UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2023

  • PRESS RELEASE : One-stop-shops for testing deliver over 3 million potentially lifesaving checks, tests and scans [February 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : One-stop-shops for testing deliver over 3 million potentially lifesaving checks, tests and scans [February 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department of Health and Social Care on 13 February 2023.

    Tens of thousands of patients across England to get quicker access to life-saving tests as 19 additional community diagnostic centres (CDCs) to open this year.

    • 92 operational CDCs have carried out an additional three million, tests, checks and scans across the country as the NHS works on the biggest ever catch-up programme
    • The one-stop shops are located in a range of convenient settings for patients, from shopping centres to football stadiums

    Tens of thousands of patients across the country will benefit from quicker access to tests, with 19 new community diagnostic centres which will perform 1.1 million tests, checks and scans every year set to open later this year.

    CDCs are central to the government’s elective recovery plan and the Prime Minister’s priority of reducing NHS waiting lists to tackle the backlogs in the NHS and social care, providing additional capacity for potentially lifesaving tests including cancer screening.

    New data shows 92 operational CDCs have already significantly bolstered NHS capacity as part of the most ambitious catch-up plan in NHS history, delivering an additional three million checks since the programme started in in July 2021, helping patients to get the diagnosis they need as quickly as possible so they can access the treatment they need where and when they need it.

    The one-stop shops, backed by £2.3 billion in government funding, are based in convenient locations such as shopping centres and football stadiums allowing people to access tests more quickly.

    The CDCs house a range of equipment including MRI, CT, X-ray and ultrasound scanners and offer services including blood tests or heart rhythm and blood pressure monitoring.

    The 19 approved new centres will be rolled out across the country, including Milton Keynes, Nottingham and Dorset. Once referred by a GP, pharmacist or hospital, patients can access CDCs in their local area to get any concerning symptoms checked out.

    Health and Social Care Secretary Steve Barclay said:

    Rapid diagnosis offers reassurance to patients, reduces waiting lists, and, crucially, saves lives.

    CDCs have been fundamental to this effort, delivering over 3 million extra tests which are helping to diagnose conditions from cancer to lung disease more quickly across the country.

    The new centres will take us even further, utilising cutting-edge MRI, CT and X-ray machine to transform the way we deliver care closer to people’s homes helping tens of thousands of people.

    NHS National Director of Elective Recovery, Sir James Mackey, said:

    The NHS’s ambitious elective recovery plan, published just over a year ago, had these innovative ‘one stop shops’ at its heart. Since then they have played a key role in helping us virtually eliminate the number of people waiting more than two years for treatment and keeping the NHS on track to do the same for people waiting over 18 months by the end of April, with the centres – often based in convenient places such as in shopping centres, high streets and community hospitals – now having delivered an incredible 3 million tests and checks.

    These 19 new centres will boost access for tens of thousands more patients and build on the great work of NHS staff in recovering services, helping the NHS deliver an extra 9 million tests a year by 2025 – an increase in capacity of more than a quarter on pre-pandemic levels.

    Once fully operational, the new CDCs will plan to deliver over 1.1 million tests, checks and scans a year.

    The facilities will take the total of approved CDCs – including those that are already operational and those still set to be rolled out – to 143. This is over 80% of the government’s ambition to roll out up to 160 centres across the country by 2025 to perform up to 9 million additional tests a year.

    Since the first of these CDCs opened they have already played a valuable role in helping the NHS to reduce the backlogs, and in November 2022 CDCs delivered approximately 5% of all diagnostic activity.

    Just over a year ago, the government and NHS set out the Elective Recovery Plan to recover NHS services and give patients greater control over their own health. Significant progress has since been made – with healthcare workers virtually eliminating the longest waits for treatment and cutting 18-month waits by more than 50%.

    These new CDCs will build on this effort, ensuring that patients get access to the best medical advice when and where they need it while tackling healthcare disparities across the country.

    Dozens of new surgical spaces are also being created to bring down waiting times. An estimated 780,000 additional surgeries and outpatient appointments will be provided at 37 new surgical hubs, 10 expanded existing hubs and 81 new theatres.

    The government has also set up an Elective Recovery Taskforce to unlock spare capacity in the independent sector to tackle the backlogs. It is made up of academics and experts from the NHS and independent sector, who will help deliver on the remaining targets in the Elective Recovery Plan – such as virtually eliminating 18-month waits by April 2023 and waits of longer than a year by March 2025.

    Notes to editors

    • 12 of the new facilities are spoke sites, which deliver more diagnostic services in addition to a standard CDC.
    • They can use commercial estate, or existing non-acute NHS estate such as community health care settings.

