Draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. With your permission, I will make a few introductory points about what the statutory instrument does.
The draft order seeks to make important improvements to the electoral framework and processes that underpin police and crime commissioner elections. It will introduce two changes. First, it will ensure that expenses that are reasonably attributable to any candidate’s disability, and reasonably incurred, are excluded from the candidate’s electoral spending limits for PCC elections in England and Wales. That will have a positive impact on individuals seeking elected office who have a disability.
The order will mean that candidates may incur disability-related expenses without it affecting their spending limits. Examples would include British Sign Language interpretation for hearing-impaired candidates, the transcription of campaign material into Braille for visually impaired candidates or other specialist equipment, to give a non-exhaustive list of examples.
The order will ensure that standing for PCC elections is made fairer for disabled candidates. It is an important step in making our democracy more accessible and representative of the British public. About one in five of the UK population has a disability but, as we are all too well aware, disabled people remain under-represented in our elected offices.
The draft SI follows the coming into force of the Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019 in February last year. That exempted disability-related expenses from the spending limits of candidates at UK-wide elections, including UK parliamentary general elections—a number of us were present for the debate on that measure and found it helpful. Today’s instrument will complete the set, of which I am very proud.
Secondly, the draft order will introduce changes to election forms to reflect where an order has been made to give PCCs the power to undertake fire and rescue authority functions. That is relevant currently to Essex, Staffordshire, North Yorkshire and Northamptonshire. That part of the order is in relation to changes made to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 by the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which allow PCCs to take on the responsibility for fire and rescue governance where that is in the public interest and in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The measure will ensure that the relevant election forms, including poll cards and ballot papers, are clear as to what functions the person being elected will have. That will help voters to be fully aware of the role of the office for which they are voting.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
What possible evidence is there that voters have any knowledge of, or interest in, the role of police and crime commissioners? When there are stand-alone elections, the turnout is appalling. Should the Department not look at whether the elections serve any purpose—and, indeed, at considerable expense?
Chloe Smith
No, today the Department should not be looking at that; today, the Department should be—and the Committee is—looking at whether we can make it clear that the forms reflect the functions to which the candidates aspire. I support ensuring that voters are well informed, as I am sure do most members of the Committee.
We consulted the Electoral Commission on the draft order and, as one might expect, we worked on it across Government between the Cabinet Office, the Government Equalities Office in respect of disabilities, and the Home Office in respect of police and crime commissioner policy. All those consulted were supportive of the proposals. We also kept the parliamentary parties panel informed of the changes. It meets quarterly to discuss electoral issues and consists of representatives of each of the parliamentary political parties that have two or more sitting MPs.
It is important that the draft order is in place as soon as possible, so that it may apply in the build-up to the PCC elections on 7 May. The instrument will therefore come into force on the day after the day on which it is made.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This was quite a controversial subject in West Mercia, where there was discussion about the West Mercia police and crime commissioner and the Hereford and Worcester fire authority. Will the Minister clarify whether the draft order means that the ballot form must use the word “fire” for the commissioner, or whether that is simply optional, and will she explain the governance around that change?
Chloe Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am afraid I shall have to write to her to ensure that she has exactly the level of detail she seeks. I do not believe the two authorities she mentioned are in the list of four that I just referred to, but I will happily ensure I come back to her so that, should this be relevant in the future, she and her local colleagues have the detail on which to draw.
The final point I want to make is that the Electoral Commission has, ahead of the next police and crime commissioner elections, released guidance that includes information on the exemption brought forward in the draft order.
In conclusion, I remind the Committee that the draft order makes two changes. The first, which I think is morally important, helps to ensure that there is a level playing field for those who have disabilities but want to give valuable public service. They should be welcomed and supported, and that is what this statutory instrument helps to do. Secondly, the draft order performs a fairly small administrative function in ensuring that there is clear information on all relevant forms in respect of a new function being provided to some police and crime commissioners. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. Let me start, as I think I did the last time we scrutinised a similar instrument, by noting that this House of Commons is the most diverse yet in terms of gender, race and sexual orientation. I am sure the whole Committee welcomes that progress but also acknowledges that we have an awfully long way still to go—as, of course, does the Prime Minister, whose new Cabinet seems to have fewer women in it than his first and is two thirds privately educated.
