Author: admin

Stephen Hammond – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Reforming Public Procurement

The parliamentary question asked by Stephen Hammond, the Conservative MP for Wimbledon, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2023.

Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)

What steps his Department is taking to reform public procurement.

Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)

What recent discussions he has had with relevant stakeholders on the potential impact of the Procurement Bill on (a) economic growth and (b) innovation.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)

The Procurement Bill is being considered in Committee in the House of Commons. The Bill will create a new public procurement regime that will make it simpler, quicker and cheaper for suppliers, including small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, to win public sector contracts. In developing the proposals for the new procurement regime, the Cabinet Office has worked with hundreds of organisations, and economic growth and innovation have been at the forefront of our minds.

Stephen Hammond

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that UK major projects have had, at best, a mixed history of both procurement and contract management over a long period. How will this Bill embed external expertise in the procurement process and IT productivity systems in the contract management process?

Alex Burghart

My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. The Cabinet Office is producing comprehensive guidance and a programme of training for contracting authorities, with support for sharing best practice. This will complement efforts that the Cabinet Office is already making to support commercial best practice, including through the contract management capability programme and the provision of a suite of playbooks that provide advice on sourcing and contracting.

Duncan Baker

My residents in North Norfolk often think that Westminster is a long way away from them. Can my hon. Friend tell me how the Procurement Bill will enable businesses in my constituency—there is an incredible range of talent and innovation there—to bid for the £300 billion-worth of services that the Government procure every year?

Alex Burghart

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Bill includes a specific duty on contracting authorities to recognise the particular barriers that SMEs face. Other measures will also benefit SMEs, such as the strengthening of prompt payment requirements, with 30-day payment terms applying contractually throughout the public sector supply chain; a single digital platform, so that bidders only have to submit their core credentials once; and new transparency requirements.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the Minister for his positive answers to the question. Wrightbus in Northern Ireland is an example of where we could contract domestic companies and expand our economy, as opposed to going international. What steps will the Cabinet Office take to ensure that we prioritise domestic contracts within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the devolved Assemblies?

Alex Burghart

I cannot comment on the specific contract that the hon. Gentleman raises, but he will know from the debate we had in Westminster Hall the other day that the Bill introduces provisions that will mean that contracting authorities publish their pipeline and can publish advance notices of procurement, which will enable businesses and suppliers to get ready for local contracts.

Mr Speaker

I call the shadow Minister.

Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)

Unfortunately, the Procurement Bill in its current form does very little to prevent a repeat of the VIP scandal that, sadly, contributed to almost £10 billion-worth of personal protective equipment being written off by the Government. We know that sunlight is often the best disinfectant, so will the Minister support our amendment to ensure that any Minister, peer or senior civil servant involved in recommending suppliers under direct award must publicly declare any private interest in that supplier’s success?

Alex Burghart

The hon. Lady will know from the many debates we are having on this subject that transparency is a key element of our new regime, which replaces the old, outdated EU regulations and will ensure that there is sunlight throughout the procurement process, from start to finish.

07/02/2023
Dehenna Davison – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

The speech made by Dehenna Davison, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for securing this important debate, and for the constructive way in which she has engaged with the Department and I on the UK shared prosperity fund. I know that she is and has long been a committed champion for the many voluntary groups, businesses and communities in her constituency that have previously benefited from, if not relied heavily on, EU funding. She has been a keen advocate to ensure that that support continues under the UK shared prosperity fund.

The hon. Member mentioned the NOW Group, and I am pleased that she did. As she knows, the NOW Group has been in receipt of ESF funding, and has also recently accessed the community renewal fund as well. We have worked with Maeve Monaghan, the CEO of the NOW Group, to help to design the UK shared prosperity fund planning as part of that partnership group. Hopefully her feedback there has definitely been helpful, and she feels that it has been taken on board as we have designed the programme.

In my response, I hope I will be able to provide some clarity on the next steps regarding the roll-out of the UKSPF in Northern Ireland; the steps we have taken so far to engage charities and community groups currently in receipt of Government support; and the progress we are making in our ambition to level up communities in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom. I will make reference to the levelling-up fund and address as many of the questions she raised as I can. I am not sure my hand was working fast enough to write them all down, but if I have missed any I will follow up in writing following the debate.

As hon. Members will know, we published the prospectus for the UK shared prosperity fund back in April last year. It sets out how the fund and its £2.6 billion of funding will work on the ground. Effectively, it will replace the European regional development fund and the European social fund with a simpler, smoother and less bureaucratic approach to supporting communities right across the UK. We all know that bureaucracy is something that community groups have raised with us, so as a Government we have very much taken that on board.

In that sense, it is fair to say that the UKSPF is a central pillar of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and our ambition to bring transformative investment to places that have gone overlooked by successive Administrations for too long. We want to use the funding to support people in skills, helping the unemployed move into high-skilled, high-wage jobs—I know that is something specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast South in her speech. We also want to use the funding to help the growth of local business and invest in communities and places to help to build pride in place. We know that having pride in the place that someone lives and has grown up in is a crucial part of the wider levelling-up agenda.

For Northern Ireland, that means £126.8 million of new funding for local investment and local priorities up to March 2025. Crucially, that fulfils the promise we made that the UKSPF would match the funding allocated to Northern Ireland through EU structural funds.

I know we have set out how the approach will work in some detail already, both in the prospectus and previous spending rounds, but I will quickly recap it for everyone here. The UK shared prosperity fund is set to ramp up over the coming years, so that total domestic UK-wide funding of the ERDF, ESF and UKSPF will at least match receipts from EU structural funds. It will reach £1.5 billion per year across the UK in 2024-25, when Northern Ireland will receive £74 million. It is important to note that before that date, when ERDF and ESF funding is still being delivered—albeit in smaller amounts—the UK shared prosperity fund tapers in for Northern Ireland and in England, Scotland and Wales too.

I need to put on the record that the Government fully recognise the need for the funding to be properly tailored to the projects and organisations that add real economic and social value in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South mentioned some of the projects in her own constituency, and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for talking about how one of those organisations, the NOW Group, has helped his own constituents. We all know that a good, local charitable organisation can do wonders for our communities, and that is specifically why we are so keen to support them through this funding.

To ensure that we tailored the funding appropriately, we ran a comprehensive programme of workshops and engagement with Northern Ireland partners last year. That included businesses, voluntary and community groups and councils, so that we could collect the widest possible views on the priorities for the fund and how it could best work in concert with other opportunities in Northern Ireland. We also established a partnership group comprised of all the organisations I just mentioned, along with the higher education sector and the Northern Ireland Office, to advise us on how the fund could be best utilised. We have built further on that engagement since then.

