow ourselves to be outdone by Notre Dame, which was renovated in such amazing time.
Might the Minister look to using the smart fund, a private copy remuneration scheme already modelled in 45 countries including much of Europe, Canada and Mexico, to generate much-needed funding for craft? Why do craft courses not qualify for funding? People often have to self-fund.
We are only too well aware that independent schools continue to encourage crafts as they do art, drama, dance. Surely, however, it should not just be the preserve of the privileged to be able to show talents and learn skills in these subjects. Crafts improve hand-eye co-ordination, enhance mental health and give a great sense of accomplishment when something beautiful or useful is being created. What steps are being taken to reintroduce craft disciplines into state schools so that the country’s proud tradition of excellence can be continued and so that young people are not turned away from learning and can contribute their talents to the economy?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and welcome the Minister to her first debate as Heritage Minister. What a fine debate it has been—long overdue, well attended and very perceptive. I was very proud to be the Minister who ratified the 2003 UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage, and I am delighted to see the Minister taking forward that work with great enthusiasm, as her department leads on encouraging people to bring forward crafts and practices to be enrolled in the UK’s new inventory. Perhaps she can give us an update on that work and remind us how people can make a nomination. We all have our favourite examples: today I am wearing the Northumberland tartan tie that I wore with pride as Heritage Minister.
Inscription on the UK’s inventory and with UNESCO are important as a recognition not only of what we value as a nation but of what we stand to lose if we are not careful. Heritage Craft’s latest red list has been mentioned. It now lists 165 distinct crafts as “endangered” or “critically endangered”—19 more than previously. One should catch the attention of our Prime Minister as it is flute making. This work comes at an urgent time.
That is helpful to the Government for so many of the missions that they have set themselves. Whether it is creating economic growth and opportunity across the UK, providing new homes—not just building new ones but retrofitting historic properties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said—or making us a greener country as we seek to insulate old buildings and protect them from the changing climate, we will need all our skilled craftspeople. As in 1979, this Government could do with more thatchers, so will the Minister use her good office and things such as the cross-government Heritage Council to impress this point on her colleagues in other departments?
Will she press them, notwithstanding the “outright cuts” that her department was handed yesterday, in the words of the IFS, to ensure that heritage crafts are properly supported? As we have heard, at present there is no direct funding for heritage crafts. The Crafts Council receives £2.2 million through the Arts Council, but its focus is on contemporary craft, which is very important but distinct. Surveys such as Mapping Heritage Craft have shown that some 210,000 people are involved in crafts, contributing, as we have heard, £4.4 billion of GVA. Surely some of that can be reinvested to help the sector to grow further and to pass on skills to new generations.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned some of the specialist training we have lost. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and draw attention to the National Glass Centre in Sunderland, so close to the Education Secretary’s constituency, which continues the tradition of glass-making on Wearside.
Many organisations are doing excellent work. We have heard about livery companies. I was delighted to meet some of English Heritage’s brilliant gardeners and apprentices at Belsay Hall with the noble Lord, Lord Lemos.
I am very glad that we have two Lords Spiritual with us today. The Church of England provides apprenticeships and training opportunities, such as the cathedral workshop fellowship. We look forward to the opening of York Minster’s Centre Of Excellence, and we also heard about the Wren International Centre of Excellence from my noble friend Lord Lingfield.
We all share their anxiety about the changes and uncertainty surrounding the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I know that the Minister recently visited one of the properties in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust in Rugby and had the opportunity to see for herself how the trust helps to keep specialists, such as Jim Budd, in work repairing stained-glass windows. Last summer, the CCT organised a heritage building skills summer school in Lancaster, helping to spread opportunity to people from a wide range of backgrounds. On a recent trip with the CCT, I was delighted to meet some of the apprentice stonemasons at Gloucester Cathedral, who are caring for that building as their forebears have done for more than a millennium.
As we have heard, we need skilled craftspeople for this very building if we are to look after the UNESCO world heritage site in which we presently sit. That was mentioned at the end of the debate in the Chamber last night, so, as my noble friend Lord Lingfield and others have said, there is an opportunity for us to lead by example.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this important debate and all noble Lords on their thoughtful contributions today. Given the time constraint, I, too, will probably need to talk very fast, and I may need to write to noble Lords after the debate with any responses that I cannot cover in my response.
I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, described as the “unsung” crafts have heard their value sung out very loudly today. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, on the restoration and renewal programme, which was echoed by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, shows how relevant this debate is to the Palace of Westminster, as it is around the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, mentioned Notre Dame. I am proud, as I know noble Lords across the Room will be, about the role of British craftspeople involved in that project. It is important to recognise that we gain from what Notre Dame gained from our incredible builders, craftspeople and artists.
Many noble Lords will know from previous conversations I have had with them that I feel passionately about craft, as does every noble Lord who has spoken. That includes not just the traditions woven into our inclusive national story or, in the case of a number of noble Lords, their professional lives, but in my case as a means of rehabilitation from serious illness as a teenager and as activities I learned from my mother, grandmother and great-aunt.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said so powerfully in his opening remarks, craft is not an indulgence. It is profoundly human. When I was growing up, one of our closest family friends was a professional potter, Rosemary Zorza. She had a profound effect on me as a child, encouraging my creativity and imagination. However, beyond my personal experience, when I speak of crafts, I mean more than the physical objects that are represented. I mean the communities sustained, the skills preserved and the futures shaped. The craft industry is a custodian of heritage, a source of enrichment and a powerful driver of growth.