    The full list of approved CDCs is as follows:

    • North Bedfordshire CDC
    • North Bedfordshire (Lloyds Court) – spoke
    • North Bedfordshire CDC (Whitehouse Health Centre) – spoke
    • Thurrock CDC (Braintree) – spoke
    • Queen Mary’s Hospital Roehampton CDC (New Addington) – spoke
    • Northamptonshire CDC
    • Northamptonshire CDC (Kings Heath) – spoke
    • Mansfield CDC
    • Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin CDC
    • ICP North CDC (Metrocentre)
    • North Cumbria CDC
    • Warrington and Halton CDC (Shopping City) – spoke
    • Clatterbridge Diagnostics CDC (Liverpool City) – spoke
    • Lymington New Forest Hospital CDC (South Hants) – spoke
    • Crawley Collaborative CDC (Caterham Dene) – spoke
    • Bexhill Community CDC (Hastings) – spoke
    • CDC Poole@Dorset Health Village Hub
    • CDC@Dorset Health Village (Weymouth) – spoke
    • CDC@Dorset Health Village (Boscombe AECC) – spoke
  • PRESS RELEASE : Energy intensive industries given £12 million boost to cut emissions and costs [February 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Energy intensive industries given £12 million boost to cut emissions and costs [February 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on 13 February 2023.

    UK government announces further funding to help businesses clean up industrial processes and improve energy efficiency.

    • £12.4 million government funding is helping some of the most polluting industries find new ways to reduce their carbon emissions and energy bills
    • funding has supported the deployment of a range of new technologies, from heat pumps to hydrogen ready equipment, to help businesses cut fossil fuel use and improve energy efficiency
    • investment is helping to future-proof vital British industries in the transition to a lower carbon economy

    Businesses across the UK will benefit from a share of more than £12 million government funding to help energy-intensive industries cut their carbon emissions and energy costs.

    The funding for the 22 winning projects will help businesses across England, Wales and Northern Ireland clean up their industrial processes and improve their energy efficiency – benefiting industries including pharmaceuticals, steel, paper, and food and drink.

    This £12.4 million funding was awarded as part of the Industrial Energy Transformation Fund (IETF), which has awarded grants to British projects across the country to increase the energy efficiency of their industrial processes, from car manufacturing to steel production and food processing.

    The winning bids include sustainably harvesting food in Carmarthenshire, Wales, through a new air source heat pump system, capturing waste heat to dry, heat, crush and grind materials for roadmaking in South Yorkshire and using revolutionary high temperature heat pumps to reduce the energy needed to heat and cool cheese, reducing emissions in dairy farms across the Midlands.

    It is estimated that industry is currently responsible for producing 16% of the UK’s emissions and will need to cut emissions by two thirds by 2035 in order for the UK to achieve its net zero target.

    Today’s funding will play a crucial role in helping to clean up big-emitting industries as part of the UK’s green industrial revolution – decarbonising their industrial processes and reducing their reliance on expensive fossil fuels, such as gas. This means businesses will not only reduce their environmental impact, but also save on their energy bills and safeguard thousands of British jobs.

    Graham Stuart, Minister at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said:

    Boosting the energy efficiency of industrial processes is a critical step not only in our transition to a lower-carbon economy, but also by helping businesses to cut their energy costs and protect valuable British jobs.

    That’s why the government has stepped in once again to support energy intensive industries, with a fresh funding round to unleash the next generation of green innovators who are re-shaping the way technology can reduce carbon emissions.

    So far, £34.8 million of funding has been awarded through the Industrial Energy Transformation Fund, which was first launched in June 2020.

    Today’s winners

    Greener food

    One of the biggest food companies in Europe, Dunbia, based in Carmarthenshire, Wales, has been awarded funds to upgrade its heating system from a gas oil fired steam boiler to an air source heat pump that is powered by renewably sourced electricity. This allows the company to harvest edible products and process the food with hot water washing, through a sustainable and energy efficient thermal supply system, reducing carbon emissions each year.

    Sustainable roads

    Harsco Environmental’s SteelPhalt plant, based in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, has been developing and manufacturing high performance tarmac products for the UK roadmaking industry since the 1960s. This energy intensive process of drying, heating, crushing, grinding, conveying currently utilises large volumes of natural gas, gas oil and electricity from the grid, but thanks to government funding, the company is investigating ways to capture the waste heat in the exhaust gases and transform it into electrical power, reducing the fuel demand of the road burners and supporting manufacturing in the local area.

    Lighter, safer vehicles

    Autotech Engineering / Gestamp is a multinational based in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, specialising in the design, development and manufacture of metals for lighter and safer vehicles. Whereby high-tonnage presses of flat metal sheets typically loses lots of energy through heat and noise, IETF has helped to fund the SERPENT project which is actively capturing and reusing this lost energy. With a reduction of almost 10% already seen in peak power usage during tool changeover, this funding is helping to lower energy consumption and the environmental impact of critical car manufacturing.

    Say cheese

    The Long Clawson Dairy has been producing cheese for over a century, running over 31 farms in the Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire areas. The production of cheese is an energy intensive process involving both heating and cooling activities. Through IETF funding, the company has created a new thermal storage system, using revolutionary high temperature heat pumps to reduce overall energy by 27% and saving 34% carbon emissions, with the ambition of moving to a purely electrically powered in the long term.

