Water Industry Reform
Lord Haskel Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reform the United Kingdom’s water industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, this Government have made improving water quality a priority and have introduced reforms to enable that. The Environment Act has modernised water resource planning, introduced new duties to reduce storm overflow discharges, and made drainage planning statutory. The draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat has set a new course so that the industry can deliver more for the environment, customers and the climate. If we do not see improvements, we will take further action.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Environment Act. This Act is ineffective because it has no set timetable or targets to clean up our water. There has been a stream of reports calling for action, all of which call for infrastructure investment by the water companies and for more action and less complacency from the regulator. But, after increasing dividends and company debt, most water companies are in no position to carry out the necessary investment. Indeed, one industry executive said that the water companies were spending more on maintaining their assets, which are deteriorating, rather than replacing them. Does the Minister agree that this situation is a danger to public health and risks creating our very own homegrown pandemic?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Water companies have invested £160 billion in a modernised infrastructure. I disagree with the noble Lord about the Environment Act; it sets out a very clear direction of travel for water companies and others to clean up our waterways. But I refer him to the strategic policy statement to Ofwat. It has been released in draft and will be laid before the House in the next few weeks, and it will add to it targets for improvement.
UK Shellfish Exports
Lord Haskel Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Secretary of State has written to Commissioner Kyriakides in a very friendly and a constructive spirit. This issue relates to undepurated live bivalve molluscs and we are now addressing it. I hope that the discussions will resolve this matter so that this important trade can be resumed. It is important for exports; it is also important to all those businesses on the continent that have set up depuration outlets because they wish to be close to the final destination market. I think that this is where discussions with the EU will be very important.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Food Supply and Security
Lord Haskel Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until a convenient point after 4.30 pm for the Question for Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Haskel Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, we all know that the impact of Brexit on our economy, deal or no deal, is bad. It is because of this, we must strengthen our economy economically and socially to withstand the impact. Both are needed to unite our divided country and build a better future. I welcome some of the spending proposals to make up for the austerity cuts, but, as other noble Lords have said, they are gestures. On a per capita basis, only about one-third of the cuts will eventually be restored. That will do little to unite us and deal with growing public resentment at rising inequality and inadequate standards of living. That divides us more and more, and feeds growing populism and resentment.
The Minister was upbeat about the economy. Yes, there is record employment, but there is also record in-work poverty. As many economists have put it, the economic model is not working for us all. I see little in this Queen’s Speech that recognises this, but many in business and industry now do recognise it and seek to rectify it with so-called more responsible capitalism. Indeed, many in business are united with the Labour Party in this objective. This is why many no longer see the Conservatives as the party of business and industry.
Reports from abroad say that many do not recognise Britain for what it was. This weakens trust in our reliability and has an impact on our ability to trade and to make trading agreements. I agree with the Minister: we need to be a country that people want to trade with. I understand that the Government intend to roll over 40 continuity agreements that, through our EU membership, the UK has with 70 third countries. How is that progressing? Far more is at stake than just trade across the frontier with Ireland.
Will Parliament scrutinise these future trade agreements? As said in debates in this House, this is important because trade affects a broad swathe of public policies, such as consumers’ rights, workers’ rights, the environment, standards in food and health and especially public services. We want a level playing field with high standards not the race to the bottom that the PM promised an American audience.
In spite of what the Minister says, this weakening of trust in our reliability has affected inward investment. I mean the valuable investment that supports large parts of our business and industry, not the buying up of UK assets with cheap pounds. Proper inward investment has helped improve many parts of our economy with good productivity, skills training and management, and this against the overall picture of static pay and declining productivity painted by many other noble Lords.
Yes, the Prime Minister has spoken about productivity, but in very vague terms. We all know that it is the key to economic growth and a rising standard of living. Apart from infrastructure, I see little in the Queen’s Speech to encourage it. Cutting corporation tax does not seem to work. Experience shows us that in many cases it encourages only higher salaries and dividends and share buybacks. Financial markets are just not recycling dividends into productive new investment. The Government can play an important part in boosting investment and productivity if they just uphold their objectives laid out in Industrial Strategy.