It is clear that progress on the participation of disabled people in our political process has stalled. In fact, we may be going backwards. In the immediate aftermath of the 2019 general election, disability campaigners pointed out that there appear to be fewer disabled MPs than there were in the previous Parliament, with just five disabled MPs in this Parliament. We must be mindful, of course, that some MPs may have chosen not to make public their disability, but that is a concerning backward slide none the less.
We are here to consider the matter of encouraging the participation of disabled people in politics, and we must not lose sight of the bigger picture when discussing the merits of the draft order. Tracey Lazard of Inclusion London said:
“The lack of representation of our communities in parliament is shocking but not a surprise—it’s another symptom of our continued marginalisation and exclusion.
We begin to change this by removing the barriers and addressing the material factors that stop Deaf and disabled candidates”
participating in politics.
I am pleased to say that the draft order removes one barrier. Election expenses incurred and attributable to a candidate’s disability should never count towards their electoral spending limits. That is common sense, and the draft order, in applying to police and crime commissioner elections an exemption that already applies to the other elections the Minister set out, does the right thing. Disabled candidates should never be penalised simply because they have a disability.
However, I gently remind the Minister once more that the Electoral Commission continues to recommend that legislation—secondary as well as primary—should be clear at least six months ahead of an election at which it is intended to be complied with. The explanatory memorandum states:
“It is envisaged that the instrument will come into force…before the Police and Crime Commissioner elections in May 2020.”
That is, of course, just a few months—10 weeks—away. Although it is unlikely that the draft order will create significant reporting problems for disabled candidates, does the Minister acknowledge the good sense of the Electoral Commission’s recommendation that changes should be made clear at least six months in advance?
John Spellar
Although election day may be 10 weeks away, a considerable number of people in many parts of the country—particularly where there are high levels of postal votes—will receive their postal votes some three or four weeks earlier.
Cat Smith
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct; I cannot argue with his logic at all. These elections are far sooner than many of us might think.
Legislation should be clear at least six months in advance, so this is clearly very late in the day to make changes. What conversations has the Minister had with the Electoral Commission regarding support for disabled candidates who claim the financial exemption provided for by the draft order?
While Labour Members are happy to support the draft order, we believe that there are many more barriers to remove before disabled people can participate equally in politics. I suspect the Minister knows what I am about to say—we have had this discussion before—but it is imperative to recognise the huge financial barriers that penalise disabled candidates. The support provided by the Government to mitigate that is completely insufficient, and we know why.
The Conservative Government’s decision to cancel the access to elected office fund was completely unjustified and severely damaging. The Government’s own evaluation highlighted the fund’s positive impact on disabled candidates, enabling many to stand for election, and noted that the Geneva-based Zero Project selected the fund as one of the top global innovative policies to support and encourage political participation by people with a disability. Despite that, the Government repeatedly refused to listen to disability campaigners who rightly called for the fund’s reinstatement, which the Labour party fully supports, as does the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The EHRC said:
“The UK Government should reopen the Access to Elected Office Fund in England, and work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to explore options for making the scheme, or similar funds, available across Great Britain.”
Does the Minister agree that the access to elected office fund was a success, and that its abolition has weakened the support available to disabled candidates? Will she do the right thing and work with disability campaigners and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to reopen the fund? The current approach simply is not working. The funds recently provided by the Government to support disabled candidates have been inadequate. The EnAble fund for elected office, launched in 2018, was intended to support disabled people seeking election in the May 2019 local elections and the May 2020 police and crime commissioner elections, yet the fund ends in just over a month, on 31 March. It is not a long-term solution to the substantial under-representation of disabled people in public life, and there is considerable confusion among disability campaigners as to what Government support, if any, will be available after it ends.
Whatever happens, the Labour party will do all we can to support disabled candidates. However, in the absence of long-term Government support, many smaller and financially precarious parties will struggle to provide the necessary financial assistance, and the case against disabled people standing as independent candidates speaks for itself. The Government have in effect insisted that it is the responsibility of political parties to meet the disability-related costs of their candidates, and as a consequence many general election candidates were forced to pay those extra costs themselves.