Throughout the process, we have offered the Northern Ireland Departments the opportunity to formally participate in shaping the fund, but, sadly, that has not proven possible.

Claire Hanna

Does the Minister know why that has not proven possible? It is because under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is essentially the constitution of Northern Ireland, the Department is not equality-screened—unlike the Northern Ireland Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is not able to legally operate and to run equality impact assessments, which are the law in Northern Ireland. That problem was telegraphed, but the Department has not taken adequate steps to address it. That is why those Departments have not been able to be involved.

Dehenna Davison

I will follow up in writing on that point. Having spoken to Sue Gray, one of our super officials, who has been outstanding in her engagement, I know how closely officials have been working with the Northern Ireland Finance, Economy and Communities Departments, maintaining regular contact as our plan has developed. That engagement continues.

Where have we got to? Drawing on insights from the partnership group, and from wider engagement, we published an investment plan just before Christmas last year. That sets out how Northern Ireland’s allocation will be spent and the impact we expect it to have. It supports the leading needs and opportunities in Northern Ireland, addressing high levels of economic inactivity, promoting entrepreneurship and innovation and strengthening pride in place. I am pleased to say that the plan has been given the seal of approval by our partners on the ground and is now being implemented.

Our first competition, for £42 million, which is roughly a third of the total UK SPF allocation, is focused on helping more economically inactive people into work. Many MPs, Assembly Members and other stakeholders have rightly made the case for prioritising this funding and the voluntary and community organisations that deliver it. I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast South welcomes this provision and the benefits it will bring not just to the organisations that receive it and the individuals they will help, but to Northern Ireland’s wider economy.

We are also working with councils in Northern Ireland to bring forward early communities and place projects, as well as a joined-up service for entrepreneurs seeking to start a business and create jobs. Pending further discussion with the Northern Ireland civil service, we may also commission Northern Ireland Executive Departments, or their arm’s length bodies, in the design and delivery of the fund. I am sure hon. Members will join me in encouraging their fullest involvement.

Part of this work is about ensuring that we mitigate issues for organisations as the European programmes we have discussed draw to a close. That issue has been raised with me by organisations not just in Northern Ireland but all around the UK; it is something that our Department and Ministers in other Departments have been incredibly focused on. With that in mind, we have been able to reprofile the SPF by moving funding from 2022-23 to 2023-24, so that it betters reflects funding needs. I know that this is an issue that my predecessors were asked to consider by many partners in Northern Ireland, and I am pleased we have been able make real progress in this area. It demonstrates something crucial, which is that SPF is not a fixed fund; it can and should flex to meet the evolving needs of the people of Northern Ireland—and it has been designed to do so.

It goes without saying that we will continue to engage with partners, including the Northern Ireland Departments and hon. Members on both sides of this House, on the design and operation of the fund, so that it delivers for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland and throughout the Union.

If we take a step back from the UK SPF to talk about other funding, which the hon. Member for Belfast South did with regards to the levelling-up fund, Members will know that Northern Ireland Departments have always provided funding alongside the European regional development fund and the European social fund. While we recognise the challenging budget circumstances Northern Ireland faces, the funding provided by UK SPF is only ever part of the answer. It is right that the Northern Ireland Departments continue to invest in provision that they have previously supported; that is something I think all of us would encourage.

The Government also want to play their part, making sure we are contributing towards building a brighter Northern Ireland. That is why, alongside the UK shared prosperity fund, we have used a wide range of other funds to spur growth, regeneration and investment. Those include: the community renewal fund, which backs 30 locally led, innovative projects to the value of £12 million, and the community ownership fund, which has so far supported six local communities in Northern Ireland to take ownership of assets at risk of loss, with a spend of £1.3 million. There are other important schemes and investments, such as £617 million for city and growth deals covering every part of Northern Ireland, and our new deal for Northern Ireland providing £400 million to help boost economic growth, invest in infrastructure and increase competitiveness. We are also investing £730 million into the Peace Plus programme, ensuring a total budget of almost £1 billion—the biggest peace programme to date. Through that package of investment, we will achieve significant, visible and tangible improvements to the places where people work and live.

Jim Shannon

The Minister mentioned £400 million. I do not expect an answer today—it might not be possible—but how much of the new deal money has been used or set aside?

Dehenna Davison

I do not have an answer to hand, but I will commit to follow that up and provide that information.

I will touch on the levelling-up fund, because we do not have much time left. Questions were raised about the shortlist, rankings and considerations. Much of the information around the considerations has been set out in the technical note that has been published. That will provide some information, and I am happy to provide a link.

The hon. Member for Belfast South asked about consistent application. Ministers were keen to ensure there was consistent application of the decision-making framework to ensure that they were not cherry-picking the winners. It was designed to reflect the scores and value of the projects that were selected. She also asked whether the decision was made by me alone, as a Minister. She knows that the fund is a joint fund across multiple Departments, ergo that was not the case. Various Departments are involved in the decision-making process.

The hon. Lady asked about round 3 of the levelling-up fund. We have indeed committed to a round 3, but I am not yet able to provide more details about that fund, because the conversations are ongoing and decisions are yet to be made. However, as soon as we have made the decisions and announced how round 3 will work, I will share that information with her.

I want to conclude by saying a huge thank you to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I hope this is the start of more constructive engagement between us as we both fight for what is best for the people of Northern Ireland.

Claire Hanna

I have been kept right on the Standing Orders, but I thought I would get back in. I appreciate the Minister’s approach and her enthusiasm. As I said, I do not doubt that the projects and other things that are being funded are laudable, but they are not additional to what we had. They are less than what we had, which was less again than what we needed. They are not equality-screened in Northern Ireland’s traditional way, so people do not have confidence in that regard. Ultimately, the fundamental question is: who decides, and on what basis? Frankly, I am none the wiser after this discussion, and that is what is concerning people.

Even if the shortlisting is not published, we all know the 10 projects that got the results. However, there are concerns that the published criteria were not applied in a very direct way overall, as the Minister will be aware. I know these things are not always straightforward, but the metrics are clear—they are in the public domain. I am sure most Members have poked around in the Bloomberg data about different constituencies and how they are performing relative to 2019 and relative to one another, and that will show that, in most cases, Northern Ireland constituencies continue to fall behind, including those that did not receive any levelling-up funding, while constituencies that were ahead are staying ahead. I am none the wiser, and I hope we can have a follow-up meeting, but it is not just a case of me being satisfied about transparency; it is also about those who have applied and invested hours and thousands of pounds in producing good applications. We are no more confident that detached Ministers’ have not decided.