Some question the way we measure productivity. However we measure it, our productivity is well short of where it should be. Instead of trying to explain that away, the Government should encourage us to change the way we run our businesses. Indeed, it is often clever accounting rather than real economic activity that is measured, and that creates resentment. Limiting levels of debt and dividends is a major concern of the IMF, and the regulator is trying to do that in the water industry. Why not extend it? It could have avoided the need to repatriate 160,000 Thomas Cook customers.
Many businesses are conscious of this and are trying to raise standards of behaviour through schemes such as Blueprint for Better Business and Be the Business. The British Standards Institution too has been hard at work devising a new standard that lays out many of the features of a well-run, responsible and trustworthy business and invites companies large and small to satisfy that standard. Not for the first time, I ask the Government: will they will support these initiatives and perhaps make this standard a condition of public procurement? I know that a number of local authorities are looking at this, and I believe it will be an important step in restoring fairness and public trust in our businesses and maintaining a level playing field. It will also be an important feature in making our economy more competitive by opening markets that are dominated by large companies to smaller and newer businesses.
Many noble Lords have spoken about climate change. The Governor of the Bank of England thinks that business must agree to rules of reporting it within the next couple of years. Otherwise, will they be imposed? Under the new Bill, will companies have to report on compliance with UK carbon budgets? Will it include emissions from shipping and aviation?
Brexit has already taken quite a toll, economically and socially, and more is to come. It will not be made up by economic promises; it will be done by engaging with the issues that make our economy work. Making the economy work for us all is an objective that is absent from the Queen’s Speech.
Air Quality
Lord Haskel Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I think that what my noble friend has said is really important. We are working with local authorities and businesses. One thing we all have to wrestle with is how to manage our lives differently in terms of the things we do and air pollution. Whether it is particulate matter with domestic wood and coal burning, there is a range of things we are all going to have to address. I agree with my noble friend that more needs to be done. With the Department of Health, on things like awareness of air pollution events, we need to ensure that vulnerable people are safer. All these are important points, but the work we are doing and that we need to do in collaboration is urgent and we need to get on with it.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s proposal to satisfy the judge means air quality will not comply with EU limits until 2028. I am not sure that everybody else would agree with the judge that that is reasonable. I draw the Minister’s attention to the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee which came out today, and I declare an interest as a member of that committee. The committee is very concerned about the oversight and enforcement of these regulations, and it draws attention to the fact that the SI speaks of a new “advise and challenge” body. How will the Government enforce this and ensure that there is oversight of whether these targets are met?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this is a joint venture between government and local authorities to achieve the requirements that have been set for us in terms of EU compliance and, obviously, continued compliance following our departure. Of the 33 areas—this is the area where the judgment came in, where we are required to direct the local authorities—as I have enumerated, the plan is for all 33 of them to be compliant by 2021.
Water Bill
Lord Haskel Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for providing a comprehensive solution to the issue of exit, for tabling these amendments and for his clear explanation of the Government’s intent. While the legislative drafting is more extensive than some of us had anticipated, these amendments achieve the desired effect of facilitating a clearer framework for competition. Additionally, the greater transparency on cost allocation that such a voluntary transfer mechanism brings will help to ensure that the incumbent companies are less able to adjust their cost allocations to the detriment of household customers.
This transparency is fundamental to effective economic regulation and the policing of effective markets. It will allow companies to organise their businesses in the way that they consider to be in the best interests of their shareholders and indeed their customers. Allowing exit to occur voluntarily, as confirmed by the Minister, will allow transfer mechanisms to enable more competitive third parties to enter the non-household water and sewerage retail market to the benefit of business customers, as has proved to be the case in Scotland. Above all, as demonstrated by both Oxera and Macquarie, exit will save customers unnecessary cost.
I am very grateful to the Government for confirming today that they will now consult fully on safeguards, consulting particularly with those who represent the interests of the customers, given that the powers granted through these amendments confirm the opportunity, not the obligation, for incumbent water and sewerage companies to propose transfer schemes to the Secretary of State for his consideration.
As tabled, the amendments place a considerable degree of power in the hands of Ministers, notably to adjust the powers and duties of key industry stakeholders, including Ofwat. While this could be problematic were the powers to be used to their full extent, I am confident from what the Minister has said that there is absolutely no intention to undermine the freedom of manoeuvre of the regulator.
