Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) I beg to move, That
this House has considered a wellbeing economy approach to meeting
climate goals. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr
Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate why the
Government should embrace a wellbeing economy if they are serious
about meeting their climate goals. Beyond the climate emergency,
there are many other reasons to move beyond our current extractive,
exploitative and...Request free trial
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a wellbeing economy approach to
meeting climate goals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Betts. I am
grateful for the opportunity to debate why the Government should
embrace a wellbeing economy if they are serious about meeting
their climate goals. Beyond the climate emergency, there are many
other reasons to move beyond our current extractive, exploitative
and growth-addicted economic system: tackling inequality,
stopping the destruction of the natural world and preventing
future pandemics, to name just three.
Crucially, the discussions in and around the COP26 summit remind
us that those issues cannot be separated and siloed. If we keep
decimating the natural world, we will not meet climate goals. If
we do not put equality and justice at the heart of climate
action, we will not make the shift to a greener and fairer
economy. Pandemics, meanwhile, in the words of some of the
world’s leading scientists, are
“a direct consequence of human activity—particularly our global
financial and economic systems, based on a limited paradigm that
prizes economic growth at any cost.”
Many colleagues will be well versed in why GDP growth has always
been a terrible measure of a nation’s economic progress—I will
not go into the detail now. However, it cannot be overestimated
how critical shifting from growth to wellbeing is from a social
and equity perspective. As a report by leading economists for the
OECD finds, patterns of economic growth have generated
significant harm over recent decades. That includes rising
inequality, not just catastrophic environmental degradation—which
itself hits the most vulnerable the hardest.
I want to focus on the climate imperative of transforming our
economic system, and on the wellbeing economy as a specific,
practical and positive alternative to economics as usual. I will
start by mentioning a recent parliamentary petition that called
on the Government to shift to a wellbeing economy and put the
health of people and planet first. It has been linked to this
debate on today’s Order Paper; I want to thank the many thousands
of people who supported that petition. It was started by a young
Brighton constituent, Skylar Sharples, and it begins like
this:
“We urgently need the Government to prioritise the health and
wellbeing of people and planet, by pursuing a Wellbeing Economy
approach. To deliver a sustainable and equitable recovery, the
Treasury should target social and environmental goals, rather
than fixating on short-term profit and growth…Two thirds of the
public want the Treasury to put wellbeing above growth. Scotland
and Wales are already part of the Wellbeing Economy Governments
alliance. As host of the COP26 climate summit, the UK Government
should build and champion a Wellbeing Economy—at home and
globally.”
That petition did tremendously well to get almost 70,000
signatures. Even though it was not enough to secure a debate via
the Petitions Committee, I am very grateful that through the
ballot process we were able to hold today’s debate.
In turning to the climate imperative for switching from growth to
wellbeing as the purpose of our economy, I will start with the
science. If we take the global climate goal of reaching net zero
by 2050—leaving aside the injustice and inadequacy of that as the
UK’s goal—economic growth is still the elephant in the room.
During that same 30-year period, between now and 2050, the global
economy is set to nearly triple in size. That means three times
more production and consumption than we already have each year.
It is enough of a challenge to decarbonise an economy the size of
the current one in such a short time span; it will be virtually
impossible to do it three times over. If we carry on with growth
as usual, then halving emissions by 2030 would require that rich
countries like the UK decarbonise their economies at a rate of
more than 12% per year. That is more than five times faster than
the historic rate of decarbonisation, and about three times
faster than what scientists project is possible, even under
highly optimistic conditions. The most “successful” rich
countries are decarbonising at only around 3.4% a year; the
performance of average rich countries is much worse. The gap is
huge, and however heroic one’s assumptions are about the
potential for decoupling growth from carbon emissions—an argument
that I am sure we will hear from the Minister—there is no
evidence that there can be absolute decoupling in anything like a
fast enough timeframe.
The bottom line is that the GDP figures that we are using to
measure economic success are also measuring the rate at which we
are barrelling towards climate catastrophe. It is little wonder
that the voices around us are saying that we need to end our
addiction to GDP growth to tackle the climate emergency. Those
voices—from climate scientists and environmentalists to
economists, health professionals and business leaders—are
becoming louder. I want to give two examples.
There was a recent joint report from the Intergovern-mental Panel
on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—an
intergovernmental body that assesses biodiversity. The report
calls for
“a profound collective shift of individual and shared values
concerning nature—such as moving away from the conception of
economic progress based solely on GDP growth, to one that
balances human development with multiple values of nature for a
good quality of life, while not overshooting biophysical and
social limits.”
That is pretty clear, and it is coming from the world’s most
respected scientists.
To take one example from the business world, former Unilever CEO,
Paul Polman, recently wrote about the World Economic Forum’s 2021
global risks report, in which four of the top five risks to our
economies are coming from the environment—including climate
change and biodiversity loss. He said that
“the estimated $300 billion annual cost of natural disasters
caused by ecosystem disruption and climate change”
highlights
“the risks of unbridled economic growth. Thinking beyond GDP and
short-term profit is therefore essential in order to restore our
relationship with the planet and transform our system into a
viable one.”