    Today’s announcement builds on the wide-ranging support that is available to energy-intensive industries. The UK government recognises that businesses are feeling the impact of high global energy prices, including steel producers, which is why the Energy Bill Relief Scheme was launched to bring down costs. This is in addition to more than £800 million of support the government has provided since 2013 to help industrial sectors with energy costs, with many businesses able to bid into government competitive funds worth more than £1.5 billion to support them going green, cutting emissions and becoming more energy efficient.

    Niall Browne, CEO, Dunbia (UK), said:

    Dunbia (UK), through its parent company Dawn Meats, was the first European beef and lamb processor to make a commitment to the Science Based Targets Initiative. We have been working for more than 10 years to reduce emissions internally and more widely across our supply chain and recognise the urgency to adopt even more aggressive measures to reduce emissions.

    We welcome this opportunity to work with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to further improve our energy efficiency and cut our carbon emissions.

    A Harsco Metalscompany spokesperson said:

    Harsco has welcomed the IETF grant offer from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to continue its journey to help continue our commitment to innovation and sustainability. With this IETF feasibility funding grant, we have been able to investigate how we can recover heat from our asphalt plant to optimise our use of energy and reduce our carbon footprint.

    Phil Potter, the SERPENT Project Manager, said:

    The SERPENT feasibility study was a high-risk technology project not aligned with Gestamp’s core business activities and would not be completed without IETF support and funding. We have been successful in demonstrating feasibility and initial results look extremely promising with a reduction of almost 10% seen in peak power usage during tool changeover.

    We have yet to process that data and analyse the economic viability but we have already demonstrated that this approach improves manufacturing energy efficiency to reduce waste and carbon footprint and support our drive to Net Zero with no impact on press performance.

    Iain Grant, Operations Director, Long Clawson Dairy, said:

    The production of our Stilton cheese is an energy intensive process involving both heating and cooling activities. With the investment in this project, it has enabled the Dairy to take a more cost-effective approach to energy consumption, alongside a clear carbon emission reduction. This is a substantial investment for a business of our size and would not have been possible without the support of the IETF grant funding.

  • Jon Trickett – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    Jon Trickett – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by Jon Trickett, the Labour MP for Hemsworth, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    I think it is the second time this week that you have guided us through a Westminster Hall debate that I have attended, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate and on her comments, which resonated with some of the problems we face in my area.

    Obviously the country has a housing problem as our population increases and household size falls, but it seems to me that, as the right hon. Lady just said, a large amount of brownfield land in the country remains undeveloped. There are also large numbers of planning consents in land banks held by developers that are sitting on their assets and allowing them to grow while seeking further planning consents, on which they will probably sit as well.

    It is time to think carefully about our green belt. I represent a rural community of 23 separate villages. It is important for Members who represent urban communities to understand the importance of the independence of a local community, its local identity and local culture. Ribbon development, which gradually takes one field, then another and then another, results in the bringing together of communities that historically were often rivals, or certainly have different identities that they want to retain.

    Take the village that I live in, which is a Quaker village in a mining community. We are now two fields away from Pontefract. If we go back far enough—back to the civil war—we stood for Parliament and Pontefract stood for the Crown. That is some time in the past now, but we get the point. I can look from the top of our village down into Pontefract; it is creeping closer and closer, and there are plans to develop more of those fields. The village I live in is a rural community, with its own identity. We do not want to be part of Pontefract, and the same applies to all the other 22 villages that I represent.

    At the present time, we have three developments, all in the green belt and all for housing. I want to say two things about that: first, it is lazy for planners to simply draw lines on maps that look tidy without first having thought about the social, economic and environmental consequences. Secondly, to some extent, it is greedy of developers to want green-belt land, which is often easier to develop than brownfield land, particularly in a mining community such as mine where much of the brownfield land has been polluted and needs to be cleaned up. There are three sites in my constituency, all in the green belt; a lot of people want to speak, so I am not going to go into detail, but Springvale Rise, Highfield Road and Huntwick Grange are all under threat of development at the moment.

    The first thing to say about my constituency is that these villages were mining communities. The coal was taken out by rail, so roads that would carry large amounts of traffic were never built, because people lived in the village where they worked, and they went to the local pub, club, football club or whatever social activity, and to the local school. Our roads are not built to carry the amount of traffic that is being generated by increasing numbers of vehicles, particularly now that there is no work in our communities either, but the highways engineers seem prepared to approve almost anything as long as it is going to deliver housing targets that have been imposed from above.

    I was so pleased to hear our leader, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), say that he is going to bring back control for local communities, and I think some rhetoric about the same principle has been heard from the Government as well. If we are going to develop villages that need development, that should be done from the bottom up, not from the top down—that is my central point. Green-belt incursions should be a last resort, not the easy resort. I am asking for a presumption against green-belt land and in favour of brownfield land, and I think the Government have said that there will be one.