With the clauses soon to be in the Bill, I hope, it will be important to enter into constructive discussion and engagement in order to consult widely and urgently to meet what I hope will be the reasonable deadline of market opening in 2017. I also agree with noble Lords who emphasised at an earlier stage that it is also very important to secure customer protection on retail exit.
I hope that the amendments will be welcomed on all sides of the House and by all those who have taken part in the debates over exit, with the request that the Government will give a firm and unequivocal commitment to using their new powers to facilitate efficient and orderly market entry and exit. If so, the benefits will be considerable for business customers. Once this House, in future legislation, has the opportunity to review the working of the market for business customers, I hope that it will not subsequently hesitate to move forward to deliver competition to the household sector as well.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? It is quite critical of these amendments. The committee found that the amendments were prepared in a hurry, and was particularly concerned that the procedure should have a strengthened affirmative procedure. I was not sure from the Minister’s introduction whether he was giving an undertaking that this would be so, or indeed whether he accepts this recommendation from the committee. The committee also found that the powers are conferred in rather permissive terms and, where regulations must make provision, the committee suggested that the regulations should be required to make provision. Again, I did not quite gather from the Minister’s introductory words whether he had taken these recommendations on board.
Food: Food Banks
Lord Haskel Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the request by the Executive Chairman of the Trussell Trust for an inquiry into the causes of food poverty and the incidence of the usage of food banks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the good work of organisations that redistribute surplus food to those who might otherwise struggle to access nutritional meals. However, the root causes of household food insecurity are varied and complex. We are not proposing to record the number of food banks or the potential number of people using them or other types of food aid. To do so would place unnecessary burdens on volunteers trying to help their communities.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday I visited the Trussell food bank in Richmond—the third wealthiest place in the country. There the food bank distributes a tonne of food a month, up 60% on the year, to people referred to it from 40 agencies, many of them associated with the Minister’s department. Is the Minister content to leave it to charity to feed thousands of people who fall through the cracks of his department? Does the Minister agree that this food poverty must not—cannot—go on? How will the Government bring it to an end?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the gist of the noble Lord’s question was whether the Government think that it is okay to rely on the voluntary sector. The answer is no. The Government recognise the good work of charitable organisations that redistribute surplus food, but the Government also have a role. It is not the Government’s role to set prices, but we work to promote open and competitive markets that help to offer the best prices to consumers. Through Healthy Start and other initiatives, we provide a nutritional safety net in a way that encourages healthy eating among more than 500,000 pregnant women and children under four years old in very low-income and disadvantaged families throughout the UK.
Clothing Industry: Ethical and Sustainable Fashion
Lord Haskel Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness not only on securing this debate but on the work that she has done in support of ethical clothing over many years. She is absolutely right to support ethical clothing. Ethical consumerism and sustainability in the textile industry is something that we should all support. As she indicated, it is an issue which gets support from some of the big players in the industry—for example, Levi Strauss; the Government, with their sustainable clothing map; and ethical retailers such as Marks & Spencer. But that support is often expressed more in word than in deed. In addition, although the support is passionate, it is also fragmented and unco-ordinated.
The reason is that this idea has many powerful forces and interests ranged against it. Thanks to the Government’s failure to give us any kind of hope for growth, the consumer of fashion has to grapple with increased VAT, higher fuel and food prices and concerns about employment, with little hope of the return to better times. Indeed, earlier this week the Governor of the Bank of England told a committee in the other place that the good times may never return. These conditions mean that price, speed, turnover and competition must take priority in the fashion industry. Rectitude and reputation take a back seat; and thanks to the attitude of our rescued banks, so does planning and investment for the longer term.
What is to be done? First, the Government have to get their act together and produce an overall green strategy for industry, a strategy that all can support. Until now, we have had only warm words. Environmentally friendly clothing and its disposal must be part of that strategy, and so must sustainable clothing. In Britain we have all the ingredients for this: textile design, textile technology and environmental technology. We even have fabrics that purify the air around them. All this needs is to be brought together as part of our green business strategy. Perhaps it could be part of the platform of the Technology Strategy Board, perhaps as one of the new technology and innovation centres. After all, with increased transport costs, rising raw material prices and rising wages in Asia, some manufacturing is coming back to other parts of the European Union, so why not here, where there is very high consumption? Less disposable and more sustainable clothing has the makings of a stable industry which can produce many jobs.