So, wellbeing within planetary limits, not infinite GDP growth,
is the new economic goal we urgently need. If the boss of a
massive multinational can get that, I have to ask why can’t
Treasury, especially when its own Dasgupta review of “The
Economics of Biodiversity” made the case so well, too. It
reads,
“GDP does not account for the depreciation of assets, including
the natural environment. As our primary measure of economic
success, it therefore encourages us to pursue unsustainable
economic growth and development.”
The Dasgupta review also calls for an
“urgent and transformative change in how we think, act and
measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity
and the natural world”.
Yet the Treasury response to that key recommendation does little
more than refer to a review of GDP that was done six years ago.
That is not “urgent and transformative change”.
I hope the Minister can convince us today that the Treasury is
not as cavalier and complacent as it would appear. Will she
confirm that the Government accept the need to adopt new measures
of economic success beyond GDP to give climate, nature and
collective wellbeing the priority they deserve? What work is
taking place on that? It will not be good enough to say that the
Office for National Statistics has developed natural capital and
wellbeing indicators, because those indicators are not just out
of date; they are clearly not being used in policy making, least
of all inside the Treasury where GDP growth reigns supreme. It is
a bit like claiming that you have adopted a healthy diet because
you have some flaccid carrots in the fridge but meanwhile you are
chomping down on a box of Mars bars. It does not wash.
Similarly, the inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee, of
which I am a member, into biodiversity and ecosystems
concluded:
“Alternatives to GDP urgently need to be adopted as more
appropriate ways to measure economic success, appraise investment
projects and identify sustainable development.”
So will the Minister today accept that cross-party recommendation
and set out a timeline for progress?
The wellbeing economy is not just a brilliant idea; it is already
being implemented in the UK and around the world. At local,
national and international level—beyond Westminster—the green
shoots of a new economic paradigm fit for the age of climate
emergency are already emerging. In the short time that I have, it
is impossible to mention more than a fraction of the researchers,
campaigners, practitioners and others who make up the movement
for a new economy, designed to serve people and planet—from
community wealth building to the Doughnut Economics Action
Lab.
The wellbeing economy is one example. It is being taken forward
by the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, a collaboration
of, so far, five national and regional Governments. In Finland,
the world’s youngest Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, heads up a
Government who are outspoken on the principle that,
“Economic growth is never an end in itself and well-being is not
just an item of expenditure for public finances”.
In Iceland, indicators for wellbeing guide Government decision
making. Scotland has a national performance framework centred
around wellbeing, and with Greens now in government we can expect
even more leadership on the post-growth wellbeing economy. Wales
has the first ever Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act,
a version of which many of us have been championing in this House
as well, and New Zealand is home to the world’s first ever
wellbeing budget and a Finance Ministry that uses a living
standards framework to shape all economic policy making.
Those nations are working together to share expertise and advance
a shared ambition to build wellbeing economies. Will the UK join
them? If the Minister cannot quite commit to that, will she at
least commit to carrying out a major review of what the Wellbeing
Economy Governments partnership is doing, and the benefits of the
Treasury taking a similar approach, ideally in time for the next
Budget to be the UK’s first wellbeing Budget? As a first step,
the UK’s first wellbeing Budget could swap the focus on GDP and
change it for GDWe, or gross domestic wellbeing, as developed by
Carnegie UK. No one is saying that untangling our growth
addiction is simple, but we can no longer delay. As the economist
Kate Raworth puts it, we need to create
“economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow”
rather than having economies that grow whether or not they make
us thrive.
Drawing to a conclusion, I want to quickly share some views from
members of the public on the topic of today’s debate. They were
gathered via a survey over the weekend, thanks to the
parliamentary digital engagement service. It has had more than
1,000 submissions and shows how severely our current economy is
failing on the basics. Hazel, for example, wrote about what a
wellbeing economy could prioritise. She suggests:
“Ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met, including any
additional needs resulting from disability. Such needs include
access to healthy food, safe, warm homes, and access to health
care (both physical and mental). Nobody in the developed world
should need to rely on food banks.”
Natalie wrote:
“Aiming for constant financial growth cannot be sustained on a
planet of finite resources…The health and well-being of our
shared planet and all beings who reside here should be our
priority. The way and extent to which we care for it and for each
other should be key. Wastefulness should be seen as the loss that
it truly is. Ecology and economics should not be at odds; the
words both derive from the concept of looking after our
home.”
The responses are another sign that, far from delivering on the
famous “people’s priorities,” as the Government like to say, the
Treasury is completely ignoring them by sticking to an outdated
and dangerous fixation on economic growth. It is time for global
Britain to become a global leader, fit for the age of climate
emergency, rather than a laggard in a shift to a wellbeing
economy. For the sake of climate justice today and for the lives
of future generations, I look forward to the Minister’s response
and to working with Members across the House to prove that
another economy is not just possible; it is on its way.
(in the Chair)
There are six Members still to speak, so Members have around
three minutes.
17:11:00
(Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am delighted to be called to speak first after the hon. Member
for Brighton, Pavilion (), who I thank for securing
this debate on the most important issue. I genuinely cannot
imagine two more important priorities for an independent Scotland
than ensuring that we have action on climate change and that we
put wellbeing at the front of everything we do.
We are lucky in Scotland that we are already on this road. We
have begun to make the changes that are required to move away
from focusing entirely on economic growth and toward looking at
the wellbeing of our population. When we are looking at budgets,
such as the national performance framework, as was mentioned, our
decisions are looked at through a lens. Do they improve
wellbeing? Do they reduce our negative impact on the planet? I
think it is wonderful that we do that.