I turn to the point on data. The figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, covers a broader definition than our current DCMS methodology allows. The most recent DCMS figures from 2024 show that in 2023 the crafts subsector generated around £400 million in gross value added and employed 7,000 highly skilled artisans, which is a significant return for the creative industries. These are, on the whole, small but highly specialist enterprises. We continue to work to improve how such sectors are captured in official statistics, including where their work cuts across different categories such as manufacturing, design, heritage or construction skills. As a Minister, I am keen to understand what the data is telling us so that I can represent the sector effectively in discussions.
I want to add that this is not solely about economics, important though they are. This is about artistry, craftsmanship and our living heritage. From Stoke-on-Trent’s ceramics and Birmingham’s jewellery, for which Birmingham was recently recognised as a world craft city, to Northamptonshire’s shoemakers, these crafts are signifiers of place, character and British identity.
All noble Lords highlighted the pressures faced by the craft sector. This is an important debate for those reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, noted that Heritage Crafts’s 2025 red list of endangered crafts highlighted challenges in education, training and small business support. We recognise these challenges, which is why we support funders such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which in 2024 awarded £158,000 to Heritage Crafts for long-term sustainability. It also runs a heritage crafts programme offering bursaries to help people train in heritage crafts or develop their skills. I look forward to meeting the chief executive of Heritage Crafts in the coming weeks to hear more about the issues at stake.
In relation to wider support for the sector, since 2018 Arts Council England’s developing your creative practice programme has supported the development of creative practitioners by providing grants to give them the time, headspace and financial support needed to encourage development and experimentation to enable those practitioners to progress and flourish in their creative careers. Craftspeople specialising in textiles, jewellery or ceramic arts, for example, can apply under the visual artist field.
The spending review was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others. Following the announcement of the spending review on 11 June—yesterday—DCMS is now moving into the business planning phase to determine how the settlement will be delivered.
It is important to recognise that some of the risks to the sector are very tangible and real. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to the closure of potteries. The Government are working closely with Ceramics UK to ensure the future of the sector with regard to both traditional ceramics and 21st-century, high-tech ceramics. I look forward to the publication of the industrial strategy and hope that noble Lords will find it of interest when it is published in due course.
The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chichester and the Bishop of Southwark noted the changes to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I do not want to suggest that we do not recognise the role that the restoration of churches plays in the preservation of skills. However, given where we were fiscally, we had to make changes to that scheme. On its future, funding after 2026 will be considered as we work through the departmental business planning process. In January, the Government announced a one-year extension with a £23 million budget. I stress that 94% of applications will not be affected by the change, but I appreciate that the affected schemes have to explore other means of funding. I have spoken with the vicar of the church in Clapham mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, and I am aware of the issues that the church has with claiming money under the National Lottery scheme.
As the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned, last year we ratified the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. I recognise the work that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, did on that. He knows that I am as enthusiastic about it as he is, and I am delighted to take his work forward. Ratification has started a timely conversation about what we value and how, collectively, we safeguard our living heritage, of which crafts are a key part. We will create inventories better to map and understand the sector and its issues and to raise awareness. Submissions will open later this year, and I will report to the House about those plans. I am very keen for as many noble Lords as possible to get involved in promoting it in due course.
I now move on to talk about skills and education, and this is where my notes get very messy and I am at desperate risk of running out of time. I think all noble Lords raised skills shortages. This is one of the key areas raised in this debate that I am genuinely most concerned about. I recognise similar concerns to those raised with me by heritage stakeholders across the piece about making sure that we do not lose the skills we need. My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe noted that people who are retiring are not being replaced, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised a very powerful point about the barriers of time and finances for young people to get trained by small family businesses or sole traders.
Organisations directly and indirectly supported by the Government are investing in craft skills, including Historic England, the Churches Conservation Trust and projects funded by the National Lottery. I pay tribute to the leadership of my noble friend Lord Lemos in championing craft and heritage skills through his work at English Heritage. Further excellent work is happening to address demands, such as at the National Trust’s Heritage and Rural Skills Centre and York Minster’s Centre of Excellence for Heritage Skills and Estate Management, and the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned the excellent work at Saint Paul’s.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others mentioned that we are reforming apprenticeships, but I recognise that some occupations do not necessarily fit into the very tight framework that some apprenticeships involve. For example, I understand from my noble friend Lady Anderson that it takes up to 10 years to train a master potter. I will pick up these points in writing. I will also pick up the points made in relation to skills, apprenticeships and education with my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, not least in relation to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe on Skills England. I note the point on trade and will respond to the noble Earl in writing.
In the very small amount of time I have left, I conclude by saying that we will continue to support the craft sector. People in this country produce some of the finest crafts in the world. I am clear that we have an incredible richness of craftspeople in this country, and I am seeking to identify ways to ensure that the sector is supported to grow. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing this debate.
Wildfires
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Caithness
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to (1) reduce the risk, and (2) mitigate the effects, of wildfires.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, wildfires are a natural phenomenon and an essential process in some ecosystems. Climate change is driving not only increasingly frequent periods of fire-supportive weather but changes in our vegetation that are probably making it more prone to fire. Wildfires are becoming a persistent and growing risk to life, property and the environment with the impact that they have on carbon emissions, wildlife, humans and their health, insurance, and air and water quality. However, there is no single definition of what constitutes a wildfire, although the National Fire Chiefs Council, the NFCC, has long argued for one. Do the Government agree that a single definition is now a necessity?
By April this year, the total area burned by wildfires in the UK was already higher for the year than any other year’s total over the last decade. As of 4 June, more than 137 square miles—almost the size of the Isle of Wight—had already been burned. It is very hard to put a price on wildfires, but the Moorland Association estimates that the cost this year is already more than £350 million. In addition, as with all fires, there are ongoing legacy costs, which are unquantifiable, such as bare land being eroded and the slowing re-establishment of vegetation and recovery of wildlife at a time when nature is in crisis.