The talent is here. The Minister does not have to go far to see it on display every summer at the Treasury, where environmentally friendly textiles are enthusiastically exhibited. For the past dozen years, the Textile Institute, of which I have the honour of being a past president, has organised an exhibition of the work of the best students from our leading colleges. All the buyers come because they like the idea of going to the Treasury, or perhaps the attraction is that they get to have a cup of tea on your Lordships’ Terrace with me. But our best students are certainly learning about green and sustainable fashion, so why is it not part of the broader curriculum? As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested, possibly the most environmentally friendly clothing with the least waste is made here—it is made to measure. And what about Government procurement, as the noble Baroness suggested?
Changing our perceptions and our culture is difficult. What we can all do, including the Government, is recognise the need for change and recognise the social, economic, scientific and commercial pressures that make that change necessary, and to acknowledge it and make it part of our overall vision for a sustainable and green future. Ranged against this is a growing scepticism about climate change. Recently I returned from a visit to the United States, and unfortunately that scepticism is particularly apparent there. But you never know. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her cause may get lucky. My local FE college runs an excellent catering course. For many years it was hard to fill, but then a celebrity chef came along. Now even the enlarged course is oversubscribed. So I would say to the noble Baroness: keep plugging away, because the future is on your side. To the Minister I would say: help make it happen, and make it happen here.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I start by answering one question from the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on the Defra website. I am not sure exactly what her concerns are, but I will look at that very carefully and get back to her in due course. I offer my congratulations to all other speakers in this debate, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on introducing it on this subject. Like my noble friend Lord Addington, I faced a certain amount of ribaldry about the fact that I would have to answer such a debate. I do not think—unlike the description given of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin—that I am the sort of person that one would see on the catwalk, and no one would expect to. But when I saw my noble friend the Chief Whip today, decked out in leather and quite a lot of bling—I do not know if other noble Lords saw her—I thought that it might be more appropriate for her to respond to the debate, but she was not prepared to take on that role, and there we are.
There is a lot that I want to say and quite a number of points that I want to address that the noble Baroness and others have raised. I start by offering my congratulations on the work that she has done in trying to put together again an all-party group—I cannot remember if it is a new all-party group or whether it is resurrecting the old one—on this subject. I wish her well on that. I understand that she is hoping to have the first meeting of that group on 16 March—that is what I was advised. That is the day before the next meeting that we have on the sustainable clothing road map, which is right and proper. I hope that those two things can go ahead consecutively on those dates. I offer her my best wishes.
I will run through very quickly some of the noble Baroness’s questions before I get to the main part of my speech. She asked about tax breaks for ethical, green fashion businesses. Noble Lords will know that I will not comment on that because it is more than my job's worth to comment on anything to do with Her Majesty's Treasury, but no doubt it will be passed on to colleagues. She also talked about the important role in terms of government procurement. I was reminded about that when I looked at the obituaries today, which announced the sad death of the last remaining son of the late Monty Burton of Burton the tailors. In that obituary, I was reminded that Burton the tailors provided a third of all uniforms for the British Army during the war and a large number of the demob suits afterwards. Therefore, one is reminded of the importance of the Government as a purchaser in this field. The Government feel that they have an important role to make sure that they get their exemplary action over to others. In Defra, I hope that we can lead that and encourage other government departments to behave in the right way.
The noble Baroness also asked about the supermarket adjudicator. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, commented on it. Again, this is not something that we plan to extend to clothes, but no doubt we will look at the idea that she has put forward in due course. Initial plans for a supermarket adjudicator are related to food, but it is a perfectly valid point and one that should be looked at.
