Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is absolutely right.

I am delighted that the Government have taken up this small, uncontroversial but nevertheless important Bill. Members who have visited Kew Gardens will know what an extraordinary place it is. With 2 million visitors a year, including 100,000 schoolchildren, the gardens are one of the great wonders of the world. There are stunning landscapes, extraordinary plants and peaceful walks—except when they are punctuated by the noise of aeroplanes flying over, but that is a debate for another day.

Kew is a great deal more than a beautiful garden or a tourist attraction: in addition to hosting the world’s largest collection of living plants, its herbarium contains a collection of more than 7 million plant species. It is an extraordinarily valuable international resource, which is in the process of being digitised, as we have just heard, and made freely available worldwide. Kew Gardens is at the forefront, the cutting edge, of international plant science, which is crucial in providing a response to the existential threats of climate change, antimicrobial resistance, and diseases such as cancer, diabetes and more. Kew is simply a priceless national asset, and we should be doing everything we can to support it.

That brings me to the Bill. Very briefly, let me say that I first brought it to this House as a ten-minute rule Bill in January of last year, following similar efforts by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and by my friend Lord True in the other place. Unfortunately, it was blocked, I think, nine times by a friendly colleague on the Government Benches. I want to repeat my thanks to Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their decision to bring the Bill forward in Government time, and I welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill in the Lords. Although the intention of the Bill was never to allow Kew to lease out core parts of its estate, it is welcome that that is now clear in the Bill, with explicit protections for its UNESCO status.

Having visited Kew many, many times, including this morning, I can assure hon. Members that the clear intention is to use the powers in this Bill to lease out the residential buildings on the periphery of Kew’s estate. In fact, I saw a number of those buildings this morning, all of which are beautiful and all of which have been empty for more than a decade. The anomaly of Kew Gardens being Crown land means that it has several buildings that can be leased for a maximum of only 31 years, which is not commercially attractive compared with the 150 years that the Bill will now allow.

Like the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), I want to caution against the suggestion that passing this Bill into law will provide some kind of windfall for Kew. There is no doubt that the potential financial gains are significant, but they must not be seen as a substitute either for visitor income or for Government funding. I hope the Minister agrees that this Bill is an opportunity for Kew to do more. With the spending review on the horizon, I urge him to make sure that Kew continues to receive significant support from Government. I want to reiterate that this Bill must not be used as a pretext to reduce such funding sources.

I thank the Bill team for their support and their willingness to take this Bill off my hands, out of the risk of its being blocked by some on the Back Benches, and on to the statute book. I look forward to it passing its first Commons stage this afternoon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

What a well balanced debate, as a result of which we go straight into the wind-ups and immediately back to Dr David Drew.

Airports Commission: Final Report

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

I noticed the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) briefing the hon. Gentleman with that question a few moments ago. I will answer that point, but I have to say that the position of the right hon. Member for Tooting on this issue seems to ebb and flow with the weather. He seems to say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. His position on Heathrow is about as authentic as Donald Trump’s hair, and the same applies to his position on almost every issue on which he has opined in the past few months. Nevertheless, I will answer the question.

The alternative to monopoly, which is what is proposed as the first choice of the Howard Davies commission, is competition. We know competition works. We only have to look at Gatwick to know that competition works: it has become a better airport. It has opened up routes to places we were told it would not be able to open routes up to, including Hanoi, Jakarta and two routes to China. Competition is the answer.

Despite coming down in favour of monopoly, even Howard Davies has acknowledged that the third runway would stifle growth at the other airports. He has said:

“a competing airport system is right for London”.

So how do we encourage that? We invest in transport links to, from and between the three main airports in London. If and when—as is likely—we have a capacity problem, we expand. We do not expand at Heathrow, however; we expand at a place in such a way that maximises rather than suffocates competition. That has always been my position: today, as it has been in any number of articles, interviews and comments. I have always come down in favour of competition, because it is the obvious answer.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have a problem with the clock. I calculate that the hon. Gentleman has one minute and 50 seconds left, including the intervention he is about to take.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The Economy and Living Standards

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I am pleased that the debate is about living standards because it gives me an opportunity to make the link between rising living standards and improved democracy. That link has been made many times before, notably by the celebrated Power commission, later by the economist Richard Layard, and later still in a very wide-ranging study by Harvard university. In their different ways, they all established that rising living standards boost the public appetite for democracy, and that boosted and strengthened democracy in turn stimulates an increase in and boosts living standards. The link is unavoidable.

One element of the Queen’s Speech is a commitment to introduce a recall system. In theory, that would certainly improve our democracy and therefore lead to rising living standards. I say “in theory” because the Government’s current proposal falls so short of genuine or meaningful recall as to be meaningless. However, the House will at least have the opportunity to make profound amendments to the Bill, and I very much hope that it does.

Recall was promised by all three parties before the last election. They felt obliged to make that promise on the back of the expenses scandal that rocked the House, and it presented an easy, democratic and simple solution. Effectively, recall means enabling voters to remove underperforming MPs if at any time they lose the confidence of the majority of their constituents. It could not be more straightforward: if enough constituents sign a petition in a given period of time, they earn the right to hold a referendum to ask whether constituents want to recall their MP, and if a majority want to recall their MP, there is a by-election. There is a natural safeguard in that the threshold would, in an average constituency, require 14,000 constituents actively to visit the town hall and sign a petition during an 8-week period. Recall would put people in charge, allowing them to replace their MP if a clear majority want to do so.

The public understood that they had finally been promised a reform that might empower them, but then the election happened. I am afraid to say that the Labour Opposition went quiet on the issue, and the coalition Government began to weave small print through their promise. The current proposal is for a form of recall that can happen only by permission of the Standards Committee, and its criteria are so narrow as to make it entirely meaningless.

People are already angry with politicians—the signs are everywhere—but hon. Members should try to imagine how voters will react when they discover that they have been duped by this pretend recall Bill, this illusion of reform. It is extraordinary that even if the Bill becomes law, an MP could switch parties, fail to turn up once to Parliament or even go on a two or three-year holiday without qualifying for recall. At the very first scandal, voters will learn that they have been tricked. The anger that they feel will dwarf—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman, with some ingenuity, has done well to keep in order and speak to the amendment. I trust that, in the final minute of his speech, he will conclude with reference to the specific matters in the amendment.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I will certainly do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Even if people do not realise it yet, at the very first scandal, they will realise that they have been duped. Even before the Bill has been put to the test, 170,000 people have signed a petition saying that they want the real deal—not this thing that the Government are offering. Unlock Democracy has said that, given a choice between this Bill and no Bill, it would go for no Bill, because it thinks that the Bill represents a step back.

I understand why the Government have done this. The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about kangaroo courts and vexatious campaigns, but he is wrong. Where recall happens around the world, there is not one example of a successful vexatious recall campaign. There could not be one here, because it would require so many people—14,000 people—to be persuaded to join a vexatious campaign. We know that that is simply not possible in our constituencies.

I am going to run out of time. I simply ask Members to consider how the Government’s proposal might work. It is much more worrying than true and genuine recall.