About 90% of wildfires are caused by humans, either carelessly or deliberately. Increasing public awareness of wildfires is a logical next step following the good work of the UK fire danger rating system project and it needs addressing by the Government, local authorities and landowners.
The largest number of wildfire incidents are in major metropolitan areas, with the greatest threat to people, health and livelihoods being the rural-urban interface. Due to wildfires, in July 2022 the London Fire Brigade had its busiest day since World War II, with more than 40 houses and shops destroyed. Wherever fires occur, we are extremely grateful for the courage and dedication of the fire and rescue service—the FRS. A fire can affect many FRS stations. On 10 March this year, a wildfire started deliberately at Canford Heath required the attendance of 13 stations.
This increased operational demand comes when firefighter numbers are down 25% since 2008. The ever-growing costs must be absorbed through core budgets that are already under strain, and there is no dedicated funding for wildfire response. All this, together with a lack of definition, is hindering long-term investment and the prediction, mitigation, control and recording of wildfires and their impact. I ask the Minister: do we really need another major catastrophe before the Government act and the NFCC’s sensible requests are addressed?
I was brought up on the heather hills in Aberdeenshire, so I wish to focus on heath-land and moorland fires, but in England. I have taken part in controlled burns and have helped fight wildfires. I have been fortunate to see and hear the biodiversity that is noticeably abundant on managed, as opposed to unmanaged, moorland.
A key determinant to any fire is the quantity and type of combustible materials available for burning. This influences fire behaviour and severity and is known as fuel load. The NFCC and private landowners agree that, the larger the proportion of the fuel load that is unmanaged, the bigger the fire and the higher the risk of damage. This is the very thing we all wish to prevent; thus, land management is critical. The FRS states that a flame length of over 11 feet puts people at risk—remember that the flame length on Saddleworth Moor was over 50 feet.
Recently, in the Peak District, due to the terrain, weather conditions and flame length, the FRS withdrew from fires and decided to let them burn themselves out. Why are the FRS volunteers and biodiversity being put at risk like this? The answer is that land managers are being directed by the Government through Natural England—NE—to manage land in such a way that it increases the fuel load.
There is a significant difference between a controlled burn and a wildfire. Controlled fire burns only the surface, not the underlying vegetation or root systems. Furthermore, the latest science shows that, over a 10-year period, controlled fires sequester more carbon than they release. NE used approved controlled burning on Dorset heath-land to restore habitat but, ironically, it is firmly against it on moorland, even though it does not burn the peat. Instead, NE demands the wetting of moorland, but wet moors still burn.
Indonesia is the only country in the world that has tried rewetting at scale and studied its effect on wildfire. Rewetting reduced the number of extreme fire events by 40% and only slightly shrank the area affected by fire by 5%. Of course, rewetting will help in some places but certainly not all. For instance, due to topography, 30% of the Peak District cannot be rewetted. The England Peat Action Plan identified the lack of scientific knowledge around the impacts of changing land managing practices. As a result, IDEAL UK FIRE is researching this, with a report due in 2027. Can the Minister tell your Lordships why Defra has undertaken a hurried eight-week consultation on further restrictions on traditional winter burning before this important report is received and studied? Does the Minister agree that no decision should be taken until we have the science available?
NE looks at facts from a single-issue viewpoint, is wedded to one form of fuel load control and ignored the latest scientific evidence. Its ill-informed evidence review—NEER155—has compromised Defra’s responsibility in the wildfire framework for England and, doubtless, the review of the EIP. I wrote to the CEO of NE in April, asking for an urgent meeting to discuss all this. It is a sorry saga to recount but, briefly, she has not responded to me, and my requests for a meeting have been ignored. That is unacceptable, especially from the Government’s advisers.
I conclude that NE is not fit for purpose. I am not at all surprised that there is a fundamental breakdown in trust with landowners to whom it dictates. Its behaviour is putting humans, our environment and nature at greater risk. Can the Minister tell us why NE is allowed to give instructions to landowners when it has no statutory responsibility for wildfires and, contrary to his recent letter to me, does not employ a single person with specialist knowledge? What action will he take to improve NE’s performance?
While on landowners, let us recall that landowners in England voluntarily spend millions each year on moorland management and promoting biodiversity. In parts of Scotland and parts of Italy and Spain, this is no longer so, with well-documented negative environmental consequences. If landowners withdraw their good will, it will fall to the taxpayer to fund and support biodiversity, and the FRS will have no help and local expertise when the fire occurs.
Many of your Lordships will have received the Wildlife Trust’s brief for this debate. Before it was circulated widely, I managed to get an inaccurate reference to an NE report corrected. I also told TWT that where the ignition source was known it represented less than 7% of upland fires. Significantly, it did not amend its brief further to reflect that fact. Are Ministers aware that not only do some NGOs wilfully confuse controlled burns and wildfires but they are sending out briefs that are more emotionally and politically based than science and fact based?
I thank all noble Lords who are speaking in this debate. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Gove, another Aberdeenshire loon, but nae from the hills, and my noble friend Lord Jack of Courance, in whose former constituency I spent many of my farming days. I am delighted that they have chosen to make their maiden speeches in this important debate. Wildfires are a current and very real threat to us and our environment that climate change will only exacerbate. We all need to do more to rise to the challenge, but we need a more concerted lead from the Government based on further and better scientific evidence advice than they have recently received.