There are also good things happening in schools. Bairns
throughout Scotland are aware of their rights under the UN
convention on the rights of a child. It is taught throughout
Scottish schools. I can speak to kids as young as five and ask
them about their rights. It is important for people’s wellbeing
that they are aware of their rights and are able to fight for the
rights that they deserve. It is important that they are able to
make their voices heard. The only way we are going to get to
wellbeing is to ensure that everybody is empowered to get those
rights.
There is absolutely no point in focusing on economic growth for
economic growth’s sake. The UK economy has been growing, but
inequality is still stretching. We have still seen an increase in
inequality. People who are on the bottom of the pile continue to
be on the bottom of the pile. We are not improving societal
wellbeing if we are not ensuring that decisions benefit
everybody, rather than those currently at the top of the pile.
For all our constituents, we need to ensure not just growth, but
fair growth. We must focus on reducing inequality—and focus on
everything that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said—and
on making sure that decisions, particularly budgetary decisions,
are taken with the wellbeing of people in mind, not simply
growing the money of this country’s richest people.
(in the Chair)
The guideline is that Members have around four minutes.
17:14:00
(Salford and Eccles)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr
Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () for securing this important
debate. I very much agreed with her eloquent and detailed
speech.
Members may remember that the renowned author Naomi Klein stated
in 2011 in her paper “Capitalism vs the climate” that:
“Climate change is a message, one that is telling us that many of
our culture’s most cherished ideas are no longer viable.”
Sadly, 10 years on from Naomi’s groundbreaking paper, not much
has changed. We are now faced with more stark messages in the
form of covid-19, the social care crisis, an energy crisis and a
cost-of-living crisis. We simply do not have an economic system
geared up to ensure that everyone flourishes. We see growth
prioritised, but rarely do we ever question the real nature of
such growth or what its adverse consequences could be. The OECD
has stated:
“If ever there was a controversial icon from the statistics
world, GDP is it. It measures income, but not equality, it
measures growth, but not destruction, and it ignore values like
social cohesion and the environment. Yet Governments, businesses
and probably most people swear by it.”
Growth means nothing to many families struggling, living in cold,
mould-infested homes, wondering if they are ever going to get a
lucky break. It means nothing to the pensioners struggling to get
the care they need, and it will mean nothing to our children if
they have no future because the flawed and relentless pursuit of
growth above everything else finally destroys our planet.
The good news is that with real economic and political will, we
can develop a system of economic metrics that centres our economy
around what should be the most important measure of success for
any Government: wellbeing. As Katherine Trebeck from the
Wellbeing Economy Alliance explains, that means recognising
that
“The economy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is an
economy which regenerates nature, an economy where collaboration
trumps competition, an economy where activities and what
organisations do is purposeful, not simply just to make money. In
which individuals’ desire to be acknowledged for meaningful
contributions with a decent living is not dominated by a
motivation of acquiring wealth. And which is financed by a
stable, fair and socially useful financial system that serves the
real economy for the long term.”
I hope that today’s debate is just the start of a long overdue
conversation about what that really means in practice: from
finding a new way of measuring the economy’s performance away
from the distribution-blind GDP and towards indices of wellbeing,
through to ensuring the economy distributes wealth more fairly,
provides stable and sufficient incomes, supports socially and
environmentally useful enterprise and, importantly, ensures the
ownership of economic assets is shared more widely and
democratically with workers and communities.
Ultimately, the Government are not a mere economic spectator
here. They have the power to implement that change. As such, the
debate goes to the very heart of what we think the sole purpose
of Government is. Are they the caretaker of a broken economic
theory that preserves wealth for the few, at the expense of the
many, or are they the engine that drives the economy to deliver
health and wellbeing for all? In Salford, we know the answer to
that. We say the welfare of the people is the highest law.
17:17:00
(Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It
is also a great pleasure to support the hon. Member for Brighton,
Pavilion (). We were great colleagues
in the European Parliament and, dare I say, the precursors to the
co-operation that we are seeing in Scotland, where Green
leadership is taking us to new vistas of co-operation.
The wellbeing economy is an idea whose time has come. We are
measuring the wrong stuff. So much of what we see within the
public debate about public services and public investment posits
economic growth versus wellbeing or versus environmental
standards or other measures of public good. It should not be
either/or; we need to consider both. We are measuring the wrong
stuff. That means that the criteria against which we measure
outputs is leading us to perverse incentives.
The pandemic we are all, sadly, very much still living through—we
cannot relax yet—is a disruptive event for a lot of people: not
just everyone in this room, but all our constituents as well.
People are considering how they live their lives, where they get
their food, how they travel to work, where they work, what they
do and how they spend their time. Questions of work and
productivity are being examined in households up and down the
length of these islands in ways they never have been before. GDP
is a rubbish measure of any human happiness.
If we want to increase GDP, I will give two examples. A car crash
is a fantastic way to increase GDP, because it involves garages,
lawyers, insurance companies. It involves all sorts of things
that are not economically productive, but do count from an GDP
perspective as positive to the balance sheet. Divorce is also
great for GDP: one house becomes two; lawyers make lots of money;
and assets are split up. There are various economic things that
count in the GDP ledger, but are surely not positive for us as a
society.