Dehenna Davison

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I should have said that, as part of my package on the levelling-up fund, full written feedback will be provided to all applicants, which I hope will provide some guidance on where bids perhaps fell short. There is also the option of follow-up meetings with officials from my Department to go through that in more detail, which I hope will satisfy some of the concerns around the scoring.

I will quickly wrap up now. Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her commitment to helping to improve the prosperity of not only her constituents but the whole of Northern Ireland. As the Minister for Levelling Up, I am committed to that. If all parts of the UK are not firing on all cylinders, the UK as a whole is suffering. Ultimately, we need to make sure that every region and every community is levelled up and can benefit from the maximum opportunities and value of that community for the sake of our entire nation.

07/02/2023
PRESS RELEASE : Improvements made to the Tree Health Pilot following a successful first year [February 2023]

The press release issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 7 February 2023.

Innovative pilot provides grants, guidance and advice to reduce the impacts of tree pests and diseases and build the resilience of England’s trees, woodlands and forests.

The Tree Health Pilot is today (Tuesday 7 February) being updated to improve the support available to farmers and land managers dealing with tree pest and disease issues.

The innovative Pilot, running between 2021 and 2024, provides land managers with grants, guidance and advice to reduce the impacts of tree pests and diseases and build the resilience of England’s trees, woodlands and forests ahead of the roll-out of a future nationwide Tree Health Scheme. The Pilot is currently available in London, the South East, the North West and the West Midlands.

Following a successful first year, in which more than 80 expressions of interest were received, Defra has worked with the Forestry Commission to evaluate user feedback and make several key changes to the scheme. These include simplifying the payments process, introducing higher payment rates, implementing a new advice package, and improving guidance.

In line with changes being made across the Countryside Stewardship and the England Woodland Creation Offer schemes, payment rates for standard capital cost items – which are one-off projects such as installing deer fencing and tree shelters – are increasing. Maintenance rates, which help ensure newly planted trees are growing healthily, will increase from £300 to £350 per hectare per year for trees planted in woodland. And to help cover coordination costs for group applications, the fee paid to the group facilitator will rise to £24 per hour.

Today’s announcement follows the publication of the government’s Environmental Improvement Plan, which committed to the publication of a revised Tree Health Resilience Strategy to improve the baseline diversity, health and condition of our trees, woods and forests, and drive the long-term changes needed to adapt to climate change and disease pressures such as ash dieback.

Chief Plant Health Officer Nicola Spence said:

This Pilot supports land managers to deal quickly and effectively with tree health issues. By funding innovative methods to fell and restock diseased trees, for instance, using skylines or horse loggers to reach larch trees in remote areas, and encouraging group collaboration to deal more efficiently with roadside ash – it ensures a comprehensive and targeted approach to better protecting our trees.

We have been able to gather meaningful feedback for the design of our future Tree Health Scheme, with a greater focus on tailoring support to land managers where most needed and equipping them with practical tools to reduce and manage future threats in order to create more resilient treescapes.

Forestry Commission Chair, Sir William Worsley, said:

From lone trees to entire woodlands, a thriving treescape is not only fundamental to our health and wellbeing, but crucial for combatting climate change, improving biodiversity and growing local economies.

These improvements will ensure greater participation in the scheme, better knowledge of the issues around tree health, and swifter action to tackle pests and diseases – all helping to protect our trees now and for future generations.

The Tree Health Pilot covers five tree types, including ash affected by ash dieback, oak trees infested with Oak Processionary Moth, and sweet chestnut infected by sweet chestnut blight. Plants and trees deliver around £15.7 billion each year in social, environmental and economic benefits across England so reducing pest and disease risks is crucial in protecting these vital national assets and the environmental benefits they provide.

The Tree Health Pilot is part of a focus on protecting and enhancing the environment alongside producing food sustainably and will inform our future Tree Health Scheme being rolled out through our landmark Environmental Land Management schemes.

07/02/2023
PRESS RELEASE : £32 million boost to upgrade existing heat networks and reduce energy costs [February 2023]
The press release issued by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 7 February 2023.

New scheme will make existing heat networks in England and Wales more energy efficient – reducing emissions and household bills.
- New scheme will make existing heat networks in England and Wales more energy efficient – reducing emissions and household bills
- upgrades will help more than 100,000 homes reduce their energy use with heat network operators able to apply for funding from today
- some heat networks haven’t been upgraded since they were installed more than 40 years ago
Old and inefficient heat networks will be given a £32 million cash injection to produce cheaper energy and reduce carbon emissions for thousands of homes across England and Wales.

Through the newly launched Heat Network Efficiency Scheme, out of date equipment will be upgraded with energy efficient alternatives such as replacement pumps, pipe insulation and underfloor heating controls. Cutting-edge data monitoring systems will also be introduced to check systems are performing correctly.

The new scheme will deliver improvements to existing heat networks, helping consumers in more than 100,000 homes reduce their energy use – lessening the burden of increasing heating bills.

The changes will help prevent against breakdowns where customers are without heat and hot water and reduce instances of homes and corridors becoming too hot through heat escaping from inefficient piping.

Business and Energy Minister Lord Callanan said:

This £32 million boost will provide thousands of homes in England and Wales with cheaper, greener energy through upgrades these heat networks desperately need.

We’re investing in new heat networks, but it’s just as important to maintain and refurbish existing systems to ensure all customers can benefit from reduced energy use and household bills.

Heat network operators, such as universities, NHS Trusts and charities, will be able to bid for funding from today by requesting an application form from delivery partner Gemserv.

Some heat networks haven’t been upgraded since they were installed more than 40 years ago, meaning many are inefficient due to not being installed properly, poorly maintained or the equipment has begun to wear out.

Heat networks offer carbon emissions savings by supplying heat to buildings from a central source, avoiding the need for households and workplaces to rely on individual, energy-intensive heating solutions – such as gas boilers. As such, heat networks provide a significant contribution to the UK’s carbon reduction commitment.

The Heat Network Efficiency Scheme (HNES) forms an important part of the government’s support for heat networks which also includes the £288 million Green Heat Network Fund.

HNES follows and builds on the HNES Demonstrator, a one-year project which ran until March 2022. As well as delivering improvements to 37 existing heat networks, HNES Demonstrator supported 73 projects to identify cost-effective improvement measures.