Lord Jack of Courance (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a very great honour for me to be standing here today. I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness not only for proposing this debate but for his excellent speech. I agree with every word he said. I also thank my two noble friends who supported me at my introduction, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord McInnes of Kilwinning. To those two noble Lords, the doorkeepers—I am going to do it in reverse order—the Clerk of the Parliaments and, obviously, Black Rod and many others who have given me invaluable assistance and advice, I give my heartfelt thanks.
I think, before I turn to the substance of this debate, it is customary for me to say a few words about my background. I was born and bred in Galloway. I married Ann, a Galloway girl who was my childhood sweetheart, in 1987. We have three grown-up children, all nicely married, and we have three wonderful grandchildren. Between the early 1980s and 2017, I had an entrepreneurial business career, then, through a rush of blood to the head, at a day’s notice, I stood for Dumfries and Galloway, an SNP seat, in the 2017 general election. Five weeks later, I found myself on a train to Euston with a change of career, and I have not regretted a day of it.
On arrival in the Commons, I sat on the Treasury Select Committee, and after that I joined the Whips’ Office. Then in July 2019, I was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland, a role I held for five years and 10 reshuffles, which I think may be a record in its own right. Following my five years in the Scotland Office, I have many reflections on intergovernmental relations and the devolution settlement. During that time, I certainly put out a number of political wildfires, many of them started by my noble friend Lord Gove. However, I will return to those reflections at a future date.
Turning to the substance of this debate, as noted in my register of interest, I am the proud owner of some heathland and moorland in south-west Scotland and, consequently, this is a subject very close to my heart, because we all know that when accidental fires break out in areas of moorland with, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, a large fuel burden, the consequences can be devastating for wildlife, biodiversity and the carbon release if that fire gets down into the peatland.
However, it is a common misconception that muirburn is peat burning. It is not. Muirburn is a cold fire. Your Lordships can go online and watch videos of cold fires going across Mars bars that have been laid in the heather and not damaging them or harming them in any shape or form. That is the point. It is a cold burn. These cold fires preserve the peat. They have the dual purpose of preventing wildfires and creating a mosaic of biodiversity that is quite exceptional.
In conclusion, prevention is the best solution to wildfires, and that comes through land management. That means government taking a sensible approach in terms of rules and regulations and not burdening land managers with unnecessary bureaucracy. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to make these observations, and I look forward to playing my part in the work of your Lordships’ House in future.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this important debate. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jack and to congratulate him on an excellent and most informative maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in future. Looking on the internet this morning, I was delighted to see that my noble friend is a former chairman of the River Annan board—another Scottish river on which I have failed miserably to connect with a fish. I declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers’ Union.
In its wildfire rapid response assessment, the United Nations Environment Programme emphasised the importance of auditing full wildfire costs and investing in planning, prevention and recovery—not just response. This is because the costs of wildfire mitigation and prevention are a fraction of those associated with suppression by the emergency services and the economic and environmental impacts of a wildfire. However, no such systematically collected data exists in the UK, and until the direct and indirect costs of wildfires are understood and recorded, their challenge to humanity will be dangerously overlooked.
The costs go far beyond the obvious direct costs of suppression by the fire services. Wildfires impact our health, close roads to traffic, impact schools and businesses, lead to the evacuation of residential areas, damage our infrastructure and homes, impact our water supplies and water quality, and release carbon and pollutants into the atmosphere while destroying crops and killing wildlife. If they occur on peatland, you can add to that list the loss of stored carbon accumulated over millennia.
All these costs are simply not recorded as a matter of course and are therefore not fully accounted for in the decision-making process. Individual assessments exist, such as the £21 million cost of the health impacts from the Saddleworth Moor wildfire of 2018, due to a 300% increase in PM2.5 levels; the £83.5 million insurance payout in 2022 due to farm fires; and the almost £2 million of publicly funded restoration costs lost in the 2018 wildfire on Saddleworth Moor.
By bringing these diffuse sources together, the Moorland Association has estimated that, to date, wildfires have cost the UK more than £350 million in 2025, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said—the same amount of money that the Government committed in 2020 to help heavy industry reduce carbon emissions. These costs are a potential avoided loss if wildfire policy is focused on mitigation through managing the fuel load.
I must point out that moorland management, including controlled and specific moor burn carried out by highly trained and skilled gamekeepers, plays a vital role in the prevention and control of wildfires, as was seriously demonstrated in my area of the Peak District earlier this year. That fact needs to be noted and appreciated by Natural England and others.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am delighted—and surprised—to say that I agreed with a lot of what the noble Earl said in his opening speech. I congratulate him on bringing this topic here. He is absolutely right that wildfires are a natural phenomenon, but the current year is on track to be the worst on record. They used to be a rare occurrence but are becoming much more common. This is due to a combination of factors, including dry and windy weather conditions, abundant vegetation from damp winters, and, of course, the impact of climate change.
The Government need a plan—a strategy. They need practical solutions as well as some answers to practical questions. For example, are the fire services ready and able to deal with wildfires? Do they know the best way of doing it in each circumstance, including the urban/rural divide? Do they have the spare capacity if they need it?
The best way to strengthen our resilience to wildfires is to restore and strengthen our native ecosystems. The problem is that we have some inherent invested practices here in Britain that make it much more difficult to protect our own ecosystems, such as shooting. For example, we have had endless promises about stopping the use of lead bullets. They are highly poisonous and toxic to people, especially if you eat them in pheasants. We have to stop it—and we also have to stop the practice of pheasant shooting altogether. There should be no hunting in Britain; it is a selfish and senseless way of behaving.