When it comes to encouraging the participation of disabled people in politics, the Government cannot continue to offload the responsibility on to political parties alone. That will not lead to the progress that we so desperately need. I commend the Government for the draft order, which we support, but I implore them to restore the access to elected office fund and to provide proper support for disabled candidates, now and in the long term.
The Chair
Thank you. I have been quite lenient in allowing the hon. Lady to—very skilfully—go slightly wider than the draft order. However, I think it was relevant, and I am therefore quite happy for the Minister to touch on some of those wider issues.
Chloe Smith
I am keen to touch on those wider points, although as you rightly point out, Sir Gary, the draft order does a separate, positive thing that is not the subject of the series of points made by the shadow Minister.
I think we all agree that we want to see more disabled people in public life. That is true on many grounds, but quite simply it would make our democracy better because it would make it more representative and diverse. That is what we all want, and the measure before us will help it to happen. We also have a series of policy instruments that have been helpful in allowing for it.
The access to elected office fund was a positive contribution. Evaluation of it is already available, and I am sure that the hon. Lady and every other member of the Committee has read it fully, so I will not go into detail on that. However, I will touch on the way in which the successor fund, the EnAble fund, was put in place. It came about for a very important reason. As a matter of principle, political parties should be encouraged to give support to their candidates because we expect the very same of employers. We expect the very same even of, for example, shop premises, where reasonable adjustments have to be made for members of the public who have disabilities. Therefore, we should not hesitate to apply that principle to this field as well. It is simply an inadequate argument to say that we should turn away from that and political parties should not have that reality brought home to them. I therefore welcome the principle that was at the heart of the EnAble fund.
On the hon. Lady’s point that the funds were “inadequate”, I think she will find, when the full evaluation is published, that they were not and that the funds allocated were ample for what was being applied for. We should be accurate in how we deal with such things.
As the hon. Lady took the opportunity to talk about her party, I shall briefly place it on the record—and I am very proud to say it—that the Conservative party operates a system of bursaries and has helped disabled candidates within that. That is very important, and I for one will argue strongly for it to continue because I think that it is right, as a matter of principle, that political parties do that.
We have also seen, through both the access to elected office fund and the EnAble fund, the ability for independent candidates to be supported, which is an important additional point.
The EnAble fund is due to come to a close, and the successor arrangements are under consideration as we speak. Many representations will be made as to how the fund should be taken forward, and I am sure that the points made in this Committee will be valuable in that context. In addition, it was a manifesto commitment of the Government to publish a strategy for disability this year, which we shall be doing. I look forward to making a small contribution to that from the elections policy brief. Given that, I think people will see the right level of attention being paid to the important issues raised here today.
Let me wrap up on the specifics of what this statutory instrument does. As I said earlier, it does two things. One is almost entirely administrative, in that it ensures that the correct title is given for PCCs on the forms, but the other—the first—is a real milestone in terms of the fairness of how we run elections. I am very pleased that today we are completing the set, with this type of election coming alongside those that we legislated for last year, and allowing a more level playing field for disabled people who want to go into public service. I sincerely hope that people feel empowered by what we are doing here today, and I think we can be proud of the support that we are giving in this Committee. With that, I believe I have addressed what has been said on disability issues.
The final question is whether there has been enough time to do this. It will not have escaped your notice, Sir Gary, nor that of anyone else in the room that if we had counted back six months from May of this year, we would have found ourselves broadly in the middle of a general election campaign. That means that there simply was no ability to be here in this room dealing with this SI then. However, as I said earlier, the Electoral Commission has been making clear in the guidance for the forthcoming elections that these measures are in place, so I do not think it comes as a surprise. Indeed, I think that it has been anticipated and will be made use of, and I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2020.
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The order is straightforward and uncontroversial. It designates the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales as an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, for the reserved legal activity of the administration of oaths. The institute is already an approved regulator and licensing authority for probate activities.
If approved, the order will allow the institute to authorise and regulate individuals and firms administering oaths within the scope of the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889, the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1891, and the Stamp Duties Management Act 1891.