Stephen Knight, Director at Heat Trust, the national consumer protection scheme for heat network customers said:

At Heat Trust we sadly hear of far too many examples of inefficient and poorly performing heat networks. These can result in much higher energy costs for residents, overheating corridors and frequent breakdowns.

The rise in gas prices over the last year has meant that inefficient heat networks are now expensive for residents. The Heat Network Efficiency Scheme is therefore an important step in the right direction, and I would urge all those responsible for running heat networks to consider bidding for funding.

To further improve the operation of existing heat networks, a series of guidance videos has also been published today that sets out the practical steps that operators of heat networks can take to improve the performance of their systems.

The government is delivering energy bill support to consumers on heat networks through the Energy Bill Relief Scheme and passed legislation last year to ensures that suppliers pass on savings to residents.

This is on top of the £400 that all consumers receive off their energy bills this winter via the Energy Bills Support Scheme and for support with electricity bills through the Energy Price Guarantee.
07/02/2023
PRESS RELEASE : Over £110 million to unlock zero emission guilt-free flights [February 2023]
The press release issued by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 7 February 2023.

Cutting edge new technologies that could enable electric flying taxis and hydrogen powered aircraft to take to the skies will be developed in the UK.
- Government and industry are investing £113 million in hydrogen and all-electric flight technologies to unlock guilt-free flight and support green jobs across the UK
- investment will support development by Vertical Aerospace of the next generation of high-end, lightweight batteries for small aircraft
- projects led by Rolls-Royce to develop a zero-emission liquid hydrogen combusting jet engine will also receive backing
- comes alongside launch of a new Call for Evidence seeking views from the sector on how we can reach the target for airport operations in England to be zero emissions by 2040
Cutting edge new technologies that could enable electric flying taxis and hydrogen powered aircraft to take to the skies will be developed in the UK, thanks to £113 million of investment being announced by the Business and Transport Secretaries today (Tuesday 7 February).

Through the Aerospace Technology Institute (ATI) Programme, government and industry are jointly backing new exciting zero-carbon technologies to open up a future of guilt-free flying. This includes a project by Bristol-based electric aircraft manufacturer Vertical Aerospace to develop high-end, lightweight batteries, as well as projects led by Rolls-Royce to develop the building blocks of a liquid hydrogen combusting jet engine, which would enable flight without the carbon emissions.

From Belfast to Derby, these successful projects will help secure thousands of jobs across the supply chain and hundreds of millions in private investment across the UK, growing the country’s economy and putting us at the forefront of reducing global aviation emissions.

The ATI Programme continues to deliver practical successes, the most recent being the maiden flight of ZeroAvia’s hydrogen fuel cell-powered 19-seater aircraft in January.

In addition, the Department for Transport is launching a Call for Evidence seeking views from the sector on how to reach the target for airport operations in England to be zero emissions by 2040. The target was set as part of the government’s Jet Zero Strategy, launched in July last year.

Business Secretary Grant Shapps said:

Guilt-free flying is within our reach, and we are backing the world-leading UK firms whose skills and ingenuity are going to make that dream a reality.

As the whole world moves to greener forms of aviation, there is a massive opportunity for the UK’s aerospace industry to secure clean, green jobs and growth for decades to come. Together with the companies that share our ambitions, we are determined to seize this moment.

Transport Secretary Mark Harper said:

The Jet Zero Council is helping to define the future of flying – one that’s more optimistic about the sector’s environmental impact while putting UK innovation at the forefront of international aviation.

As well as developing the next generation of aircraft, it’s also crucial we make the sector greener on the ground, and the call for evidence we’re launching today will help us gather evidence on how airports can reach zero emissions by 2040.

Grazia Vittadini, Chief Technology Officer, Rolls-Royce plc, said:

Rolls-Royce welcomes this announcement from the UK government today. ATI funding enables us and our partners to deliver these exciting projects that are critical to the delivery of the zero carbon element of our net zero road map and will help position the UK as a leader on the pathway to more sustainable flight.

Stephen Fitzpatrick, CEO and Founder of Vertical Aerospace, said:

At Vertical, we are pioneering the most advanced electric aircraft in the world, right here in the UK. We are absolutely delighted to co-invest with the government in developing the lightweight, high-performance, and safe batteries we need to make zero carbon flight a reality. In the race to Net Zero, the ATI Programme is delivering a huge opportunity for the government and industry to come together to create world-leading, British technologies and build British expertise.

The investment will be announced at the seventh meeting of the Jet Zero Council, a partnership between government and industry that’s been set up to fast-track ambitions for zero-emission flight by 2050 through investment and focus on advanced technologies and sustainable aviation fuels, as laid out in the Jet Zero Strategy. The Council is leveraging the UK’s world-leading aerospace and aviation sectors, which pre-pandemic employed 230,000 people in the UK and contributed £22 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA) to the UK economy, to effectively tackle emissions while encouraging growth and green innovation.

Jet Zero Council CEO Emma Gilthorpe, Chief Operating Officer at Heathrow Airport, said:

The launch of the Jet Zero Strategy last year was a key milestone on the path to decarbonising aviation, and it’s fantastic to see the progress that has been made since then, such as on boosting the UK’s SAF industry and with the International Civil Aviation Organisation aiming to reach net zero by 2050.

This investment, and the launch of the Call For Evidence on how airports in England can reach zero emissions by 2040, are another vital part of that journey and I look forward to continuing to collaborate with our partners in industry and government to define the future of flying.

Today’s meeting is taking place at Boeing’s London offices, further highlighting the importance of aerospace businesses to the UK’s plans for jobs and growth. In the UK, Boeing employs a highly-skilled workforce of over 3,000 people across 30 key locations and spends nearly £2 billion a year in the supply chain on high-value aerospace export parts.

As the Council’s hosts, Boeing will use today’s meeting to demonstrate their new data modelling tool, Cascade, which allows the user to visualise various decarbonisation strategies on the pathway to net zero emissions. Using a variety of datasets, Cascade helps airline operators, policy makers and industry partners make informed decisions on the journey to net-zero by 2050. The tool computes full life-cycle accounting of total climate effects using scenarios for the 5 core strategies: renewable energy, airplane fleet renewal, future aircraft and advanced technologies, operational efficiency improvements and market-based measures and demonstrates that SAF is required to meet the 2050 commitment while continuing to invest in hydrogen, electric and advanced technologies.