For example, the millions of pheasant chicks imported into the UK every year have a detrimental effect on our native ecosystems, wrecking our wildlife as they out-compete native UK birds. Hawks are being shot by gamekeepers, and the chicks of the game birds are put into crowded battery-cage conditions then sent all across the UK to be shot.
It is inherent in our country that people like nature. I know that Labour does not entirely get the concept of nature, but it is important to support and strengthen it. It is obvious that we must act to preserve our peatlands and woodlands without deliberately contributing to their deterioration; the Government must adopt very effective strategies.
I point out that, in this debate of 12 speakers, we have four Earls and only two women; it strikes me that this is quite typical of your Lordships’ House. How we will miss our Earls.
Lord Gove (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to have been chosen to join this House. I am deeply grateful for the support and kindness that I have received since I arrived. In particular, I thank my supporters, my noble friends Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lady Finn. I also thank the staff of the House: Black Rod, Garter King of Arms and, in particular, the staff of the Library and the doorkeepers, who have given me invaluable assistance since I arrived.
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for introducing this debate. Like me, as he referred to earlier, he is a teuchter from Aberdeenshire. He spoke with considerable authority and expertise about a cause close to many of our hearts: making sure that our environment can be preserved and enhanced for future generations.
I come to this House having served an apprenticeship of 19 years in the other place, during which time I spent 13 years as a Minister. I regard this as inadequate preparation for joining this House because, during my time as a Minister, I learned that respect for your Lordships’ House was a precondition of achieving anything in politics. The collective expertise, across party and of no parties, which the House of Lords provides is a huge asset to our constitution; the voices raised and points made in this House undoubtedly enhance the quality of governance that the people of the United Kingdom enjoy.
I am very glad to be speaking in this debate, not just because my noble friend Lord Caithness has devoted time both in government and on the Back Benches to enhancing our environment but because the vital issue of ensuring that we, first, prevent and, secondly, mitigate the impact of wildfires goes to the heart of a series of environmental questions that we face.
In the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Jack, we saw two apparently conflicting but, to my mind, overlapping points. The plea that I would like to make in this speech is a plea for understanding—understanding of the importance of making sure that our peatland and moorland landscapes are protected, but also understanding between what are sometimes seen as warring interests. Whether it is the Moorland Association, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust or the many environmental NGOs that sometimes find themselves disagreeing just a little with one lobby or another, all have a shared interest in making sure that we hand on our environment, in what has become a very nature-depleted nation, in a better state to the next generation. That was my mission during my brief time as Environment Secretary. During my time in this House, I hope to work across parties to ensure that we enhance our natural environment, our built environment and the environment that we leave to the next generation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to welcome the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Gove and Lord Jack of Courance. They have made extremely important contributions to the work of Conservative Governments over the last 10 to 15 years. It was a pleasure to work with my noble friend Lord Gove when I was the Chief Whip and he brought forward an important Education Bill. There is an old saying: once a Whip, always a Whip. Having been Conservative Chief Whip in this House, both in opposition and in government, I can fairly say that I will be very keenly watching my noble friends to see what their contributions to this House will be. I anticipate that they will keep us not only very interested but very well informed.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this short debate. He has made it clear: wildfires can harm people, property, ecosystems and the environment. The timing of his debate is particularly helpful, since it gives us the opportunity to follow up on questions raised in the Chamber a month ago which the Minister was not in a position to answer then. He courteously gave a commitment to follow up on the questions, so I would be grateful if he could assist by responding to two of them today.
His noble friend Lady Ritchie asked whether the Minister had had conversations with the devolved nations and regions about wildfire prevention and mitigation. He committed to conversations with his relevant counterparts in the devolved departments—he mentioned those in Northern Ireland in particular—to find out how the Government could do things more collaboratively. What progress has been made on that? My noble friend Lord McLoughlin asked whether the Government had considered banning disposable barbecues. The Minister said that my noble friend had made a strong argument and that he would take the issue away and reflect on it. What are the results of that?
During the Whitsun Recess, I spent a family holiday on the south coast at Camber Sands. I noticed that Rother District Council had installed signs at the entrances to paths leading through the dunes to the beach banning both fires and barbecues—not just disposable barbecues but all of them. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to promote public awareness of the dangers of lighting fires or barbecues both in the countryside and at the seaside? Has he met representatives of local authorities to encourage a co-ordinated approach to these dangers?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I often walk in the hills—I love them—and the heather, so I have frequently thought about this. In the old days, you would normally find firebreaks burned into them. The trouble is that there has been a big movement from a lot of people who do not really know much about the hills or heather, but because they did an environmental course somewhere, they reckon that all the carbon will be locked up in the peat below. However, the point about burning the heather in strips to get a firebreak is that it has to be of a sufficient width.
Two things have to be done. First, you do the burn in winter. It is a cool burn, and therefore does not burn the roots below and does not touch the peat—it must not, because you want these things to reshoot again. You then have a lot of tall rank heather in which birds can hide and, next to that, new, fresh and regenerated growth of young shoots and insect life on which the birds can feed. If a raptor comes over, it can then shoot inside the cover. That is how it works, and people have known it for years.
Interestingly enough, I was chatting to a gamekeeper on a moor who said something quite funny. Some people from the Environment Agency or somewhere had decided to come out to see the heather themselves and wanted a tour. He took them up and showed them some heather that they had burned two years earlier. There was some lovely growth, and they said, “God, this is just what we want. How can we get this? This is what we need”. He showed them the other part and asked, “Well, have you looked over here?” They said, “Oh God, that’s terrible. It’s all dark and rank, and there is no life under it at all”. What they were looking at was the effect of a proper heather burn. It encourages the wildlife and does not go down into the peat—that is the whole point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jack, mentioned the Mars bar test, which is famous because the burn would not melt one. If you put it just under the surface litter, you would see that the surface litter has not burned and nor has the Mars bar melted. That proves that it is not touching the peat. In contrast, a wildfire goes down into and burns up a lot of the peat; it will be a long time—possibly a century or two—before that is regenerated through normal peat growth.