    Does the Minister have time to reply, or else to write to us, about the following point? The Government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made statements about preferring brownfield development, and a “Dear colleague” letter has come from the Secretary of State that indicates—it uses the present tense, rather than the future tense—that he has issued orders about preferring to move away from green-belt development. Now, an inspector is looking at our local authority’s plans, and I have spoken at those hearings. That inspector started her inspection prior to the new legislation that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has referred to, and prior to the issuing of that “Dear colleague” letter and, apparently, some changes to the way in which the planning frameworks operate. She is unclear whether she will be applying the new rules as they come into place, or whether she is now obliged to work according to rules that are no longer extant, or will no longer be very shortly. Some guidance on that question would be helpful.

    The green belt is very important. I want to focus on one single aspect of it, or maybe two, because other Members will develop other arguments in favour of it. First, I represent many old miners. If a person lives in poverty and perhaps has a bad chest, as many of those old men do, they should not be deprived of access to the countryside, but the more we build up, the fewer amenities will be available. That is what is happening throughout all the villages I represent, every one of which was a mining village. The loss of amenities matters a lot: they should be not for just the middle classes, but for everybody, and yet we are seeing incursions that I think are a disgrace.

    The main point that I want to finish on—it will take me one or two seconds—is that there is no obligation on planners, developers, councils or anybody else to do an analysis of the ecological impact of a development before it has been approved. In my view, that is completely wrong.

    We have one development that could be 4,000 or 5,000 houses, if they get away with it. I commissioned, because nobody else did, an ecological survey by the reputable West Yorkshire Ecological Service. That survey discovered on the site to be developed 26 or 28 separate species of birds, mammals or other forms of life that are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or birds that are on the Red List. Nobody had done that work, yet all of these species are protected, as far as I can see. There ought to be no development that destroys their habitats, yet that is what is being threatened.

    It is a curious situation, because there is legal protection, but no attempt was made to identify which species were threatened by the development. It seems to me that the Minister could helpfully go away to the Department and discuss that point. Every time we build on green belt, rare species of flora and fauna are threatened. The land in our case has never been developed; it is ancient woodland that has never been touched, ever, but is is now under threat from the development at Huntwick Grange in Featherstone. Will the Minister reflect on the ecological impact?

    Only a couple of weeks ago, when the United Nations discussed biodiversity, the Secretary-General, in a very striking phase, said that humanity is in danger of becoming

    “a weapon of mass extinction.”

    What are we doing? We are building on sites where there are species that are under threat, and that may well become extinct in due course. Some species now have a very fragile hold on existence. Can we really say that our planning policies should just ignore threats to our biodiversity? I think not.

  • Wendy Morton – 2023 Statement on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    Wendy Morton – 2023 Statement on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The statement made by Wendy Morton, the Conservative MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the matter of brownfield development and protecting the green belt.

    I thank right hon. and hon. Members, from both sides of the House, for being here today to support my debate. I appreciate that this is a Thursday afternoon just before a recess, and by-elections are going on across the country. I am sure that Members have many pressing commitments in their diary, so I am impressed by the number of colleagues here to support me today. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her recent appointment to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; I am pretty certain that she knows a little bit about the topic that I will be speaking to today.

    It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on our green belt. The national planning policy framework states:

    “The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.”

    I very much hope that that is the case. The recent new clause 21 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—so ably put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who is with us today in Westminster Hall, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who is unable to be with us today, to strengthen the green belt’s protection against speculative development—would certainly help the Government with that stated objective.

    However, CPRE, the countryside charity, rightly identifies that

    “the Green Belt has never before faced such serious threat as large sections of land disappear under new developments.”

    It is worth remembering the purpose of the green belt in our communities. It serves five purposes: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Despite the fact that we have those protections in place, however, they too often count for very little with developers who seek to drive a coach and horses through planning policies to take what is the easy answer for them but the unpalatable option for so many of our constituents.

    In my own constituency in the west midlands, we were previously part of a consortium with three neighbouring local authorities to produce our local plan, known as the “Black Country Plan”. It proposed, across the borough of Walsall, a staggering 7,100 homes, of which 5,500 were proposed for my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, primarily on green-belt sites. Nearly every one of the proposed sites broke the central link of one of the five purposes of our green belt—that is, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. Indeed, one of the central themes throughout the consultation process, which came up time and again from my constituents, was their objection to having our community subsumed to become a suburb of a Greater Birmingham. After the first round of consultation on the proposed plan, which more than 7,000 households from my constituency opposed, the answer, at stage 2 of the process, was not to take on board the comments of constituents such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills; it was to come back with more proposals for yet more housing on even more green-belt sites.

    However, now that the Black Country consortium has been dissolved, new clause 21 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would help Walsall Council and the leadership, under Conservative Councillor Mike Bird, to forge a new local plan, which I believe could have a primary focus on “brownfield first”—brownfield development being prioritised over green-belt development.

    I emphasise that those of us who argue for greater protection of our precious green belt are not and should not be simply labelled as nimbys. We are not. Nor is it the case that somehow I simply want to push the proposed housing into someone else’s constituency. I do not. What I want is for us to be ambitious and to be a regeneration generation.