Maria Laine, president of Boeing in the UK, Ireland and Nordic region, said:

Today’s Jet Zero Council meeting is an opportunity to highlight progress and assess opportunities on the journey to net zero. Close partnership between government and industry is vital to achieving a zero-carbon future, and we are delighted to showcase some of the innovative tools Boeing has designed to help us collectively reach this goal. Through Cascade, it’s clear that we need sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) under any scenario to reach our 2050 goal while investing in cutting-edge technologies that will inform the future of flight.

The meeting comes after significant developments in the government’s SAF programme. At the end of last year, 5 companies were awarded a share of the Department for Transport’s £165 million Advanced Fuels Fund, with projects from Teesside to Ellesmere Port receiving funding to build plants that will convert household and industrial waste into jet fuel.

Virgin Atlantic will also receive government funding to complete the first ever net zero transatlantic flight on 100% SAF. The flight from London to New York will take off from the UK this year.
07/02/2023
Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

The speech made by Claire Hanna, the SDLP MP for Belfast South, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered replacement of funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this issue and, I hope, get clarity for a number of third sector partners and other groups in Northern Ireland and, potentially, areas of opportunity for them. It feels like a very long time ago, but during the EU referendum campaign there were assurances that Northern Ireland would not lose out, doing well, as we did, out of the EU funds, which were based on need. We know that the phrase “take back control” resonated with many people, but it appears to mean taking back control from some of the funds that have traditionally underpinned progress in Northern Ireland and from local decision makers, and handing it directly to London, without any sense of a strategy that local groups can try to support.

In March last year, in the early stages of the community renewal fund, I had a Westminster Hall debate, in which various eyebrow-raising allocations from that scheme were addressed. I am afraid that several of the reservations that people had about process, strategy, co-ordination and transparency have been borne out. It is worth saying that these concerns are not held just by groups that are applying for funding or by my party. The Northern Ireland Executive, as was, adopted the position that the best delivery mechanism for the shared prosperity fund would be via existing structures. Invest Northern Ireland, our economy arm, was very clear that it believed that the funding would be best delivered in conjunction with the programme for government. And the think-tank Pivotal and other respected commentators and business voices made the same point. People are up for change. They understand that it is a reality, and they roll with the punches. But it has to feel transparent, and there has to be a sense of fairness and coherence and that there is more to these allocations than just the whim of Ministers in London.

As I said, Northern Ireland was a net beneficiary in the EU. That is not a secret and is not anything to be ashamed of. Those allocations were made on the basis of need and, in many cases, were a counterweight to the obvious challenges that Northern Ireland faced and to decades of capital underinvestment. That is not just a historical issue: in 2021, the average capital spend per head in Northern Ireland was £1,325, compared with a UK average of £1,407. Of course, all that has contributed to a failure to attract quality investment and foreign direct investment, and decent jobs. That is reflected in our rates of economically inactive people, which are substantially higher than those in other regions.

The founder of our party, John Hume, said many times that the best peace process is a job: the best way to enable people to have hope in their futures and see beyond the things that have divided us in our region is to have meaningful employment—a reason to stay, to get up in the morning and to work together. Those were the opportunities that we saw in European participation, and that is why we continue to work so hard to protect our access to political and economic structures. Funds beyond the block grant, the EU funding as was and the promised successor funds, have been billed and are needed as additional, and they should be an opportunity to realise some of those ambitions, to remove barriers to employment and, in particular at the moment, to allow people to take advantage of the opportunities that the current very tight labour market offers. Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting.

Time is obviously short, so I want to focus on the loss of the European social fund and the European regional development fund and on the replacement, the SPF, and to touch on the levelling-up fund. It is worth clarifying that, as well as those assurances back in 2016, during the referendum campaign, the Conservative party manifesto in 2019 committed to replacing the ESF in its entirety. Northern Ireland got an average of £65 million a year from the ESF and ERDF in the period from 2014 to 2020, with Northern Ireland Departments having the power to manage that in line with UK strategy. That allowed them to align projects that they funded with regional and local strategies, ensuring complementarity and targeted outcomes.

The scenario now is that the UK Government and Northern Ireland Departments are essentially two players on the same pitch, in the same space, delivering the same sorts of projects. That has a built-in inefficiency and means that the results are less than the sum of the parts. That overlapping inevitably applies to monitoring, too. How are we supposed to measure the impact of different interventions in areas like skills if the scheme is only one part of an equation in which all the other Departments are trying to do similar things? It seems that it will be impossible to disaggregate that. The governance is sub-par and the quantum is less, too.

By comparison with the ESF and the ERDF averages, the allocation for the shared prosperity fund in Northern Ireland is £127 million over three years, so we are losing on average £23 million per year from that scheme. That has created this massive gap for funded groups, many of whom just cannot hold on. It is not like in the civil service; people have to be put on protected notice or face closure. Again, there is nothing co-ordinated about any of this. It is not even the survival of the fittest—that the strongest and best organisations will continue—because it is largely the luck of the draw on where organisations are in their funding cycle. Again, this is one more downside of the abandonment of devolution. Engaged and responsive local Ministers could monitor the situation and be flexible and creative with in-year allocation, match funding and bridge funding. They could, in short, protect us from the deficit created by Brexit and this devolution override.

I want to touch on how all this affects specific groups. The NOW Group is a highly regarded project that works across Belfast and further afield, supporting people who are economically inactive because of a disability get into employment. It has 17 years of ESF funding and runs high-profile facilities. If anyone has been in the café in Belfast City Hall, they will have seen NOW Group workers. They help hundreds of people with disabilities into all sorts of sectors, including leading corporates and the knowledge sector. It is a safe bet that any credible funder will keep backing a project like this, but the assurances are just not there. Reserves cannot last forever and, of course, smaller organisations will not have such reserves. In that project, 52 people are at risk of being put on notice and another 800 people with disabilities will be left with no service.

Mencap in south Belfast and far beyond has run ESF projects on social inclusion for decades and was well on track to exceed the target set by ESF of supporting 13,000 people by 2023. It is concerned by how limited the scope of SPF is compared to what they were able to do under ESF. The East Belfast Mission described well what is at stake:

“Our programmes have a long track record of being more successful than government initiatives”.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward. I work with the East Belfast Mission regularly in my office, so I understand its work and its success rate from the people it helps in my constituency. The mission tells me, as I told the hon. Lady, that without this funding stream it will not be able to continue to have the success stories it has and that that will hurt individuals and families. Like the hon. Lady, I look to the Minister for some assurance that the funding it has received over the past few years can be continued. With that, we can help more of our people over the long term.