What is being touted at the moment is completely the wrong way round, because of the lack of understanding from dogmatic people who say, “It is just about trying to shoot grouse”. It is not; it is also about maintaining the countryside, the heather and the hills.
The people who have lived and worked there for generations know what they are doing. It is about time someone listened to and took advice from them, rather than from some expert who has done a brief environmental course and borrowed a pair of green wellies to do a farm walk then writes lots of stuff about this. What they need to do is read the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s work on these sorts of things because it is a charity that does its research regardless of fear or favour; basically, I recommend it to those who are trying to control these things.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on bringing this debate forward. I also congratulate my noble friends Lord Jack and Lord Gove on their excellent maiden speeches. It was a particular joy to serve alongside them in Cabinet—I actually mean that—and I am sure that they will add enormously to the expertise in your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords have highlighted their own experiences of wildfires domestically and of dealing with them, but I want to draw on an international example that I believe provides some learnings. A few years ago, I went to Seattle to attend a clean energy conference. We flew in overnight and, even from tens of thousands of feet in the air, as you looked out of the aircraft window, you could literally see the ground on fire down in Washington state below. At the time, terrible wildfires were raging across the state; as the plane drew lower, you could make out huge patches of forest on fire. I do not exaggerate when I say that it felt to me like looking into the jaws of hell. When we landed, we experienced the acrid smell generated by the wildfires and pollution; it hung like a heavy, choking cloak in the air.
I met some of the politicians and officials in the state government who were tasked with tackling these wildfires. They told me that, over the years, the fires have become more frequent and ferocious. One of the key learnings was effective preparedness: investing in equipment such as bulldozers and excavators; fitting aircraft with infra-red sensors and fire-mapping technology; recruiting more firefighters; sharing their learnings with other states prone to wildfires; and having in place equipment-sharing agreements with those states as well.
Of course, the wildfires that we experience in the UK are generally not as severe as those in North America—at least, so far—but, as we have heard in this debate, their frequency is on the rise and climate change is making things worse. I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to climate action more generally and to sticking with the aim of achieving net zero by 2050. I also welcome the Climate Change Committee’s progress report on adaptation from earlier this year, which called on the Government to create and implement a cross-departmental strategy with external shareholders in order to identify and mitigate the risks of wildfires.
I believe that this strategy should include an international component, with UK specialist wildfire experts learning and sharing effective mitigation actions, as well as training jointly with their counterparts in other nations, so that we can help each other when needed. That is currently happening across some jurisdictions. I also think that we need a national wildfire-fighting equipment asset register to allow for more effective sharing of resources across the country when they are needed. I look forward to the Minister’s feedback on these suggestions.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to take part in this debate; I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing it. I am a born-and-bred Londoner. Wildfires are not really an issue there, except that things have now become so bad that the urban-rural interface encroaches on London; this led to the London Fire Brigade’s busiest day since the Second World War, which has already been spoken about.
As we know, almost all wildfires in the UK are the result of incidental or deliberate acts by humans and have devastating impacts on local communities and wildlife. This issue was brought to my attention by residents near where I live in Essex, who have suffered greatly from fires. In 2022, Wennington was the scene of a wildfire that burned down 18 houses; at its peak, an area of more than 100 acres was ablaze. Some residents had their homes and all their worldly possessions completely destroyed.
There are various theories about the cause of that wildfire. One that many of the residents believe is that embers from a fire at the nearby Arnolds Field might have started the blaze. Under Arnolds Field are tonnes of years-old, illegally dumped toxic waste. It has been smouldering beneath the surface for decades; the site is now referred to locally as the Rainham volcano. Despite the slightly funny name, this is no laughing matter. The odour from the smoke emanating from the site has been the cause of misery to residents for several years. It has real-life impacts. Throughout the summer, the residents have to keep their doors and windows closed to prevent them choking on the fumes and smoke coming from the site.
However, these measures are not enough to keep residents from feeling the effects. One resident, Ms Pauline Claridge, has lived in Rainham for 15 years and was sadly diagnosed with asthma nine years ago and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease emphysema about five years ago. She believes that her breathing has become worse because of the smoke emanating from these fires.
There is a continuing saga of blame being passed around: the local council is not the landowner, so it thinks the landowner should take charge; meanwhile, the landowner believes that the Mayor of London should take charge. The locals believe that somebody should take charge, because they are suffering. I urge the Minister to write to me so that I can go back to those residents, as they want to know who will take charge of this case. I ask him to take particular note of the Rainham volcano and to learn why the Mayor of London, the local council or the landowner cannot prevent these fires happening and remove the site.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for bringing it and for his excellent speech. Having recently asked an Oral Question on this matter, I am particularly grateful for the Government’s wildfire strategy and action plan.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jack, not just on surviving 10 reshuffles but on putting out the fires of the noble Lord, Lord Gove. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gove, on successfully passing his apprenticeship. I welcome both to the House and wish them well.
Climate change is undoubtedly the primary driver of the increasing wildfire risk. To date we have been lucky, but we cannot continue to rely on our good fortune. Urgent action is required: we need joined-up plans, dedicated funding and equipment, improved public education, and nature-based land management solutions.