The Legal Services Act 2007 defines six reserved legal activities that can be provided to the public only by individuals and firms that are regulated by one of 11 approved legal regulators. The administration of oaths is one such activity, and the Committee will be familiar with others such as exercising a right of audience.
The institute is already an approved regulator and licensing authority under the 2007 Act, but only in respect of probate activity—another reserved legal activity —for which it currently regulates more than 300 firms providing probate services. The institute wishes to expand the range of legal services that its members can provide. As such, it made the required application to the Legal Services Board, seeking to expand its functions and, following a recommendation from the board, the then Lord Chancellor confirmed in May 2019 that he agreed to make an order to designate the institute as an approved regulator for the reserved legal activity of the administration of oaths.
We envisage that expanding the institute’s remit will improve consumer choice, enhance competition and enable firms that are regulated by the institute to expand their practice.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I welcome the Minister to his rightful place.
As the Minister explained, the order proposes to allow the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, as an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, to license and regulate the administration of oaths by members of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. The administration of oaths is a reserved legal activity under section 12 of the 2007 Act.
Since 2018, the institute has regulated and licensed ACCA members for the provision of another reserved legal activity—namely, that of the handling of probate work. As a former solicitor, it pains me slightly that accountants are being given the chance to do more legal work, but it is right and proper that the administration of oaths be licensed and regulated by the institute.
Although we will not oppose the order, I hope the institute will address the criticisms made in the Legal Services Board regulatory performance assessment report of November 2019, which highlights the need for probate disciplinary data to be made available on the “find a chartered accountant” register, and for the institute to improve the transparency of its decision making.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I have an interest to declare. Until recently, I was head of strategy at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales which, although an accounting body, has delegated licensing authority in the legal sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2020.
The order is straightforward and, I hope, uncontroversial. It relates to the functions of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEx. In summary, the order enables the first-tier tribunal to hear and determine appeals against CILEx in its role as a licensing authority.
As the Committee is aware, the Legal Services Act 2007 defines six reserved legal activities that only individuals and firms regulated by one of 11 approved regulators can provide to the public. CILEx is an experienced regulator under that Act and authorises and regulates individuals and firms in respect to five of the six reserved legal activities: conduct of litigation, right of audience, reserved instrument activities, probate activities and administration of oaths.
In February last year, statutory instrument 2019/166, the Legal Services Act 2007 (Designation as a Licensing Authority) Order 2019, designated CILEx as a licensing authority as well as an approved regulator, which means that, as well as regulating individuals and firms, it can license alternative business structures—legal firms that are owned or operated by non-lawyers. They were introduced by the 2007 Act to encourage competition by allowing, for the first time, lawyers to join with non-lawyers, such as accountants, engineers and social workers, and raise external capital. Notable alternative business structures include the Co-op Legal Services and the big four accountancy firms.
Alternative business structures have been permitted by the 2007 Act since October 2011, and there are now more than 1,300 in England and Wales. Most of the other legal services regulators, including the Law Society and the Bar Council, are already licensing authorities. The Act stipulates that there must be an independent body to determine appeals against decisions of licensing authorities. The order enables the general regulatory chamber of the first-tier tribunal to fulfil that role.
In the 12 months since CILEx became a licensing authority, an interim appeals procedure, agreed by the Legal Services Board, has been in place. It is more appropriate, however, that the first-tier tribunal determines any appeals against CILEx in its role as a licensing authority. The first-tier tribunal has judges with experience of considering regulatory appeals. Furthermore, similar orders have been made in respect of appeals against the decisions of the Bar Standards Board, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales when each was designated as a licensing authority.
I reassure the Committee that, although Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service will face additional costs associated with the potential increase in cases to be determined by the first-tier tribunal, CILEx will meet the set-up and operating costs, so there will be no net financial impact on the sector. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives is an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007. Since 1 April 2019, it has had the power to regulate reserved legal activities, as set out in the explanatory notes. Since that power came into force, CILEx has had to set up temporary arrangements to deal with appeals from any financial penalties it has imposed on individuals or alternative business structures, or related to refusals or conditional approvals to grant licences. Clearly, the temporary arrangements, although they are, no doubt, working well and overseen by the Legal Services Board, need to be changed to a permanent system.