Claire Hanna

The mission itself captured that. It talks about its staff being based in local communities with lived experience that helps them understand the specific difficulties people face. It says:

“Many of the people we work with have faced societal and generational barriers to employment, through illness, trauma or other issues. Our projects help break the cycle and raise up our host communities.”

It says that if it loses the fund, it will not be able to provide certainty and will

“lose irreplaceable experience which has been built up over decades.”

This is not just a Belfast issue by any stretch of the imagination. Dozens of projects across Northern Ireland, particularly those supporting younger people, women and minorities, are at risk. First Steps Women’s Centre is a vital part of the community sector in Mid Ulster, working to integrate new and minority ethnic communities, providing crèche facilities to support women back into work and signposting people to other partners who can help them with the multitude of issues they may face.

I want to specifically ask the Minister how the Department ensures that the projects it is funding are aligned with Northern Ireland’s democratically agreed priorities—agreed by the Executive with all five parties—absent a formal role for those Departments. How do the Government propose that groups, such as those I have described, that are facing this essentially bureaucratic gap are supposed to address it? If the gap is not going to be addressed, what are the people who use those services supposed to do instead?

I want to address the widespread concerns about the levelling-up fund. It is a mighty slogan—who does not want to see things levelled up?—but unfortunately, like a lot of slogans of the last few years, it struggles a bit when it comes into contact with implementation. People perceive it as pitting communities against one another, with distant Ministers picking winners seemingly at random. Again, the initiative started badly for us. The initial allocations fell short of the promised 3% of the UK pot. That target was laid out in the strategy document, which seemed to acknowledge the traditional capital shortfall in Northern Ireland but has failed to address it. The fund was initially conceived as a scheme for England with a Barnett consequential, but it has evolved to be more centralised than was promised.

The same paper highlighted the issues that there would be given the fact that local governance structures in Northern Ireland are different from those in Britain, but it has failed to develop a more collaborative approach to mitigate those issues. The same overlap and duplication issues with the SPF pertain here, despite requests from me and others to consider the north-south dimension and co-ordination on this issue. That misses real opportunity to maximise value by co-ordinating with the Irish Government, who have, for example, a £400 million capital fund in the Shared Island unit.

Lessons from the first round of levelling up, which were very well telegraphed, do not appear to have been taken on board for round two. Although the projects that got the nod last week are no doubt good news for the relevant communities, nobody has any clue about what the winning ingredients in those bids were, or how others might have similar success in future applications. We are advised that the Northern Ireland bids were assessed against three of the four criteria set out in the prospectus, namely strategic fit to the economic case and deliverability.

The winning bids are in the public domain, but the other applicants are not. In the interests of transparency, reassurance and learning for future schemes, will the Minister therefore share details of the original Northern Ireland shortlist of projects and their ranking, as presented after the assessors’ moderation meeting? Will she also advise what, if any, additional considerations informed the Minister’s decision? Can she clarify whether the funding decisions were taken by the Minister alone? It has been suggested by some applicants—I have struggled to confirm this—that the gateway pass mark that was used in England, Scotland and Wales was 75%, and that that was dropped, after applications were submitted, to 57%. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.

Jim Shannon

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my constituency of Strangford, an application was put in for the Whitespots park, an environmental scheme at Conlig. It is shovel ready—the boys could start it tomorrow —but we have missed out on two occasions. She is expressing her concerns over what is happening in her constituency; I echo those and support her in what she says.

Claire Hanna

That again illustrates the confusion that people have about what was selected. Will the Minister confirm whether any criteria additional to those specified were applied? Were they applied consistently to all projects? Will the transparent list that she will publish include any changes in ranking that occurred as a result of new criteria?

Again—for future learning—it was announced that there will be a round three of levelling-up funding. An enormous amount of work goes into the applications, including, as people will know, many thousands of pounds on proposals and engaging the strategy board. Will the Department therefore develop a reserve list from round two applications? That could prevent some groups from having to run up the same professional fees and pouring in the same time, particularly when they are being left in the dark about the criteria. Further, can the Minister clarify what consultation was held with the Northern Ireland Departments and other funding bodies to address the overlap in applications under levelling up and other schemes? Finally, does the Minister think that the spread of applications in Northern Ireland is appropriate?

A lot of these issues are very technical, but they are vital to achieving the things that we all want to achieve for Northern Ireland and for progress. They are also vital to people having some faith in this progress—that they have not had their eye wiped, essentially, by funds being promised, removed and not adequately replaced. That is not the case at the moment. People see this as a net loss from what we enjoyed before Brexit, and that should concern the Department.

06/02/2023
PRESS RELEASE : Russia must fulfill its commitment to facilitate the unimpeded export of food from Ukraine’s Black Sea Ports – UK Statement at the UN Security Council [February 2023]

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 6 February 2023.

Statement by Ambassador Barbara Woodward at the Security Council briefing on Ukraine.

Thank you, President.

First, on behalf of the UK, I would like to offer condolences to those people affected by the earthquake in Türkiye and Syria. Our thoughts are with those families in mourning on this sad day, and our appreciation with the many contributing to the rescue and relief efforts. The UK is contributing immediate support and are in close touch with those responding on the ground.

Focusing on Ukraine, I would like to thank Under-Secretary General Griffiths for his briefing today.

As the UN has set out in many briefings over the past year since Russia started this war, Russia’s invasion has been devastating for the Ukrainian people.

We receive daily reports of families, children, elderly and disabled people forced to make ends meet while sheltering from relentless firing. A staggering 17.6 million people require humanitarian assistance in 2023.

The ongoing insecurity across frontlines has prevented humanitarian organisations from establishing a sustained presence and access to those who need it most.

The UK’s support for neutral, impartial humanitarian action in Ukraine is clear.

We commend the efforts of the United Nations and humanitarian organisations. But we know that in territory controlled by Russia, there is limited, sometimes no access for humanitarian organisations. The systematic denial of humanitarian access must end.

This ongoing behaviour is consistent with Russia’s behaviour throughout the war, including the deliberate and callous targeting of civilian infrastructure, and the instrumentalisation of access to food and energy – which has had implications for vulnerable people in Ukraine and across the globe.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative has helped increase vital supplies and reduce global food prices. Global demand for Ukraine’s grain remains strong.

And yet, in recent weeks, Russian inspections of ships has slowed and the backlog of waiting ships has increased. Exports under the Initiative have decreased.

We join others in calling on Russia to fulfill its commitments, in line with MOU with the UN, to ‘facilitate the unimpeded export of food’ from Ukraine’s Black Sea Ports.

This means renewing the Black Sea Grain Initiative next month and scaling-up inspections at a rate that better meets global demands.