It strikes me as self-evident that adding a wider set of criteria
to the public sector consideration of expenditure can lead only
to better outcomes. Likewise, I am very drawn to the Carnegie UK
Trust’s idea of a gross domestic wellbeing index as a way to
benchmark actual progress. About 300 years ago I proposed to the
SNP conference that Scotland should adopt a Nordic-style
wellbeing index to benchmark the progress of society against
other comparable countries—and here we are 15 or so years
later.
I close with one very concrete example, which shows that this is
not an esoteric, niche subject but aimed at bringing about real
change in the real world. Bus services in Stirling and the Forth
valley are not fit for purpose. They are not up to scratch. They
are not as reliable as they need to be. Bus services are not in
my remit, as a Member of this Westminster Parliament, but I see
that systemic change is necessary, because we are looking at the
wrong outputs and outcomes. There is too little public funding
available to support the bus network that we need. However, how
many people have to have a car but would not have one if they
could rely on buses? How much unproductive capital is tied up in
those vehicles? Think about how many carbon emissions we could
get rid of if the bus services were reliable. Think about the
lost economic productivity of the people who cannot afford cars
but cannot get to work either. If we change the metrics, we
change the outcome.
As we have heard, the Scottish Government have started that work.
The Scottish national performance framework brings in a wider set
of criteria. There is the Wellbeing Economy Alliance with Iceland
and other small countries. We are already doing this work, and we
can do much more. That is not to say that the UK cannot do more
too. I look forward to hearing from the Minister; she could have
positive engagement and support if she actually took serious
steps in this direction. Fair work must also be properly
considered in this equation, and we must ensure that the new jobs
are good jobs, fair jobs and well-paid jobs. If we grab this at
the flow, there is a big prize that we can all share.
17:22:00
(Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () for securing this really
important debate. The subject is close to my heart and to how I
try to work as a political representative, both in Parliament and
in my constituency. My firm belief is that we need to work for a
society that is not driven by the quest for growth, profit and
the enrichment of a few. Rather, we should work for a society
where meeting human needs is paramount.
To turn theory into action, it is important that we, as public
representatives, engage with and involve people we represent and
take a bottom-up approach to change. Part of the process should
involve holding open discussions with constituents, involving
them and giving them a sense of ownership of the changes that can
meet their needs and those of the community.
I will share some examples of action that I, alongside local
people in my constituency, are taking to put these theories into
practice. Earlier this year, I held a series of climate
assemblies in Cynon Valley, resulting in a public document that
we submitted to COP26. More recently, we received a report that I
commissioned from the Bevan Foundation called “Cynon Valley after
covid: action for recovery and renewal”. Over 120 people attended
our climate assemblies, which covered green jobs, green transport
and green energy. It was clear from those discussions that local
people understand the need for change and have the appetite and
many of the solutions to enable it to happen.
The green jobs debate, for instance, emphasised the need for
training for future skills and the need to nurture local talent.
People were also clear that any new green jobs should be secure
and well-paid, and have good terms and conditions. A headline
statement from the group was that
“cooperation and not competition must be the way forward”.
That leads me to a very brief overview of the “Cynon Valley after
covid” document, which looks at the kind of society and economy
that we feel we need in Cynon Valley. It is underpinned by a
community wealth-building approach, which will help to stimulate
local economic activity by reducing not only the leakage of money
out of the area but, more importantly, the size of the profit
extracted. That can help to build and spread wealth in the local
population, which will assist in the process of prioritising and
addressing the health and wellbeing needs of our local community.
The report ends by recommending a green Cynon programme, with
fair work, skills, action to stimulate new local businesses,
including community-based enterprises, the retrofitting of
energy-saving measures in all housing, and the development of
wind and solar energy projects.
It is important that I share some of the socioeconomic background
of my constituency of Cynon Valley. It is an old mining community
with high levels of unemployment and some of the highest levels
of poverty and ill health in Wales. The pandemic exemplified this
in the high number of deaths from covid—the third highest in the
whole UK—which is what drove me to do the research that I have
just mentioned.
We have many dangerous coal tips, with the risks exacerbated by
recent frequent heavy rain and flooding, which are a direct
consequence of climate change. Increasingly, people are realising
that we cannot improve the wellbeing of people without tackling
climate change. Creating a society that meets the needs in my
constituency will be challenging, but it is the very reason why I
am so passionate about working alongside others to promote and
develop a socioeconomic system that puts people and the future of
our planet before profit.
My experience—from discussions with local people and agencies
through to all my local activities—has shown me that, given the
right approach and investment, it is possible to do things
differently to meet the needs to ensure the future of the planet
and the human needs of the people and communities we have been
elected to represent. That is my vision for Cynon Valley, and it
is shared by so many and is achievable. It is an urgent vision.
If we are serious about ending poverty and inequality in our
society and about ending the destruction of our planet and our
natural environment, we must act now to turn theories into
practice and campaign together for a different kind of society.
Yes, we can do things differently.
17:26:00
(Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () for bringing forward this
debate and for many years of leadership, giving vision in this
area and a lot of practical direction. The necessity for change,
and the failures of the economic model that we currently operate,
are all around us: in climate and nature breakdown, in inequality
within and between nations of the world and between generations,
in the depletion of resources and the hoarding of wealth, and in
the mental ill health and lack of fulfilment that are beginning
to engulf our populations.