    We all recognise that we desperately need to see more homes come on stream faster and in larger numbers, but what types of homes do we as a nation need? I argue that they must include starter homes to allow younger people the same opportunity that my husband and I had in our 20s—I remember the joy of getting the keys to our first home. All too often, however, those are not the homes that developers want to build, particularly in proposals for the green belt. Indeed, speculative developer plans in a development brief for one green-belt site in Aldridge-Brownhills proposed to build four and five-bedroom houses in a location where average house prices are between 51% and 110% higher than the national average spend of a first-time buyer, which stands at just over £200,000.

    The race to ensure that the next generation have the same opportunities will not be solved by concreting over Britain’s green and pleasant land. If we simply accept the argument that supply shortage is the principal reason for advocating green-belt development, we will walk into the developers’ trap. Building on inappropriate sites, with no infrastructure plan to support development in areas where there is all too often a shortage of school places and GP provision already, does not add to the existing community cohesion; in fact, it risks creating greater community tensions.

    Given that we now have the capacity to build 1.2 million new homes on brownfield sites in England, surely they should be the first port of call for any house building programme. The Government are to be congratulated on continued initiatives such as the brownfield land release fund, which will help us to introduce a realistic house building programme on brownfield sites. The fund has allowed regions such as mine, under the stewardship of Mayor Andy Street, to ensure that we are remediating brownfield sites and operating a “brownfield first” approach across the west midlands and the Black Country. I place on record my thanks to the Minister’s predecessor in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for successfully overseeing a further round of that important funding, and I now look to the Minister to pick up the baton and lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ahead of the Budget on 15 March, for further resources to advance the opportunities for more local authorities to apply for, and take advantage of, the scheme. She knows the west midlands very well, so she knows that we can and do deliver, and we want to do more.

    However, in addition to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and initiatives such as the brownfield land release fund, the imminent changes to the national planning policy framework need to be used as an opportunity to strengthen protections for our green belt. I hope that we will institute the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land in the changes that are due to be brought forward to the NPPF. Like CPRE, I hope that they will include a firm presumption against giving planning permission for development on additional greenfield sites, compared with those already in the plan. Greenfield sites should be allocated in local plans only where sites are primarily affordable homes for local needs, or where it can be shown that as much as possible is already being made of brownfield land, particularly by providing more housing in towns and city centres.

    The NPPF also needs to change to require that all developments have diverse housing tenures and types. As I mentioned previously, a proposed development in my constituency has exclusively focused on large four and five-bedroom properties, offering no hope or opportunity to young families and young people. The infrastructure levy should be subject to change, too, to reflect the high cost of greenfield development to local communities and its impact on them, although brownfield redevelopment should still be required to make a contribution to affordable housing targets. We also need to provide local communities with stronger mechanisms to bring forward brownfield land as a source of land supply, such as increased compulsory purchase powers.

    There will always be naysayers who tell us that brownfield land will not provide sufficient land to meet housing need and that the loss of brownfield sites for housing purposes will lead to the loss of land that could be used for employment purposes. However, we need to recognise that areas such as the Black Country and the west midlands—land on which heavy industry once stood—are unlikely to be returned to widespread employment use. If we are to be the regeneration generation, we need developers and our wider construction professionals to pioneer new communities that will offer a mix of employment and housing. In fact, a large part of any revival of our town centres and high streets surely can be achieved only if we accept the need for more designated housing in them to provide new and in-built footfall.

    There is no doubt that when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill went to the other place, it did so in a far better state. However, I fear that the concessions that were won through the acceptance of new clause 21 can be easily undermined if powers under the NPPF are not strengthened. We need to see an end to the five-year land supply obligation and an end to the scandal of land banking. We need further Government support with the cost of land remediation through the brownfield fund and the brownfield land release fund, and that needs to be adequately resourced.

    I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will agree that the best developments are those that work with, not against, local communities. The right type of planning regulation that unlocks the power of local communities and economic growth should not be seen as incompatible with protecting our environment and precious green belt. In the same way, our whole debate about the green belt should not be seen through the lens of “green belt good” and “house building bad” —or vice versa.

    To conclude, we need to draw on our resources to solve the failure of house building. That means seeking to use our resources to build 1.2 million homes on brownfield sites first. “Brownfield first” should be our development watchwords. Get this wrong, and our green belt will be lost forever, which would be a travesty for future generations, but get this right, and we can truly be the regeneration generation.

  • Chris Heaton-Harris – 2023 Statement on the Northern Ireland Executive Formation

    Chris Heaton-Harris – 2023 Statement on the Northern Ireland Executive Formation

    The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    Today, the Government is introducing the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, to extend the period within which the Northern Ireland parties can form an Executive to 18 January 2024.

    Over a year has passed since the then First Minister of Northern Ireland resigned. Twelve months and one Assembly election later, it is disappointing that people in Northern Ireland still do not have the strong devolved institutions that they deserve.

    The restoration of the Executive, in line with the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement, remains my top priority. I will continue to do all I can to help the Northern Ireland parties work together to make that happen. It was on that basis that we legislated in the autumn to extend the Executive formation period through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. Since that period ended on 20 January 2023, I have once again been under a statutory duty to hold an Assembly election within 12 weeks (that is on or before 13 April 2023).