President, the world needs a just and sustainable peace in Ukraine.

Russia must stop seeking to shift blame and must face up to some very basic truths. First, it must acknowledge the immense suffering its war is causing to its own people, the people of Ukraine and to people around the world. And second, it must recognise that there is one clear solution to end this suffering: a unilateral withdrawal of Russian troops, in line with the UN Charter, and an end to this futile war.

Thank you, President.

06/02/2023
NEWS STORY : Tom Gordon Selected as Liberal Democrat Candidate for Harrogate and Knaresborough

STORY

Tom Gordon, the current leader of the Liberal Democrats on Wakefield Council, has been selected as the party’s candidate for the Parliamentary constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough. He said in a statement:

“I am truly honoured to have been selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I will fight tirelessly to give local people a strong voice, both here and in Westminster. This is a beautiful and iconic part of the country with a strong sense of community”.

The constituency was won by Phil Willis for the Liberal Democrats in 1997, but was won by Andrew Jones for the Conservatives in 2010. The constituency is a target seat for the Liberal Democrats, with Jones currently having a majority of 9,675. The local Liberal Democrats said in a statement:

“The local Liberal Democrats are on a winning streak across Harrogate and Knaresborough. In last year’s council elections, the Liberal Democrats won the popular vote and the most seats across the constituency.

Tom Gordon, who hopes to be the next Liberal Democrat MP for the constituency, has a strong record of leading campaigns across the region. Tom has stood up for local health services, fought for Yorkshire devolution and for better transport links across the region.

Tom works as an advisor for a national carers charity. As a former young carer himself, he is passionate about giving a pay rise to carers and giving them the support and recognition they deserve. Tom will be running a passionate campaign to improve health services, tackle sewage and uncleanliness in our local environment and fighting for infrastructure and investment into our local services”.

RESOURCES

Harrogate and Knaresborough Constituency

EXTERNAL NEWS LINKS

Yorkshire Post News Story

06/02/2023
Mark Spencer – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

The speech made by Mark Spencer, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this debate, and I welcome the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) to her first Westminster Hall debate. I also thank all Members who have made a contribution today.

The decision to grant the emergency authorisation has not been taken lightly and is based on robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits. Emerging sugar beet seedlings and young plants are vulnerable to feeding by aphids. Those transmit several viruses, known collectively as virus yellows, which lead to reduced beet size, lower sugar content and higher impurities. Overall sugar beet yield can be reduced by up to 50% by the viruses.

We withdrew authorisation for use of pesticide products containing the three neonicotinoids on outdoor crops in 2018, in line with the EU decision. Since then, sugar beet growers have been adjusting to new conditions. In 2019 and in 2021, the virus threat was low and the crop was not significantly impacted. However, 2020 saw severe damage, with up to 24% of the national crop being lost. Imports were needed to enable British Sugar to honour its contracts.

The emergency authorisation has been issued with a strict threshold for use, so that Cruiser SB will be used only if there is a likely danger to the sugar beet crop. This year, the threshold has been set at a predicted virus incidence of 63% or above, as forecast by an independent model developed by Rothamsted Research. That increase reflects our improving understanding of the fit between the model used to predict virus incidence and real-world outcomes, and it means that the product is less likely to be used. The aim of the threshold is to ensure that Cruiser SB is used only if there is a likely danger to the sugar beet crop.

The forecast will be made on 1 March this year. It is only then that we will know for certain whether the seed treatment will be used this year. In 2021, the model predicted that the virus level would not meet the threshold, so the seed treatment was not used.

Samantha Dixon

On 1 March, will the decision be the Minister’s or will it rest with others, and if so, who?

Mark Spencer

The decision will not be made by Ministers; the decision will be set by a threshold. Rothamsted Research has set that threshold and that model, and it will take into account weather patterns and levels of aphids and virus within the environment. The decision will be made based on that model, so I will not be involved in that decision, nor will any other Minister.

Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use that have been set as requirements for emergency authorisation. If that threshold is met and if neonicotinoid- treated seeds are planted, conditions will be put in place to mitigate risk to the environment, including to pollinators. The conditions include the prohibition of any crop that flowers before harvest being planted in the same field within 32 months of a treated sugar beet crop and compliance with a stewardship scheme, which requires monitoring to be performed to determine the levels of neonicotinoids in the environment. Full details of the key conditions of use have been published on gov.uk.

Daniel Zeichner

Will the Minister tell us whether there has been any assessment of the success of the mitigation measures adopted in previous years?

Mark Spencer

We take into account all of that data when making these decisions. We take the best advice from the best scientists and make these decisions on their advice. My decision was informed by the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and by the views of the UK expert committee on pesticides and DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser on the scientific evidence. I also considered economic issues, informed by analysis from DEFRA economists.

Looking to the future, we do not wish to see the temporary use of neonicotinoids continue indefinitely. The development of alternative and sustainable approaches to protect sugar beet crops from these viruses is paramount. That includes the development of resistant plant varieties, measures to improve crop hygiene and husbandry, and alternative pesticides. British Sugar and the British Beet Research Organisation are undertaking a programme of work to develop these alternatives, which include yellows virus-specific integrated pest management techniques. The Government are closely monitoring the progress of that.

Caroline Lucas

The Minister will know that, since 1970, the UK has lost 50% or more of our insects. Whatever he is saying to us this morning, I do not think he is saying that risk is completely absent; he is balancing risks. Where does the precautionary principle come into his analysis and assessment, given that the risks that we face are so huge? Even if he thinks that the risk is small, none the less, if it happens and there is yet more of a collapse of our bee populations, we are in deep trouble.

Mark Spencer

That is one of the reasons why we have introduced the new environmental land management schemes, whose purpose is to change the way farmers grow crops and make them adopt those practices. We recognise how important bees are, and we want to work with farmers to improve the conditions for pollinators. We want to work with nature, rather than against it.

As hon. Members know, we continue our work on the agricultural transition, and we are repurposing the land-based subsidies we inherited from the EU. The hon. Lady makes the point that they did little for the environment and little for farmers. We will now have a new, ambitious system that rewards farmers and land managers for their role as environmental stewards, and that starts with the sustainable farming incentive.

Caroline Lucas

Will the Minister specifically address the precautionary principle? How did he apply it to the decision he made?

Mark Spencer

We have to balance all those factors and all the scientific advice, including the precautionary principle, in coming to this decision. It is not an easy decision to make. We have to consider lots of scientific advice on the risk to pollinators and to the sugar beet crop.