The Opposition agree that the first-tier tribunal is the appropriate appellate body for appeals from CILEx for the types of decisions stated for reserved legal activities, especially as it already carries out the same role for appeals from other licensing authorities operating under the 2007 Act, as the Minister mentioned. I have been in contact with CILEx, which sees the order as a positive step that it has anticipated for some time. For those reasons, we will not oppose the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 91).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 90).
Victoria Prentis
That was crystal clear, as you promised, Ms Nokes. It is a pleasure to serve as a new Minister under your chairmanship in your first Committee.
These two statutory instruments concern the European Union law governing the 2020 direct payments schemes. They were brought into UK law on exit day by the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which most of us will remember. The matters in the two statutory instruments are closely related, so it is sensible that we consider them together. They make technical amendments to address deficiencies in the retained EU law, so that the direct payment schemes can work effectively in the UK for this year. They do not introduce policy change.
I will deal first with the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020. I should explain why it was necessary to use the made affirmative procedure for these instruments: they needed to come into force on exit day at the same time that the relevant direct payments legislation became incorporated into UK law. The scheme runs throughout the entire calendar year. Without these instruments, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations would not be able to administer the direct payments schemes effectively for the remainder of the 2020 year.
These SIs ensure that the UK Government are able to meet their commitments to funding in the agricultural sector. I am pleased that the Government have announced funding of nearly £3 billion for direct payments for the 2020 scheme year, matching the total funding that was available for direct payments in 2019.
As the Committee will be aware, agriculture is a devolved policy area. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to produce these instruments, which contain provisions that apply across the UK, and I am pleased to say that they have given their consent to the provisions.
Turning to the SIs themselves, the rules for direct payments regulations amend three retained EU regulations, which together establish the direct payments schemes and set scheme eligibility rules, including rules for the basic payment scheme, the greening payment, the young farmers payment, the redistributive payment and voluntary coupled support. Those EU regulations have been brought into UK law only for the 2020 scheme year.
The financing, management and monitoring of direct payments to farmers regulations amend five retained EU regulations relating to the administration, inspection, enforcement and monitoring of the schemes. It is worth explaining that those EU regulations apply across the whole common agricultural policy, but have been brought into UK law only in relation to 2020 direct payments. Therefore, this SI makes amendments only in relation to 2020 direct payments.
Each SI also makes amendments to existing domestic legislation in England. Many of the amendments are of a uniform type across both instruments, such as merely changing EU-specific terms to domestic equivalents. For instance, references to “member states” will, in most instances, be replaced with the term “relevant authorities”.
Some amendments remove administrative processes that lose their purpose outside the EU context, such as requirements to send notifications to the European Commission about our implementation of the schemes. We have domestic provisions in their place. As the retained EU law covers only the 2020 direct payment schemes, some amendments are needed to make that clear. There are also amendments that update cross-references to EU legislation and remove provisions not relevant to the UK.
Other amendments are different for each statutory instrument. The rules for direct payments regulations remove the process of setting financial ceilings for each direct payment scheme, because it is unnecessary in a domestic context to have legislation setting out ceilings, especially when those are administered at a devolved level. The financing, management and monitoring of direct payments to farmers regulations remove the EU’s auditing and accounting rules to enable suitable domestic equivalents to take their place. They also remove the EU’s budget management processes, where those do not work in a domestic context, and make amendments to clarify how the domestic 2020 direct payment schemes interact with the cross-cutting common agricultural policy provisions, which will continue to apply to the UK during the transition period.
Without the changes made by these statutory instruments, domestic legislation would be unclear and not function effectively for the 2020 scheme year. The instruments provide important and necessary continuity for farmers, the Rural Payments Agency and the devolved Administrations. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. It is also a pleasure to welcome the Minister to her place. I am sure we will spend many happy hours together discussing these points in the coming weeks. She is well placed to do so as a farmer and an experienced lawyer, and I am sure that she enjoyed as much as I did spending the recess reading EU regulations 1307/2013, 639/2014 and so on. For those hon. Members who are hoping that our sitting will be quick, I am afraid I did read those regulations, and I would not want all that time to be wasted. It struck me that things do not seem entirely oven-ready or “got done” at this point; it will take a little time. However, I must pay tribute to those who drafted the regulations before us, who, quite frankly, must have the patience of saints.