I pay tribute to our fire and rescue services, which are increasingly also our climate change emergency response services. We need to recognise the scale of the challenge and the lack of time we have to prepare. Met Office modelling says that we will have twice the number of summer days with dangerous weather conditions for fire, at under 2 degrees of warming. Extreme weather cycles are adding to the fuel loads that noble Lords have discussed: wet weather increasing growth, followed by extreme dryness and heat creating fuel for fire.
The Climate Change Committee, too, is clear and unequivocal that wildfires are more likely and will become more extreme. The year 2025 is no exception; more than 113 square miles have already been burnt. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness said, that is equivalent to the size of the Isle of Wight. Wildfires are devastating on so many levels. They are devastating to people and property, they are brutal to our biodiversity and they are a direct threat to our net-zero efforts. They kill organisms, alter habitats and release vast amounts of carbon.
We need more considered delivery and comprehensive policies and action plans. Can the Minister provide a clear update on when the strategy and action plan will be delivered? Does he agree that we need better joined-up thinking, not just between departments but between our different regions and nations? That collaboration is essential.
The National Fire Chiefs Council is clear that we are not prepared. Does the Minister agree that we need long-term sustainable investment and that our firefighters need specialist equipment to put out the fires? Do the Government agree that we need a single agreed definition of wildfires, so that we can best track them and find the solutions that we need?
These matters are urgent and critical. We have been lucky to date, but we cannot continue to survive on our luck alone.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for securing this debate on government action on wildfires. I am sure he is also grateful for the attention that this debate has attracted.
It is a pleasure to hear the maiden contributions of my noble friends Lord Jack of Courance and Lord Gove. Both bring exceptional experience, ability and knowledge to this House and will be enormous assets to its work. My noble friend Lord Jack has also helpfully highlighted their ability to work together.
In the brief time available, I turn to the subject of today’s debate. In doing so, I bring the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests, particularly ownership of unenclosed land used for grazing in Dartmoor National Park and in the Flow Country of Sutherland, both of which are adjacent to the scenes of devastating wildfires over the past few years.
I agree with my noble friends that our current Natural England management regime is often too restrictive on managed burning and, in many cases, prevents a practice that is beneficial to reducing fuel loads and creating firebreaks, an important cycle that allows vibrant regrowth and food sources for our native wildlife. Peatland restoration or rewetting is not the only answer, being applicable to a minority of uplands, and even there it offers only partial protection against wildfires. In drought, when peatland dries out, it becomes porous and very vulnerable to fire.
Will the Minister take this debate to his ministerial colleagues in Defra to reassess the role of Natural England in restricting controlled burning, with the result that fuel load is building to increasingly dangerous levels in our upland landscape at a time when climate change is sharply increasing the occurrence of wildfires? Natural England has no statutory responsibility for wildfire, yet it is being allowed to take decisions that have a direct impact on wildfire risk. As other noble Lords have highlighted, decisions in this area need to rely on science, not opinion.
Will the Government consider proactive measures, such as organising financial incentives from the beneficiaries of reducing wildfires—insurers and infrastructure and property owners—to fund land managers to create firebreaks and manage fuel load to reduce the extent and intensity of these fires?
In closing, I thank the members of fire and rescue services, gamekeepers, farmers, rangers and wardens who put their own safety at risk to protect infrastructure, property and lives from these devastating wildfires.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to stand before you today to address the important topic of wildfire risk and the devastating impacts that wildfires can have on our communities. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for raising this important debate and for his invaluable insight in this area. I also welcome the noble Lords, Lord Jack of Courance and Lord Gove, to their places and thank them for their valued maiden contributions, especially in the light of the time restriction of only three minutes.
Before I go further, however, this weekend marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I know our thoughts are with the bereaved families, survivors and residents as they remember those who lost their lives. The Grenfell Tower inquiry has laid bare system failures, held government and industry to account and is now laying the foundation for urgent reform. We are determined to ensure that no community ever again suffers the way it has.
I also pay tribute to two firefighters, Jennie Logan and Martyn Sadler, who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty last month in Oxfordshire alongside Dave Chester, a member of the public. Two other firefighters were hospitalised in the same incident. My thoughts are with the families, friends and colleagues who have been impacted by this tragic event. Firefighters and wider fire and rescue service workers act with incredible dedication and bravery every day to protect the public. They will always have our deepest respect and gratitude.
Such events bring the risk we have been discussing into sharp focus, not least as outdoor fires, including wildfires, are expected by many academics to increase in frequency and impact in the future, predominantly driven by climate change. We saw this in 2022, the UK’s hottest year on record, which saw more than 20,000 hectares of land in England burned, the destruction of more than 70 properties across the UK and at least 14 fire and rescue services declaring major incidents in their areas as they responded to numerous concurrent wildfires across the country.
This Government are committed to reducing this risk alongside mitigating the impacts they cause. Preparing for the future means not only tackling climate and nature emergencies but adapting to the changes they will bring to our environment. I recognise that wildfire is a complex area that cuts across many areas of interest and responsibilities. While my department, MHCLG, is the lead government department for this risk, we are reliant upon the good work of our partners. They include Defra and its agencies as well as the land management and fire sectors. We are also working with the devolved Administrations and fire services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need to continue and build our close working arrangements to share best practice learning on tackling wildfires effectively. It is vital that we take a co-ordinated approach to this risk, working in lockstep with our partners to prevent and mitigate the impact on people, property, habitats, livestock, natural capital and wildlife effectively.
To directly answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I have asked the relevant Minister, Alex Norris, to meet with devolved departments. There is no proposal, in addition to the question, to ban the barbecue, but the Local Government Minister and officials are already talking to local government officials.