We have just published our indicative plan for the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive standards, which includes the introduction of paid integrated pest management actions. That includes paying farmers to carry out an assessment and produce an integrated pest management plan; introduce natural methods of pest management, such as flower-rich grass margins or field strips, or companion cropping; and take steps to move towards insecticide-free farming. That will support farmers to minimise the use of pesticides and will incentivise the uptake of alternative ways to control pests.

Integrated pest management is at the heart of our approach to support farmers to practise sustainable pest management. We have already commissioned a package of research projects that will enable farmers to access the most effective IPM tools available, and ensure that we understand changing trends in pest threats across the UK.

As I have outlined, the decision to allow the limited and controlled use of neonicotinoids on a single crop has not been taken lightly and is based on robust scientific assessment. We will continue to work hard to support our farmers and protect and restore our vital pollinator populations.

06/02/2023
Daniel Zeichner – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

The speech made by Daniel Zeichner, the Labour MP for Cambridge, at Westminster Hall, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I am grateful, as ever, to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for securing yet another debate on this important topic, and for drawing attention to the attached petitions. As ever, his introduction was full and thorough, and I will echo many of his points.

I commend other Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) hit the nail on the head in highlighting the contradiction between this decision and the Government’s wider aspirations. I very much enjoyed the account from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on the work done by Flourish, as well as hearing about the urban bee corridors that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned. A lot is being done on that in many places, including in my city of Cambridge, where Cambridge City Council is doing important work on it.

I was very pleased to hear the first Westminster Hall contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I must tell her that this is not an entirely typical Westminster Hall debate, because we did not hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I am sure that he will not mind me saying that—but we normally do. My hon. Friend made important points about run-off, which must be taken seriously.

So here we are again, Minister—last week, he was a great advocate of following scientific advice, but this week, it is all different. As many here have pointed out, the Government’s decision to issue an emergency authorisation to allow for the use of Cruiser SB—which contains thiamethoxam, a type of neonicotinoid—on sugar beet goes against the advice from the Government’s expert committee on pesticides and the Health and Safety Executive.

While the UK Government turn against the science, it is ironic that that comes just days after the European Court of Justice ruled that authorising derogations for the use of banned neonicotinoids was prohibited, stopping further applications for emergency use. That means that we are now an outrider, with lower standards than our neighbours. That is not a place that we should be, and it is not a place that Labour would be, because, for us, pollinator health is not negotiable. I said that last year and the year before, and it was as true then as it is now.

People will look back and ask why on earth this Conservative Government were so slow to act on the damage that is being done. Never mind worthy targets, never mind environmental improvement plans—this decision has been taken here and now. The attack on nature continues for as long as the Conservatives remain in power.

This is a long-standing debate and, as colleagues have pointed out, the Government have ignored the advice of the panel for three years in a row—they have ignored the science and the advice of the expert committee for three years. We have heard the advice, but I will repeat it: the committee advised against authorising a derogation on Cruiser SB because

“potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators outweigh the likely benefits.”

Last week, the Minister said that he believed in science and supported the work of experts, but now that advice is being ignored. I simply ask: why, Minister? I suspect that part of his answer may be the rules that go alongside the use of the Cruiser SB neonicotinoid-treated seeds. A period of time has been specified that must elapse before flowering crops can be planted in the same field. Herbicides must also be used to remove weeds in the field to reduce the exposure of pollinators to insecticides—I am afraid that that provision also adversely impacts pollinators through the reduction of available flowers, but we understand the goal to reduce overall potential risk.

It will probably be said that the threshold that will allow for its use has been increased this year, from 19% to 63%.We all hope that that threshold will not be reached—it was not the year before last. The truth is, however, that we genuinely do not know whether that will happen or not; it will depend on the weather.

But we do know for sure that neonicotinoids are extremely harmful to the environment. They affect the nervous system of bees and other insects, leading to their death. I cannot resist repeating what everyone else has said about the 1.25 billion honeybees that can potentially be killed by one teaspoon of the chemical. We all know how critical bees are for pollinating crops. As the brief provided by the all-party parliamentary group on the environment pointed out, wild bees are responsible for pollinating between 85% and 95% of the UK’s insect-pollinated crops. We also know that run-off into waterways and leaching into the soil and nearby wildflowers is a real threat, as the Bumblebee Conservation Trust highlighted in its brief on the impact not just on bumblebees, but on other animals and aquatic life.

We also understand the wider context, which is very difficult. Virus yellow is a cause of significant yield losses. The National Farmers Union reports that, for some, it is up to 50%. The most complex and serious is that spread by the peach potato aphid, and it is hard to control. In 2020, the sector lost 40% of the national sugar beet crop, bringing down the five-year average yield by 25%.

Frankly, the weather over the past few months has been really difficult. We all remember the searing heat from last summer—the drought—that hit particularly hard in key beet areas along the A14 and around Bury St Edmunds. And then, just before Christmas, there was a very harsh frost followed immediately by a big temperature rise, resulting in a rapid, rotting thaw. It has been really difficult, and that has been added to by a new pest, the beet moth, which seems to be attracted from Europe by the warmer temperatures here.

The overall result is that we are short of beet sugar this year, with beet having to be imported by the processor. That is tough on the growers, tough on the processor and adds more costs up the supply chain. With beet becoming a less attractive prospect to many growers, British Sugar already had to pay more to encourage people back into production. None of that is easy, and there are consequences and costs to any decision. I appreciate that, for farmers, it too often feels as though the tools that they need for the job are being systematically taken away. That is very difficult, because nature does not compromise.

We have to look at alternatives, as British Sugar and the NFU acknowledge in their helpful briefings. There are high hopes for varieties resistant to virus yellows and there is potential for the use of gene editing to secure that resistance. I hope that the Government follow our advice on the regulatory structures needed to make that happen. I am told that there is already a variety resistant to two virus yellow strains, but it is expensive and there is a yield penalty. I am also told that yield protection insurance is available, but again, that incurs more costs. Those are difficult decisions.

There are things that we can do, some of which have been outlined by other Members. We can develop non-chemical approaches, such as boosting beneficial insects, cover crops, better rotation and maintaining good farm hygiene. There is evidence that some farms have had success by adopting such measures. We should move much more quickly on adopting integrated pest-management systems. Ironically, as has been explained, that was part of the sustainable farming incentive package that the Government announced last week, and we welcome that. So I say to the Minister: be bold on that, listen to the scientists and get away from falling back on neonicotinoids, which we know do so much harm.

06/02/2023