I was also struck by some rather understated humour that emerged at some points, particularly in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies these regulations. If you do not mind, Ms Nokes, I intend to go through points raised in it before going into the detail of the regulations. Those who have read the explanatory memorandum will notice how it quickly becomes a complicated explanation, particularly of how this legislation interacts with EU retained law. By the time one gets to paragraph 2.5, one reads:
“As a result, existing law would either be unclear or would not function effectively.”
That it could be unclear is potentially an understatement, but we will try to develop clarity, as that is why we are here.
The memorandum goes on to talk about the danger of potentially “inoperable provisions”. In paragraph 2.9 it describes the regulations as the “appropriate legislative ‘fixes’”, which
“will maintain a status quo position”.
Of course, on Second Reading of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, the Opposition pointed out exactly that: the first act after exit day was to keep the status quo. We understand why that was necessary—because of the unfortunate delays in bringing forward legislation—but all of these measures would be unnecessary if we already had the Agriculture Bill in place.
We do not have to go much further through the explanatory memorandum to find yet more problems. In paragraph 6.3 the dreaded concept of equivalence pops up, when we are made aware that we need to maintain equivalence to continue to benefit from state aid exemption rules. I suspect we will talk much further about that in the coming weeks.
We learn in paragraph 6.6 that the regulations are laid under powers in the 2020 Act, which basically provided for the Secretary of State to do what is necessary to make this stuff work. One wonders how many more measures will be needed to sort out what is a considerably complicated set of proposals.
If one was beginning to think it could not get any worse, paragraph 6.8 points out the further difficulty—I will return to this in my detailed account—that different rules apply for January. Until exit day, EU law applied, but retained EU law relates to the whole of the claim year, including January. This may not be for today, but at some point it may be helpful for the Minister to explain how anybody is going to be able to work out exactly how this works. A potential infringement on 31 January may well be treated differently on 1 or 2 February. That could well be quite complicated; all I observe is that it would be good times for lawyers. This was supposed to be about giving certainty, but as Labour warned on Second Reading, some of this may be difficult to sort out quickly, and by the middle of this year farmers will be wanting to make decisions for next year. As we have said, we worry that far from giving certainty, this process will carry on for some time yet. In paragraph 7.8 of the explanatory memorandum, there is a glorious phrase:
“The Government remains committed to beginning ambitious agricultural reforms”.
I am sure that will reassure lots of people. “Remaining committed to beginning” is hardly encouraging.
Turning to annex 2 of that memorandum and looking at the detail of the SIs and the pieces of EU law that they amend, further concerns arise—again, some of this will be discussed in detail later. The Minister made this point tangentially in her introduction, but basically, we will withdraw a level of scrutiny from the whole process by taking out the EU level. Many people, of course, will be delighted by that—they will be cheering—but huge sums of public money are involved here, and we need to be sure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to replicate some of that scrutiny, although not necessarily the bits we do not like. The Minister may be confident that those mechanisms are in place, but not everyone has total confidence in the Rural Payments Agency, or feels it has the necessary resources in place to do this extra job. I seek some reassurance regarding that.
It is also striking that we are now outside the EU crisis reserve. To laypeople, that would look remarkably like moving out of an insurance system and into an uninsured position. Of course, we may well think that that is fine because we have the full weight of the Treasury behind us, but the basic point is that if we are part of something bigger, we are pooling the risk. Obviously, we hope that reserve is not needed, and some of the money is on the way to coming back to us, which is fine. However, we should at least be aware of what we are doing.
I will now move on to the detail, beginning by looking at Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013—I apologise to Members who do not have the full details at their fingertips, because this will possibly be a little tricky, but that regulation is the legislation that SI 91 amends. I have to say, I have had a crash course in learning how the CAP works; in a previous life, I used to do local government finance, and would joke that the only thing that was more complicated was the CAP. I have come to regret that particular line now.