    Having spoken to political representatives, businesses and communities in Northern Ireland, I have concluded that another election at this time is not the best course of action to facilitate the restoration of the Executive.

    On that basis, this Bill will provide for a single retrospective extension of the Executive formation period of one year from 19 January 2023. That would mean that, if the parties are unable to form an Executive before 19 January 2024, I would again fall under a duty to hold an Assembly election within 12 weeks. The legislation will also enable the Government to bring this new period to an early end and move to elections sooner, if necessary.

    Yesterday, in a meeting with vice-president of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič in Brussels, I reiterated that the UK Government are working hard to resolve the problems caused by the Northern Ireland protocol, and the desire to see an agreed solution with the EU. I was clear that this extension does not influence protocol discussions.

    I remain focused on restoring devolved institutions as soon as possible and this Bill creates the best opportunity to do that. I will continue to do all I can to support the people of Northern Ireland in the meantime. I will also host Northern Ireland party leaders at a roundtable in Belfast today to urge them to restore the Executive as soon as possible.

    I very much hope that the parties will recognise the importance of getting back to work, so that a functioning Executive can take the actions needed, to address the challenges facing public services in Northern Ireland.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on Fire and Rescue Services and the Consultation on Minimum Service Levels

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on Fire and Rescue Services and the Consultation on Minimum Service Levels

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    On 10 January, the Government introduced the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill in Parliament. This is part of the Government plan to ensure the ability of the unions and their members to strike whilst giving confidence to the wider public that they can retain access to key services during periods of strike action.

    The Bill gives Secretaries of State the power to use regulations to set a minimum service level in six specified sectors and also specify the “relevant services” to which they apply. Fire and rescue services are defined as one of the six sectors.

    The Bill sets out that where a trade union gives notice of strike action the employer may decide to issue a work notice, in accordance with the minimum service level set, ahead of the strike day(s). The work notice will specify the individuals required to work in order to meet the minimum service level and the nature of the work that they must carry out.

    Consultation

    Prior to using regulations to set minimum service levels for any of the sectors in scope of the Bill, the relevant Secretary of State is required to consult such people as they consider appropriate. The Secretary of State must also consult—before specifying in regulations—the particular services to which MSLs will apply.

    Today a public consultation has been published on gov.uk to fulfil these requirements in relation to the fire and rescue services. In addition, Home Office officials will continue to engage with key fire and rescue service stakeholders. The consultation will run for 12 weeks from 9 February to 3 May 2023.

    The consultation sets out that the essential services in scope of a minimum service level should be those required to deal with emergency incidents that pose an immediate risk to the public. This should include but not be limited to:

    • Firefighting.

    • Rescues (including, but not limited to, on the road network, water rescue or rescues at height). This includes actions to avoid further harm such as rectifying potentially hazardous situations to avoid future risk of fire and rescue, for example clearance of debris on motorways and major roads.

    • Dangerous substance clean-up.

    • Services necessary to carry out the above, including for example control room activities. Other activities undertaken by fire and rescue services, such as fire safety audits and domestic fire safety visits, remain vital but it is less arguable that there could be an immediate risk to life as a result of strike action by staff providing these services. We therefore do not consider that these services should be subject to a minimum service level at this time. However, the consultation asks respondents to consider any further services that should be brought into scope of the minimum service level, for example, in the event of prolonged strikes by fire and rescue service staff.

    The consultation invites comment on five potential approaches for setting a minimum service level for fire and rescue services. These are:

    • Requiring staffing levels or fire engine availability to remain above a specified percentage relative to business as usual.

    • Requiring staffing levels to be shaped by the minimum resources needed to respond to specific risks, such as a major incident.

    • Requiring business as usual staffing levels to be maintained during periods of peak demand on fire and rescue services. This could include days where we would expect greater demand on the service (such as Bonfire Night and its nearest weekends), periods of severe weather such as extreme flooding or wildfires, and/or periods when other emergency services are taking strike action.

    • Asking local leaders and organisational input to provide evidence to allow the Home Office to decide what the minimum service level in each of the 44 fire and rescue service areas should look like.

    • Setting a national minimum level of service to be provided by fire and rescue services during periods of strike action, and then providing flexibility for local leader and organisational input to decide whether to build on that minimum level in light of their local area’s needs and risk profile.

    The consultation sets out that there is flexibility to use elements from different options in combination, to cover essential services.

    This Government recognise the principle of workers and unions being able to negotiate over fair pay. However, the UK Government also have a duty to the public to ensure their safety, protect their access to vital public services and to help them go about their daily lives. The fire and rescue services provide a vital role in protecting the public and it is right that we seek to ensure the public can rely on these vital services during strike periods.