Finally and this again was raised by others, the noble Baroness talked about the problems of cotton and the CAP and the fairly appalling distortions in that. She and others will know that we are in the middle of the process of renegotiating the CAP. Dare I say it, we cannot make any promises about what we will achieve as a result of attempts to reform the CAP, but Her Majesty's Government will be pushing very hard on it and we recognise that there are some fairly major distortions in there, particularly in relation to the production of cotton in Portugal, Spain and, to a much lesser extent, Greece. That is certainly something that Her Majesty's Government should be aware of and will push for.
Economically, the clothing and fashion industry is an important component of national and global economies, as all noble Lords made clear. Textile supply chains are long and complicated. They involve actors from the agricultural, chemical fibre, textile, and apparel industries, the retail and services sector, and—thinking particularly of part of my own department—waste recovery and treatment operations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, historically we had a major textile manufacturing base. As the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, reminded us, 90 per cent of the UK’s clothing is now imported. We have seen a major migration of our textile industry abroad. However, I remind the noble Lord that we still have a considerable clothing manufacturing business even if 90 per cent has gone abroad, and a lot of that is in SMEs and involved in what we might refer to as ethical and sustainable fashion. I note again what he had to say about his ideas, which should be looked at. Those businesses are ones that we should continue to encourage and support.
Our consumption of clothes and textiles and so forth can have positive economic effects on not only our own country's economy but, as was made clear by a number of speakers, a great many developing countries. But alongside those positive effects, there are a wide range of environmental and ethical implications.
Alongside those positive effects, there is a wide range of environmental and ethical implications. Environmentally, we must consider the impact of fibre production all the way through the process, whether the water or the fertiliser—I have been given a figure for the amount of fertiliser used throughout the world on cotton; about 25 per cent of all pesticides go into that. I will correct that figure if I have got it wrong.
We also have to consider the greenhouse gas emissions when fossil fuels are processed into synthetic fibres. As the fibres are made into fabrics, there may be hazardous waste. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the cotton and dyeing industry and the effluents from the dye and finishes.
As noble Lords have reminded us, ethical issues are associated with access to markets, trade terms for producer markets—that is why I wanted to mention the CAP—and concerns about labour conditions in clothing factories, sweatshop conditions and child labour issues.
Once we have bought clothes, there are the significant factors of water, detergents, greenhouse gas emissions associated with washing and drying them, and the waste produced at the end of life. Waste issues are close to my department. They have hit the headlines recently. Concerns about the impact of fast fashion are well founded. I was given an interesting statistic earlier. We buy about 2 million tonnes of clothing a year and discard about 1 million tonnes. It seems to me that our wardrobes are growing at an unsustainable rate, but I ask all noble Lords and Ladies to look at their wardrobes to see what is happening. Where are the clothes going?
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, rightly referred to the sustainable clothing road map, which was established in 2007. It is a concerted effort by the whole clothing supply chain to understand and address its environmental and ethical impact. The road map provides a platform for sharing evidence and industry best practice to help catalyse change throughout the sector. From the evidence, the road map has prioritised certain hotspot areas where business can act to reduce the environmental and ethical impact of its clothing. The road map has produced an action plan under which more than 40 organisations, throughout the lifespan of clothing manufacture, retail and disposal, have committed themselves to specific actions to reduce their impact. A large number of big high street names are involved—Nike, Tesco, Adidas. I add that it involves not just big retail but people such as the Salvation Army, the Textile Recycling Association and Oxfam, because they have a role in disposal—reuse—which comes very high up in our waste hierarchy, because it is obviously far better to reuse or recycle clothes than to send them to landfill.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who I think asked about education, that the Salvation Army is committed to the educative process of encouraging people to think of recycling and re-use and, as she put it, repair of clothing rather than throwing it out. People of my father's generation were even taught how to darn socks. I have never learnt that art and, I fear, now tend to throw out socks, but a different generation did different things. Within Defra, we have funded evidence projects on emerging fibres, reuse and recycling of clothes, clothes cleaning and the public understanding of sustainable clothing, and we will do more where appropriate.
I am now getting warning signs from my colleagues, but I should talk a little about what other government departments are doing, because DfID did considerable work when it recently launched its RAGS programme—that is the responsible and accountable garment sector challenge fund, which is a £3 million fund which supports projects aimed at improving the conditions of vulnerable workers in the ready-made garment production industries overseas. The fund is aimed at workers in low-income countries that supply the United Kingdom market such as India, Bangladesh, and a certain number of countries in Africa.