The hon. Member for Stirling () outlined some of the
absurdities of GDP as our sole measurement, with all of the
negative effects simply written off as “externalities”. It is
very clear that a system that accounts for tobacco sales and bets
placed by gambling addicts, but does not find any way to capture
time spent raising children or the value of clean air, is no
longer fit for purpose. We have known that for decades.
The impacts of consumption and growth-driven production on our
planet do not need to be articulated in this room. I know that
because this country and others like it consume, drill, burn and
dump at a rate that would require numerous planets to sustain it.
That, of course, causes negative impacts for the planet and its
inhabitants.
It would be one thing to keep pursuing this model if it resulted
in a healthy and happy population, but it does not. We know that
income inequality in the UK is higher than it has been for
decades, and probably the highest in Europe. It affects people at
every single point on the economic distribution scale, as well as
overall societal cohesion. In the absence of any serious
mitigation policies, that will unfortunately only get worse.
(Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in her fantastic speech. She
may agree that part of the growth delusion—this constant demand
for GDP and growth—is that it will actually begin to trickle down
to poorer members of society, both domestically and
internationally, yet that does not happen. Rather than keeping on
growing the pie, destroying the economy and the planet, would it
not be better to better share out the pie we already have within
the current limits of the ecology and the environment?
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We have proven that the
theories he outlines, which are supposed to be in place, have not
worked, and that our economy has not worked. The kind of model
that he suggests, which allows people to flourish, is desirable
and achievable.
As with addressing climate breakdown, we know what has to be
done; we just have to decide to do it. While it is tempting and
valid to protest and rage against the machine on this, it is very
encouraging to see some of the practical initiatives that people
are taking across their constituencies and in other regions. I
pay tribute to groups such as the Carryduff Regeneration Forum,
the Conservation Volunteers, Open Ormeau, Repair Café Belfast and
many others in my own corner of the world who are showing what is
possible when people try to slow down, clean up and build
cohesion, and what is possible through care, education and
creativity.
Northern Ireland is among the most nature-depleted regions in the
world. Currently, we have no binding environmental targets, no
environmental protection agency and no coherent plan to address
that. We do not even have any certainty that the Assembly will
stay up long enough to pass the Climate Bill that the Green
party, my own party and others are bringing through at the
moment.
Members have outlined some of the many solutions that are in
place and some of the Bills that are currently working through
that can help us achieve environmental and generational justice,
because the impacts on future generations are very real. We need
to be real about the possibilities and limitations of green
growth and rescue technologies. As the hon. Member for Norwich
South () outlined, some of these have
been demonstrated to not necessarily have the solution to all our
problems.
We need to embrace lower labour productivity at times, and accept
that long hours and low-reward jobs, where people are working
just to stand still economically and consume, are not good for
them or for the planet. We also need to encourage reporting of
non-GDP measurements. The ONS records these, but we do not use
them and they do not get reported in the media, and we know that,
unfortunately, what gets reported, gets done.
Members have rightly referenced initiatives in New Zealand,
Scotland and Wales, and I look forward to hearing from the
Minister how the UK Government as a whole intends to step up in
this regard.
(in the Chair)
We are going to start the winding-up speeches at 5.36 pm.
17:31:00
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () for this hour to reflect on
a different economic model—an hour that should pivot the wanton
greed of state to one of restoring the scars of its heritage.
Leaving Glasgow with our planet heating at a dangerous rate and
the failure to slam the brakes on climate destruction, the
Government were given a year to reset. COP27 will be their
reckoning. Right now, the global south is paying for the exploits
of the global north, and this generation is paying for centuries
of colonialisation, industrialisation and exploitation, as people
and planet were exploited, minerals, crops and humanity were
exploited, and carbon and hope were burnt. In this generation, it
is our duty to restore. We have no choice.
Kate Raworth’s work on doughnut economics shows us a path out.
York Central development, at the heart of my constituency, could
be the first doughnut development, where we see the planned
luxury apartments becoming sustainable housing that meets need.
We could see that site being car free, wellbeing communities
being built and a carbon negative future with our green new
deal.
As I set out in my Adjournment debate last week, York is seeking
to lead. Our green new deal, BioYorkshire, will create 4,000
green-collar jobs and upskill 25,000 people as it takes 2.8
million tonnes of carbon out of our atmosphere and repurposes 1.2
million tonnes of landfill. With research and development of new
precision-farming agricultural practices, it is the point where
international development will meet international trade. While
partners from the University of York, Askham Bryan College and
Fera Science have reached out into the region, it is my hope that
this green new deal will reach out across the globe, such is the
power of its science.
It is this project that will put pride back into my community—one
that to this very day celebrates the Rowntree legacy of
integrating good business with good employment and social
practices. In parallel, York has developed the good business
charter. I hope that the Minister is aware of the charter,
supported by the CBI and TUC, as it sets out 10 principles,
including a real living wage, employee wellbeing, environmental
responsibility and ethical sourcing, resetting the terms for
business, the economy and workers. Different parts of the economy
should not be able to choose whether or not they opt into those
initiatives. We need a comprehensive refocus. Labour in Wales was
the first in the world to introduce a wellbeing Act—the
Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—and the rest of
the UK must now follow. Instead, this Government’s mantra seems
to be, “Always need to take, not restore”, and that must be
reversed.