This Government understand the risks and complexities of this area, which is why my officials have been undertaking extensive engagement with stakeholders to identify policy options to enhance our resilience and responses to the wildfires. This has informed a comprehensive policy-scoping report to inform next steps.
Fire and rescue services are actively preparing for wildfires, as they are required to plan for the foreseeable risks in their area through their community risk management plans. These plans also have regard to the views of other key local responders. Following the events of 2022, the National Fire Chiefs Council—NFCC—has worked to extract learning and good practice from the incidents attended, with a view to shaping the future of wildfire prevention, community education and response. The NFCC is progressing actions that emerged from this, including improvements to training, national resilience and operational response. In 2024, the Government took an additional step by funding a national resilience wildfire adviser. This role is an operational role within the fire services, focused on evaluating what further national capabilities are needed to boost resilience against wildfires and ensure that efforts across the sector are well co-ordinated.
I move to some of the points raised in the debate, starting off with that from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about definition, which was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Government are committed to ensuring that we continue to improve the data collected on wildfires. This will be invaluable in shaping future advice and policy decisions in this space. At present, operational data on wildfires that is collected by the national resilience reporting tool, while a good proxy, cannot be used as an official statistic, as it may be incomplete or inaccurate and is gathered primarily to inform incident response. Improvements are being driven through the introduction of the new fire and rescue data platform—a new incident reporting tool used by fire and rescue services. This will introduce a formal definition of a wildfire, which will enable the Government to collect official data on the number of incidents and publish official statistics.
The noble Earl said that no decision should be made until we have the science available. The Government are alive to this evolving risk, and we are committed to putting in place the necessary measures to mitigate the impacts while driving forward the UK’s resilience and response to the wildfires.
To reassure the noble Earl on the issue of consultation, general consultations generally run between four and 12 weeks as good practice. The eight-week consultation on the proposed changes to the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 has now closed. Defra is analysing the feedback, which will be used to inform next steps.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jack, talked about land management. As many of your Lordships know, Defra has responsibility for the promotion of wildfire mitigation and adaptation planning to land managers. This is set out in more detail within the wildfire framework for England. Defra colleagues highlight that landowners and land managers are encouraged to adopt good quality wildfire management plans, and use sustainable methods to manage habitat and restore their peatland, as evidence shows—although not conclusively everywhere around the world—that wetter, healthy-functioning peatlands are more resilient to the impacts of wildfire.
I will not look to speak too much on behalf of another department, and I know that the noble Earl has some concerns and reflections, which I will pass on to Defra colleagues, but I am also aware of how important this issue is to Defra across its range of responsibilities. I thank the people there for their invaluable contributions to the wildfire scoping work to date, and my department looks forward to continuing to work with Defra colleagues on this issue.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I return to the point about barbecues. The Government have taken lessons from the devastation we saw during the 2022 wildfire season, working across departments to increase the prominence of wildfire messaging to the public. This included developing government social media messaging around periods of high wildfire risk and including wildfire as part of the Cabinet Office’s newly developed resilience website.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, who speaks with great expertise on climate change, that this Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is working with international partners to address wildfire risks. This includes through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. The Government encourage more exchanges on wildfire preparation, prevention, response and recovery, including through initiatives such as the Global Fire Management Hub established by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN Environment Programme. The hub brings key partners together to share best practice principles and create greater consistency in wildfire response. The noble Lord asked us to reflect further, and I will do so with my officials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about national resilience and capability, which is a very important issue. The Government are committed to ensuring that fire and rescue services can draw on national life-saving capabilities, enabling them to respond effectively to large-scale or critical incidents. It is for this reason that the department funds the national resilience specialist capabilities, ensuring that national assets such as urban search and rescue, high volume pumps and CBRN decontamination are strategically located across the country for times of need. In 2024-25, the grant to all fire and rescue services hosting this equipment amounted to £17.9 million. In addition, the department funds the national resilience lead authority in Merseyside with a grant amounting to £16.6 million for 2024-25. For this, it delivers a key range of services, including capability assurance and specialist training.
A number of noble Lords alluded to Natural England. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked a question during our recent debate in the Chamber on the wildfire strategy and action plan. I took away an action to engage Natural England on its use of scientific advice when advising NGOs and other landowners on the risk of wildfire. I was pleased to confirm to the noble Earl that Natural England utilises the latest scientific advice as part of these activities. This is set out in its overarching science, evidence and evaluation strategy. Natural England’s science and evidence work involves assembling and commissioning such advice, then using it to underpin advice, decisions and actions. The strategy also helps to embed and promote its evidence standard.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. Wildfire is a topic that arouses strong emotions. It is part of a range of climate risks we need to adapt to in order to protect our future. I recognise the level of concern out there. We are seeing it in myriad other areas, whether that is flooding or more extreme weather events, or in the impact of global warming on wider geopolitics and the movement of people.
This Government recognise the challenges and welcome the spotlight from this debate. I believe that with the right actions and the right collaboration we can make a difference to how our country manages wildfire, both now and into the future. This will not be an easy task, but we are committed to working through these challenges with our partners. To do this, we will need to take an approach that improves our resilience and reduces the impacts from wildfires, driven through enhanced integration between stakeholders.
We have made good progress in driving improvements in data collection to address gaps; in the way we issue public communications to protect life and property; and in providing funding for a national resilience wildfire adviser in the fire service. The policy scoping work is exploring where we can go further and how we can better work across divides. This is a vital area that I am proud to be delivering. I thank again the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for initiating this important debate, and all other noble Lords for their invaluable contributions.