I can also mention the ethical trading initiative, supported by DfID, which drives practical action on better working conditions in the supply chains of its companies. It has brought businesses, trade unions and non-governmental organisations together to tackle poor working conditions. Some 60 companies in the United Kingdom are now members making progress in this initiative.
I could go on; there is much that I would like to say if the time were available. I am trying to assure you that we are doing our bit and that we will continue to work in all these funds. I look forward to the next meeting, on 17 March, on the sustainable clothing road map, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be involved in that.
Lord Haskel
Before the Minister sits down, could he tell us what percentage of clothing—
Queen's Speech
Lord Haskel Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I, too, congratulate noble Lords opposite. I wish them every success. I also welcome the fact that a new generation has taken over. This is particularly apparent to me because the people with the real power in this Government are the same age as my children. Of course, it is absolutely right that a new generation should take over but there is one thing that worries me. My children and their friends hardly seem to be able to organise themselves, never mind organise the country, so the more mature members of the Government—such as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who opened this debate with such skill—will have to practise both ministerial and other skills. Indeed, her magic is already working. Instead of fighting each other, the boys and their gangs are playing together. This calms everybody down—especially those who do not really want to play because they do not like the rules—so well done there.
Today’s debate is about business and economics, and I start with the politics of this. When we last had a Conservative Government—when I first came into your Lordships’ House—we were told that we had to choose between a strong economy and a fair society. The two were mutually exclusive. It was John Smith and new Labour that turned that argument on its head, and for 13 years we had a Government who believed in a strong economy and a fair society going hand in hand. Indeed, that is what brought me into politics, and that is why under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown this country has become more prosperous, better educated and a healthier, nicer, more tolerant and greener place to live. I say to my noble friend Lord Myners: yes, I am proud of that. However, what I want to know is: will this Government continue with this policy? Even in an age of austerity, it must be right.
Turning to banking, it is wrong to delay action in favour of a technical review. During the election campaign one thing that came over strongly was how angry people are at having to bail out the banks and the effect that that has had on the real economy. The election may have toned it down, but the anger is still there and it will come back with compound interest. Inevitably, that will lead to a sense of betrayal. Wholesale reform is required now, not reviews and tinkering with regulation.
The coalition agreement has quite a lot to say about regulation and red tape. All new Governments start with a promise to cut red tape and regulation, but this Government promise to cut it and introduce new regulation at the same time. On the page of the coalition agreement which promises cuts, we are told that the banking regulatory system will be entirely reformed and bonuses will be regulated. My noble friend Lord Myners spoke about that. We are told that regulators will have new powers to define and ban excessive interest rates on credit cards and other examples are scattered through the document, such as the right to request flexible working and equal pay. I hesitate to ask how all this will operate with the one-in one-out rule, especially when the public use their promised right to challenge regulations. In reality, you have to deal with market failure; that is what you want the citizen to tell you about. Of course, poor and outdated regulation needs to be cut, but the real threat to innovation and enterprise is the absence of competition through unregulated market failure. By concentrating on the populist and ignoring the important, the Government have got this the wrong way round.
Innovation and enterprise brings me to the business section of the coalition agreement, where there are indications of some of the ways in which the Government will help business, but on the overall context within which business operates the paper is silent. Will we continue to be a champion for open markets and, if so, how will we achieve this when we all agree that economic power is moving east? Although these new strong economies have joined the G20 to play by the existing rules, we know that their participation is about writing new rules. Unless those rules create a level playing field, our commitment to being an open market champion could make us very vulnerable. I think we should know what the Government's views are on world trade.
Perhaps the Government do not really care. In spite of their fine words, maybe the Government have no confidence in British business and industry. After all, on page 7 of the coalition agreement, they refer to it as “rubble”. We have many fine businesses in this country—my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya listed some of them—and to refer to them as “rubble” is a disgrace. That is yet another example of this Government's apparent fondness for running down Britain. I am sure that many noble Lords opposite feel rather embarrassed about that. We all go into politics to make a difference and I hope that this coalition will make a difference, not just to the country, but for the country.