Just imagine if those principles had been embedded in our
approach to the covid-19 vaccine. We would not be debating
omicron today. Given that the west has hoarded and destroyed
global vaccine supplies—and taken at least three vaccines for
each of us—the vaccine rate in developing countries is just 3%.
For the sake of profit for big pharma, this Government are
prepared to sacrifice the global south. However, in this
interconnected world, we too will fall prey to a virus that does
not play by the rules. That is why we need to change the rules
that govern us. It may not be omicron that calls us short—it may
be the pyro or sigma variants.
This is about moving from a mindset of economic nationalism to
one of responsible internationalism. The Government were sent to
Glasgow to keep the idea of 1.5° alive, but it is now in critical
care. Everything must be injected into rehabilitating our
economy. The cost of not doing so will be fatal.
(in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members for keeping to time in this debate. We can
now move on to the Front Benchers. First, I call for the Scottish National
party, who has five minutes.
17:35:00
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak, and I apologise to
the Chamber that I was a couple of minutes late for this debate
and so missed the opening remarks of the hon. Member for
Brighton, Pavilion (). I warmly congratulate her
on securing this debate and on setting out the substance so
clearly, which has been echoed by all the Members who have been
able to speak in the time available.
It is disappointing that there were no speeches from Government
Back-Benchers, because—and I will say a bit more about this at
the end of my remarks—this is not an ideological debate. This is
about how we frame, or reframe, the debate. Very few people, and
I believe that includes most Government Members, come into
politics wanting to impoverish people or increase inequalities.
The debate is really about how we get there and achieve a better
society, which I hope is an aim that we all share.
One of the key points about the wellbeing economy and reframing
the debate is how we measure what matters. My hon. Friend the
Member for Stirling () said that and it was also
echoed by the First Minister of Scotland when she gave a TED talk
on this very subject back in 2019. Measuring what matters will
help us to reframe the debate and reset the things that we are
trying to achieve by the policies that we all want to put
forward.
That is particularly important in the context of the conference
of the parties and meeting climate goals, as the title of the
debate suggests, because at the end of the day the costs of
climate change will have to be paid for. It is a bit like
covid-19: we are going to have to pay for climate change. We can
either pay for it now by taking action to mitigate the damage
that has already been done and adapting to the damage that is
coming down the line, or we can pay for it later, once our cities
are under water and there is even greater human displacement
because parts of the world become unliveable.
We have been speaking in this debate today about future
generations. I cannot recommend highly enough “The Ministry for
the Future”, a book by Kim Stanley Robinson, which deals with an
awful lot of those challenges. We also face not an ageing
population per se but a longer-lived population and the risk that
brings of increasing inequalities. That has to be tackled, and
reframing the debate through a wellbeing approach is one of the
most effective ways in which we can do that.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles () spoke about my
constituent, Dr Katherine Trebeck, who really is a leading
thinker on this matter. She talks about cornerstone indicators of
how we can measure progress in society. The number of girls who
ride a bike to school should be, and can be, a measure of
achievement in society. It sums up the many things that have to
go right—all those different things that lead to young girls
being able to cycle to school, whether in this country or in
sub-Saharan African—and it brings many benefits. That would be a
demonstration—a real indicator —that we were using our wealth,
knowledge and resources effectively, and that we were meeting the
goals that will bring about a better society.
Scotland is buying into this. We can go further. We have heard
about the relationship that has been established with the Greens,
which I warmly welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen
North () talked about what
Scotland could achieve if we were an independent country and had
all the powers at our hands. Nevertheless, the national
performance framework has been in place since 2007. There are 81
different national indicators that reflect the values and
aspirations of the people of Scotland. They are aligned with the
sustainable development goals of the United Nations and are there
to help to track progress in reducing inequality. Scotland was a
founding member of the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership,
which was founded in 2018 and continues to grow. It met during
COP26 precisely to progress those goals.
That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is not
ideological per se: it is a challenge to both the traditional
left and the traditional right. If we agree that the aim is to
reduce inequality, to improve wellbeing and to meet climate
goals, we can have a debate about how best to do that. Perhaps
there is an argument for the free market, for the leveraging of
capital, for innovation and entrepreneurship; perhaps there is a
greater role for the state and the investment of public money,
goods and resources. That is the clash of ideas, but this is
changing the goal that we are heading for, because infinite
growth on a finite planet simply is not possible.
I encourage the Government to take this on and to look at what
other ambitious countries around the world and their own devolved
institutions are doing. If they are not prepared to do that or to
follow along with the devolved institutions, we will see
continued divergence, and that will only help the cause of
Members such as myself in the Scottish National party, and those
who want to see further devolution and ultimately independence.
The Government must get into a 21st-century mindset, and that
means leaving 19th and 20th-century ideas of unlimited growth as
the only measure of success far behind.
(in the Chair)
For the Opposition, I call , and again he has five minutes.
17:41:00
Mr (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I begin by
congratulating the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () on securing the debate and
thank all the hon. Members who have taken part over the past hour
or so.
The debate on the relationship between wellbeing and the
traditional economic growth measure of GDP has been going on for
a long time. We welcome an emphasis on wellbeing and on not
measuring everything purely by traditional economic statistics.