    I will place a copy of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Maria Caulfield – 2023 Statement on Indemnity for the Liverpool Community Health Independent Investigation

    Maria Caulfield – 2023 Statement on Indemnity for the Liverpool Community Health Independent Investigation

    The statement made by Maria Caulfield, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

    I have today laid a departmental minute proposing the provision by NHS England of an indemnity that is necessary in respect of an NHSE non-statutory independent investigation into patient safety incidents and deaths at the former Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust.

    This investigation follows an independent review chaired by Dr Bill Kirkup CBE into widespread failings by Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust. The review report, published on 8 February 2018, found that there were significant failings in the trust from November 2010 to December 2014.

    It is important that these failings are investigated and that lessons are learnt to improve services. In response to the serious patient safety incidents described in the report, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care commissioned Dr Kirkup to conduct an independent investigation into patient safety incidents at the trust. The investigation’s terms of reference cover patient safety incidents that occurred in the same period as the initial independent review addressed—namely, November 2010 to December 2014. The investigation was originally intended to submit its report at the end of 2021, but a number of factors have come together to delay its work, including challenges related to information governance and electronic document management. We now expect the investigation to have reported by spring 2024 at the latest.

    NHSE is able to obtain indemnity cover from NHS Resolution through the liabilities to third parties scheme—LTPS. The scheme applies to any liability that a member of the scheme owes to any third party in respect of loss, damage or injury arising out of an act or omission in the course of the carrying out of any relevant function of that member which is a qualifying liability.

    The NHS resolution indemnity will cover any sums—including any legal or other associated costs—that members of the investigation team are liable to pay in relation to legal action brought against them by a third party in respect of liabilities arising from any act done, or omission made, honestly and in good faith, when carrying out activities for the purposes of the investigation. The indemnity will apply to any work carried out in accordance with the investigation’s terms of reference from the commencement of the investigation to its completion in 2024. The indemnity will cover the contingent liability of any legal action up to and following the publication of the investigation report.

    The liability of the scheme for any proceedings brought against the member by virtue of section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, or any subsequent updating or replacement legislation (the “data protection legislation”), for all compensation payable to any claimant or any number of claimants in respect of or arising out of any one event or series of events consequent on or attributable to one source or original cause shall not exceed £50,000. Further, the maximum sum payable for such cases in any one membership year shall not exceed £500,000.

    However, in view of the substantial fines that it is possible for the Information Commissioner’s Office to impose in the unlikely event of a data breach, NHSE considers it prudent for the £50,000 cover available under the NHS Resolution LTPS scheme to be “topped up” with a specific NHSE indemnity to £500,000. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

    The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days, beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a member signifies an objection, by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

  • Steve Barclay – 2023 Speech on Ambulance Services and Consultation on Minimum Service Levels

    Steve Barclay – 2023 Speech on Ambulance Services and Consultation on Minimum Service Levels

    The speech made by Steve Barclay, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult with such persons as they consider appropriate prior to making regulations to establish minimum service levels for relevant health services in the event of strike action. The regulations must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they are made. The consultation requirements may be fulfilled before and after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Minimum service levels will enable employers to issue work notices, ensuring adequate staffing for a minimum level of safety to be achieved in the event of strike action.

    Minimum service levels aim to limit the impacts of strike action on the lives and livelihoods of the public and to strike a balance between the right of unions and their members to strike with the need for the wider public to be able to access key services during strikes.

    This consultation focuses on minimum service levels for ambulance services, which the Prime Minister has identified as a priority, alongside fire and rescue services and rail services. Our proposal is that ambulance services should be covered in regulations as a priority recognising that disruption to blue light services puts lives at immediate risk. This consultation will help to inform a decision as to whether ambulance services should be covered by the regulations and if so the detail regarding the minimum service levels required in the ambulance service.

    The consultation will open today, Thursday 9 February 2023, and will be open for a period of 12 weeks, closing on Thursday 4 May 2023.

    Copies of the consultation will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Rebecca Pow – 2023 Statement on Air Pollution and Funding for Local Authorities

    Rebecca Pow – 2023 Statement on Air Pollution and Funding for Local Authorities

    The statement made by Rebecca Pow, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 9 February 2023.

    Today we announced our award of £10.7 million in funding to local authorities in England to help them tackle air pollution in their areas.

    Across 44 different projects, we are helping local authorities to improve air quality in their local communities to benefit schools, businesses and residential areas and reduce the impact of air pollution on public health.

    The air quality grants have been running since 1997 and since 2010, we have awarded nearly £53 million in funding.

    This year’s grant has prioritised three areas:

    Projects which reduce air pollutant exceedances especially in those areas that are projected to remain in exceedance of the UK’s legal targets;

    Projects to improve knowledge and information about air quality and steps individuals can take to reduce their exposure to air pollution and minimise health risk;

    Measures that reduce levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), including support for low-emission transport.

    Schemes across England being funded include air quality education programmes for healthcare workers; traffic management schemes to reduce congestion and  emissions; the funding of an e-cargo bike scheme for businesses to reduce their reliance on more polluting vehicles; and the implementation of a river freight scheme in London.

    The air quality grant scheme will reopen for new applications in summer 2023.

