Clause 2
Objectives and activities
3.53pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury ()
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment
3B.
The Lords proposed amendment 3B in lieu of Commons amendment 3.
As the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill reaches the final stage of its
passage, I am pleased that it will also include nature-based
solutions explicitly.
Members will recall that in previous debates I noted that
nature-based solutions were already included in the inclusive
definition of infrastructure, and as such we did not think it
necessary to add them explicitly to the Bill. The Government
have, however, reflected on that position and we recognise the
strength of feeling on the matter across both Houses. I am
therefore pleased to say that we support the Lords amendment in
lieu, and I hope that colleagues across this House will do so,
too. We think that the amendment strikes a careful balance,
making it clear that nature-based solutions are within the bank’s
remit without being overly prescriptive and limiting the bank’s
opportunity to invest.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this Bill. I am
pleased that, on such an important Bill, we have reached
consensus. UKIB has transformative potential, which I know is
recognised and supported on all sides of the House, and the
changes made to the Bill show how effective Parliament is in
scrutinising legislation. This Bill is the final stage in
establishing the bank as a long-lasting institution, establishing
in statute its key objectives of tackling climate change and
supporting regional and local economic growth.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their
amendment 3B. I am going very slowly in case anybody appears on
the Opposition Front Bench—or, indeed, in case anybody currently
on the Opposition Front Bench wishes to address the matter. No?
Then we will move to the SNP spokesman.
(Dundee East) (SNP)
I just have a small point. The SNP supports this Bill and the
intention to create the UK Infrastructure Bank, with its
objective to help tackle climate change. However, it is worth
putting on record very briefly that both the original Government
amendment 3 and amendment 3B in lieu from the other place—while
the latter does keep “nature-based solutions” in the wording of
the Bill—seek to remove
“structures underpinning the circular economy”
from the infrastructure that the Bill is designed to support in
its objectives of tackling climate change and meeting the target
for 2050.
I am sure people interested in such matters will look rather
askance at that. How on earth can we have a UK Infrastructure
Bank Bill, with highly laudable objectives to tackle climate
change and meet the Government’s own targets, only then to have
both the Government and the other place actively remove
investment in infra-structure to support the circular
economy—which, for goodness sake, must be part of the
solution—from the Bill? We are not going to oppose the amendment,
because the Lords amendment is marginally better than the
original Government amendment, but it is worth putting on record
that the removal of the words
“structures underpinning the circular economy”
from the Bill strikes me as somewhat perverse.
(North East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
I find myself in the unusual and extremely uncomfortable position
of agreeing with what the SNP spokesperson has just said. It is a
condition that I hope will be quickly removed so that I can
assert my usual sound Conservative principles.
There is an important point here, which I know the Minister is
aware of, and which is not specific to this Bill. It seems a
little odd, if we are looking at the next 10 or 20 years of our
investment in infrastructure under the terms of the new
Infrastructure Bank, to omit explicitly one of the foundational
aspects of infrastructure from the Bill. I know my hon. Friend
the Minister will have already reviewed that and he will say, I
think correctly, that there is nothing in this Bill to stop
support for investment in the circular economy infrastructure.
However, I think it is important to have voices at this stage of
the debate who can say that clearly, so that those who will now
take forward the Infrastructure Bank know that, even if it is not
in the Bill, the importance of creating the foundation of the
circular economy is explicitly one of the things we anticipate
and hope that the bank will do.
(Brentford and Isleworth)
(Lab)
On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to say that we support
this amendment. As other speakers have said, it improves on the
text of the Bill, so we are happy to support it.
I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth () for the Opposition’s support.
Indeed, the Bill has been characterised by support from across
the House for this important institution, which, I remind the
House, is already up and running. Today, I am pleased to say, we
are putting it on a statutory footing.
I have heard the comments made by the right hon. Member for
Dundee East (), as well as by my good and
hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (), who helped to pilot the
Bill through its early stages. I will make the point that my hon.
Friend expected me to make: the language in the Bill is inclusive
rather than exclusive. His point is well made and understood.
On behalf of this House, we wish the institution well as we put
it on a statutory footing. We in this House all look forward to
hearing how it fulfils its objectives of levelling up and adding
to the transition to net zero.
Lords amendment 3B agreed to.