As we have heard, there are deficiencies in GDP. For example, it
tells us nothing about equality or the level of social inclusion
in a society. That is what it does not include, but it does
include things we might not want to include, such as measures of
waste or of throwaway goods that are bad for our environment.
As a material measure of output, GDP is certainly not the same as
general happiness. That is why in my party, for example, my hon.
Friend the Member for Wirral South () has argued that the Office
for National Statistics should measure health and happiness
through a healthy living index. We have heard about what the
Welsh Labour Government are doing, putting wellbeing at the heart
of their thinking.
As we transition to a cleaner and greener economy, we will want
to take into account other things, most obviously the sources of
our energy and how renewable they are. We will want to ask
different questions—not just, “What did you produce?” but, “How
did you produce that?” All that will have to be a greater part of
our economic thinking. We do, after all, have only one planet,
and we have a duty to cherish and preserve it for future
generations.
This debate also forces a discussion on not only the costs of
acting, but the costs of not acting. The Office for Budget
Responsibility report earlier this year was very clear on that
point. If we delay taking the necessary action on the transition
to net zero, it will not make the costs disappear. Instead, it
will increase them in the longer run, adding to our debt and our
deficit, and loading further costs on the taxpayer. That is why
Labour announced at our recent conference a commitment to
investing in this transition year on year for a decade.
That commitment will help to ensure that the homes we live in are
heated in a sustainable way. In so doing, it will create many
jobs, reduce people’s heating bills and make a material
contribution to the wellbeing we have heard about today. We will
also want to invest in the charging infrastructure for low-carbon
transport, and many of the other changes we need. That is what we
want to do.
Let us not be entirely dismissive of GDP and the importance of
economic growth. For the past decade, we have had, as it were, a
real-world experiment in what it is like to live through low
growth. We have high taxes now because economic growth has been
low. That anaemic growth over the past decade means that we are a
less prosperous country than we would have been had we had higher
growth rates—for example, the kind of growth rates that we had in
the first decade of this century. That has borne down on real
incomes and on public services and their capacity to improve
wellbeing.
Low economic growth over the past decade has adversely impacted
on the quality of life in places such as Wolverhampton, which I
represent, the Black Country and many other parts of the country.
It has left the public square impoverished and degraded. In
arguing for a broader view, we should not make the mistake of
thinking that low growth or no growth is a good thing. The
experience of low growth over the past decade suggests that that
is very much not the case. I am all for a broader definition, I
am all for greener growth, but I also want to see prosperity in
every part of the country.
(in the Chair)
Minister, you have 10 minutes, which will leave a couple of
minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up at the end.
17:46:00
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and
to answer the debate on behalf of the Government. I congratulate
the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () on securing a debate on an
issue about which she cares deeply and speaks eloquently. I thank
other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions to what has
been a good conversation in this Chamber.
I hope that it will not come as a surprise to hon. Members that
this is a subject that the Government take seriously and that, as
a Treasury Minister, I care about deeply. Much of what we are
doing in fact aligns with a wellbeing economy approach. More than
that, as a Government, we are clear that the wellbeing of our
citizens and the natural environment is a priority as we work to
deliver our world-leading climate goals.
Given the topic, this has been a wide-ranging debate. In
answering it, I will talk first about how we are already thinking
differently about wellbeing and the economy, and then about how
we are acting differently, based on that new way of thinking. To
be clear, the Government are already taking steps towards a
broader understanding of progress and GDP growth. Rather than
simply measuring our success in conventional economic terms, we
are increasingly focusing on a range of measures, including
reductions in carbon emissions, improvements in air quality and
increases in skills, among other things.
As a Treasury Minister, however, it would be strange for me not
to argue that a traditional economic metric such as GDP remains
important and useful. I think that the shadow Minister, the right
hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and I are
probably in agreement on that. Nevertheless, GDP has its
limitations. It should not be seen as an all-encompassing measure
of welfare, which it was never designed to be, and nor is it an
end in itself, as several hon. Members have said.
The Government fully supported the recommendations of Sir Charles
Bean’s 2016 independent review of economic statistics, which
acknowledged some of GDP’s limitations. We are committed to
broadening the range of metrics that we use to measure welfare,
including better accounting of human capital.
We provided the Office for National Statistics, for example, with
an additional £25 million to improve UK economic statistics,
including through the Beyond GDP initiative, which aims to
develop new and broader measures of welfare and activity, such as
a suite of personal wellbeing measures that better account for
unpaid work, and estimates for human capital. I heard the hon.
Member for Brighton, Pavilion say, “Don’t talk about the ONS”,
but I assure her that ONS work on measuring natural capital is
ongoing.
We have updated the rules that we use in the Treasury, as set out
in the Green Book, to guide individual spending decisions. Those
rules already take into account much more than the direct effects
of GDP, including estimates of wider economic, social and
environmental benefits. This year we introduced to the Green Book
new guidance for considering wellbeing in detail as part of
policy appraisal.
Several hon. Members have spoken about valuing nature and natural
capital. The Government agree unambiguously with the central
conclusion of the Dasgupta review that nature and the
biodiversity that underpins it ultimately sustains economies,
livelihoods and wellbeing. We also agree that only by accounting
for the natural environment can we have a more complete view when
balancing social, economic and environmental considerations in
decision making. In other words, we know that natural capital
matters and we are factoring it more and more into our
thinking.