What struck me about Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013, which was the EU’s attempt to improve the CAP last time around, was just how much of what the EU was trying to do was the same as what we are now trying to do. The preamble talks about the absolute necessity of reducing administrative burdens, and about tackling abuse. Interestingly, it also talks about the ability to transfer funds between what, in EU jargon, are described as
“the first and second pillars”.
Broadly speaking, that means the opportunity to put more money into environmental goods, which is exactly what we want to do. It is striking that in England, when the Government had the opportunity to exercise their full discretion to move to 15%, they chose not to do so. Without reopening past debates, it is worth noting in passing that we have not exercised the full flexibilities that were available to us.
As the Minister has said, many of the changes made by the SIs are simply changes to wording. I am sure it would be wonderful to do a replace all, changing “member state” to “relevant authority” and so on, but alas, it is never that simple. In the more pernickety points that I will get to in a moment, I will point out some areas that do not make sense to me, where those changes have not been made. Those may, of course, be minor drafting errors, or there may be reasons for them. It would be useful to tease out why those decisions have been made.
I suspect that we will come back to the active farmer debate another day, possibly even tomorrow. However, I ask today why we are deleting the reference to granting payments to airports, rail, water services and sports areas in article 9.2 of Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013, and replacing it with a much more general provision. I believe it has been discussed in the past, but some clarification would be helpful. I do not expect the Minister to know the answer to all my questions instantly. If she is unable to reply today, I would be perfectly happy with a written reply later.
I do not understand why the article 28 provision on windfall profit has been deleted. There are many paragraphs on the regional and national reserves. The term “regional reserves” is not to be understood in the way that many of us would understand it. I ask the Minister for some details on the reserves and how they will be used in the future. It does not seem entirely clear. The point I am making throughout my remarks is that, although the top-level message is that nothing changes, as we dig down into the detail we begin to find that it is not quite as straightforward as it seems.
In article 43, which is an important set of paragraphs, the EU sets out something not dissimilar from the work that we will do going forward. The EU tries to define the agricultural practices that are beneficial for the environment and the climate, with a series of details in annex IX. I return to my point about who will check all of that. It seems that we are potentially now checking our own homework.
Turning to the second instrument, which amends Regulation (EU) No. 639/2014, it is not entirely clear to me why articles 62, 63 and 72 have been left in, and there are one or two articles where the “Member States” amendment does not seem to have been made: articles 16.2 and 33. In article 45, I do not see the logic in detailing the list of pollen and nectar-rich species when land is lying fallow. There may be a reason, but it is not clear to me. Perhaps more significantly, article 45.5 changes—I would say weakens—the rules on governing the sizes of buffer strips. There is no reason to believe that there is any desire to weaken them, but as I read the legislation it potentially will do so.
Moving on to Regulation (EU) No. 1306/2013, article 9 talks about certification bodies. I think that this matter has been controversial in the past. Again, I seek clarification from the Minister on where the Government think that we are going. It looks to me like a potential change. Articles 12 to 15 on farm advisory systems are effectively deleted, which seems significant. I would welcome some reflections on the impact of that. Article 29 is a detailed account of how the exchange rate issues would have been dealt with, which are of course potentially very important for people. We do not know how the currency will go this year, but it will make a significant difference and the provisions have, obviously, been taken out.
In a number of places, I do not understand why articles have been retained: 30 to 39, 65 to 66, and 79 to 91. Within those, there are references to “Member States”. I suspect that they should have been taken out, but I may be misreading them. Article 46 includes a reference to article 42, which seems to have been deleted. Article 97 goes to the heart of the claim year issue and the complexities around January. Again, some detail would be welcome. It is not clear to me why in Regulation (EU) No. 907/2014 articles 3 and 4 have survived, nor why in Regulation (EU) No. 908/2014 articles 16 to 24 and 45 to 57 have survived.