    Authority Value funded (£)
    Bedford Borough Council 36,332
    Bedford Borough Council 113,071
    Blaby District Council 573,701
    Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole Council 120,309
    Buckinghamshire Council 120,000
    City of York 101,375
    Colchester Borough Council 310,770
    Cornwall Council 62,160
    Derbyshire County Council 278,347
    East Herts Council 126,408
    Exeter City Council 367,428
    Lancaster City Council Air Quality 454,576
    Lincolnshire County Council (In partnership with councils for City of Lincoln, South Kesteven District, North Kesteven District, Boston Borough, East Lindsey District, West Lindsey District, and South Holland District). 58,180
    London Borough of Brent 470,546
    London Borough of Camden 170,645
    London Borough of Enfield 223,500
    London Borough of Havering 65,127
    London Borough of Havering 35,139
    London Borough of Islington 282,680
    London Borough of Lewisham 248,021
    London Borough of Redbridge 323,774
    London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham 277,950
    Maldon District Council 129,000
    Medway Council—Environmental Protection Team 279,533
    Norfolk County Council 171,545
    Oxford City Council 192,993
    Reading Borough Council 327,000
    South Ribble Borough Council 53,244
    South Tyneside Council 201,005
    Southampton City Council 248,198
    Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 256,285
    St Helens Borough Council (in partnership with Warrington Borough Council) 405,227
    Surrey Heath Borough Council 12,280
    Swindon Borough Council 148,902
    Telford and Wrekin Council 147,615
    Tunbridge Wells Council (in partnership with councils for Ashford Borough, Canterbury City, Dartford Borough, Dover District, Folkestone & Hythe District, Gravesham Borough, Kent County, Maidstone Borough, Medway, Sevenoaks District, Swale Borough Council, Thanet District, Tonbridge and Mailing Borough) 175,675
    West Midlands Combined Authority (in partnership with councils for Birmingham City, Coventry City, Dudley Metropolitan Borough, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough, Solihull Metropolitan Borough, Walsall Metropolitan Borough and the City of Wolverhampton) 918,531
    West Northamptonshire Council 292,378
    West Yorkshire Combined Authority (in partnership with councils for Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds City, and Wakefield) 220,457
    Westminster City Council 72,521
    Westminster City Council (delivered through Cross River Partnership, in partnership with City of London Corporation, London Boroughs of Ealing, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Richmond, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea) 1,000,000
    Wirral Borough Council 171,200
    Wokingham Borough Council 213,332
    Worcestershire Regulatory Services (on behalf of councils for Worcester City, Wyre Forest District, Wychavon District, Malvern Hills District, Bromsgrove District, and Redditch Borough) 248,400

  • John Glen – 2023 Statement on Customs Fraud and the European Union

    John Glen – 2023 Statement on Customs Fraud and the European Union

    The statement made by John Glen, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    In March 2018, the European Commission took the first steps towards infracting the UK, alleging that between November 2011 and October 2017, the UK had failed to prevent undervaluation fraud involving importations of Chinese textiles and footwear. On 8 March 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) published its judgment, finding against the UK on most liability points.

    The UK has argued throughout the case that it took appropriate steps to counter the fraud in question. However, since these infringement proceedings were raised, the UK has taken proportionate and increased steps to combat this fraud without impacting legitimate trade, including by liquidating suspect traders through enforcement action. The UK takes a comprehensive and dynamic approach to tackling customs fraud risk and evolves its responses as any new potential threats emerge.

    Whilst the UK has now left the European Union and this is a legacy matter from before our departure, the Government are keen to resolve this long-running case once and for all and are committed to fulfilling their international obligations.

    Throughout this process, the Government have also been conscious of the risk of further protracted legal proceedings, which could open UK taxpayers to not only a larger principal bill, but also continued substantial interest accrual. Considering this, in June 2022 the UK took the proactive step of making a payment of €678,372,885.63, which the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out in a statement to the House on 30 June (HCWS167). This represented the minimum, indisputable amount the UK considered due at that time in light of the CJEU judgment and, vitally, stopped interest accruing on this portion of the bill.

    Following further discussions with the European Commission, on 13 January 2023, the UK made a final principal payment to the EU of €700,351,738.31. This constitutes the entire remaining principal due and the figure paid reflects the 12.43% share back that the UK is entitled to from its time as a member state.

    On 6 February 2023, the UK made a final payment to the EU of €1,227,884,519.53, representing the interest due on the principal amounts paid. These are substantial sums but represent the final payments and draw a line under this long running case, with the UK fulfilling its international obligations.

    Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU customs union, we do not have to remit any duties to the European Union, a tax that in 2021-22 represented a £4.9 billion contribution to the Exchequer. Outside the EU, we can set our own law, including tax and trade policies, that work for the UK. Furthermore, taking into account the financial settlement with the EU, the Government have determined how an additional £14.6 billion of spending by 2024-25 can be allocated to its domestic priorities, rather than be sent in contributions to the EU. This additional spending was already included in the overall spending plans that the Government set out at previous spending reviews.