In response to the Dasgupta review, the Government are working to
deliver a nature-positive economy so that we can be the first
generation to leave the natural environment in a better state
than we found it. Let us not underplay the significance of that.
It is a genuine paradigm shift, and it is being put into action
through the Environment Act 2021, including mandating
biodiversity net gain for development to make sure that much
needed development does not come at the expense of nature. That
is why we have been working with the ONS to improve the way in
which nature is incorporated in our national accounts, providing
funding to explore improvement in its natural capital estimates
to improve their relevance to policy making and through the
consideration of a broader measure of economic activity than is
currently captured by GDP. The recent spending review made
investments to improve our understanding of the country’s natural
capital with £140 million of funding to map the extent and
condition of the country’s natural habitats.
Clearly a big part of our work in this area relates to efforts to
tackle climate change by achieving net zero, which is part of my
brief at the Treasury. The UK’s comprehensive legislative
framework for tackling climate change, which revolves around
setting carbon budgets, shows clearly how factors other than GDP
sit centrally within our economic policy. That approach has been
a success. Between 1990 and 2019, under Governments of different
colours, the UK has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 44%,
faster than any other country in the G20. Since March 2021, the
Government have committed to invest £30 billion in our green
industrial revolution. That spending, along with action on
regulation and green finance initiatives, is about keeping the UK
on track for our carbon budgets, establishing our long-term
pathway towards net zero by 2050.
There has been widespread agreement in the Chamber about acting
sooner rather than later on climate change, and specifically
acting to prevent future climate change and investing to that
end. I agree with the hon. Member for Stirling () that it is not a choice of
either growth or the environment—it is not either/or but both.
Our transition to net zero is a growth opportunity in itself. We
expect to see hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the green
economy. Not all growth includes consuming finite resources;
doing things better can also boost GDP.
We also want new jobs to be well paid. That is absolutely part of
our vision. We are aiming for a higher paid, higher skilled
economy. I disagree with the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles
() who said that growth
means nothing to a struggling family. I disagree. Growth does
matter. If we have a shrinking economy, a struggling family is
less likely to have jobs, less likely to see their income go up,
less likely to see improvements in their standard of living and
less likely to have the opportunity to come out of poverty.
Growth means more jobs. It means higher incomes. It means the
opportunity for people’s wellbeing to improve.
As I said at the beginning of this debate, this is a wide-ranging
issue, but I hope hon. Members will recognise that the Government
are taking a comprehensive approach. I recognise that sometimes
Ministers can fall into a trap in such debates by delivering a
long list of policy actions, but I would say that our actions
really do speak as loudly as any words. I know that the
hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and other Members who have
spoken today care deeply about the issues, but so do the
Government.
On the specifics of the debate, our objective pure and simple is
an approach that gives us the very best chance of meeting our
climate goals in a way that maximises wellbeing for all—in fact,
overall improving the wellbeing of the population of this
country. We are thinking differently. We are acting differently.
We are investing differently. We do indeed want to do that
collaboratively, including by working closely with hon. Members
across the House.
17:54:00
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate; I really
appreciate it. I have been struck by how well Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland have been represented in it. I regret that there
have not been more speeches from Government Members, because
debating the purpose of our economy is surely the most important
thing we could be doing. We will have big debates about how we
get to the outcome that we all agree we want, but it is rather
strange that there are not more people here from the Government
side to have that debate.
I appreciate the Minister’s warm words, but there is a vast gap
between what she is saying and what the Government are doing. Let
us take one simple way of looking at this. A report comes out
from the Treasury called “HM Treasury Outcome Delivery Plan”. It
is the key departmental document setting out priority outcomes
and activities. It has just one paltry mention of climate and
just one reference to decarbonisation. It makes no mention at all
of biodiversity, but it has 17 mentions of growth. The Government
are still subsidising fossil fuels annually to the tune of around
£12 billion, and there is still on the statute book a duty to
maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas.
There is so much to be said in such a short amount of time, but I
urge the Minister to look again at what all of us have been
saying in the debate. We should not simply revert to the old idea
that growth is somehow the best way to address the kind of
poverty that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles () spoke about.
Redistribution is a far more effective way of getting resources
to those who need them. It is a convenient myth that if we keep
growing the cake, those at the bottom of the pile will eventually
get some. Well, they will have to wait a hell of a long time; and
by the time they get it, the planet will be pretty much
stuffed.
We need to shift to a greener economy right now. This does not
have to be a party political issue; it was who started talking about
gross domestic happiness, and the right hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings ( ) has spoken eloquently —and
surprisingly—about moving away from the myth of the
ever-increasing economy. I ask the Minister to please look at
bringing forward new measures of economic wellbeing along the
lines of those that many of us have suggested. She could have
them alongside GDP, if she does not want to replace GDP.
I say to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr
McFadden) on the Labour Front Bench that there is a big
difference between having low or no growth in a recession and a
planned transition to a more stable, steady-state economy. I urge
him to read such books as “Prosperity Without Growth” by
Professor Tim Jackson, which absolutely sets out the way forward
on this.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered a wellbeing economy approach to
meeting climate goals.
|