We are told that nothing has changed, and that this is the status quo. I think I have demonstrated that that is not entirely the case because, as we look into the detail, we find tweaks and changes. I am not sure that we understand what the exact impact will be on the way in which the schemes will work, but it is our duty to at least ask. I hope that we get clarification on some of that. Who knows? We may at some point get the long-awaited policy paper on how the new systems will work, which I think was promised for the Second Reading and Committee stages. If it turns up in the middle of the night it will be no help to many of us, but we look forward to it with relish.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
In a practical sense, it is clear why we are here. The statutory instruments amend retained European law governing the direct payment schemes for farmers established under the common agricultural policy, in relation to the claim year 2020, allowing us to address the operability issues created by the UK’s regrettable leaving of the EU. The orders will enable the retained EU law to operate effectively in the UK after EU exit for the claim year 2020. That matters because under the withdrawal agreement the EU direct payments legislation will not apply in the UK for that claim year, so it is necessary to make sure that the legal basis for payment exists.
The statutory instruments finally solve a problem that the UK Government created, and do something that is required as a direct result of the withdrawal agreement that they signed up to. So in these exceptional circumstances the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government believe that the support should be provided. Scotland’s farmers and crofters have witnessed broken promises after broken promises from the Tory Government, and the Brexit agenda has been damaging to Scotland. The present case is another example of that, so our support is based on the understanding that the payments are critical for our agriculture sector, and provide a basic level of support for our farmers and crofters.
It is, however, important to emphasise that the emergency passage of the Bill, and the delegated legislation Committees, characterise the reckless and damaging Brexit that the UK Government are pursuing. That has left our farmers suffering crippling uncertainty, because of the reckless and last-minute approach to the issues. That is regrettable.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The statutory instrument is of great interest to me. My constituency is hugely rural. It is 50 miles long and 20 miles wide. The agriculture and farming industry is critical to our national and local economy, in terms of the production of beef, lamb, dairy produce, and crops such as cereals and potatoes. The issue is therefore hugely important to us.
I welcome the continuity, but the direct payments made by the UK Government under the common agricultural policy amounted to about £400 million per annum. The Scottish Government recognise that direct payment schemes are critical to Scottish farmers, and have therefore been pressing the UK Government to address the issue since last year. The statutory instruments are a last-minute fix for a problem that was flagged up to the UK Government last year. They are representative of their reckless approach, and show contempt for our farming and crofting communities.
Scottish Government farm business income statistics show that without the support of the direct payments about 60% of agricultural businesses would record a loss. Without the measures to address the legal vacuum in relation to making direct payments to farmers there would be severe financial implications for many of Scotland’s agricultural businesses and they would go bankrupt. That would mean many businesses would fold in turn.
We support the statutory instruments reluctantly, because of the circumstances in which they have been imposed on us.
Victoria Prentis
I should like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Cambridge for his kind words on my new appointment, and say that I too look forward to considering the Agriculture Bill in Committee tomorrow, and to the many hours that we shall spend together, along with the hon. Member for Bristol West and many others who are present in the Room. We will then see more of the framework for future agriculture policy. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am burning with anticipation, which I am hopeful will shortly be assuaged, to see the new policy document for British agriculture. I know that he and I have been doing a lot of reading over the past 10 days, and we may be doing a lot more in the near future. It is very exciting.
I will not be able, as the hon. Member for Cambridge anticipated, to deal with all his drafting points here and now. I shall try to deal with some of the substantive points he raised, but I undertake to write to him in detail on the drafting issues. Even if I become an experienced Minister, I do not know whether I will be able to deal with that sort of drafting issue on the hoof—even though, as he said very kindly, that is my background. Being in front of the hon. Gentleman is rather like being in front of the Court of Appeal, which is never a happy position for a lawyer to be in.
Let me deal with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. The statutory instruments maintain the status quo and do not change the rules that farmers need to meet. If a farmer breached the scheme’s rules in January this year, the Government and the devolved Administrations could still enforce the scheme in exactly the same way as would have happened in the past. That was part of the reason for introducing the Act. The SIs simply enable a smooth transition and allow the payments and the mechanisms about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern to carry on.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in transport policy: he and I spent many hours in transport debates when I was the parliamentary private secretary to the Department for Transport and he led the opposition to some of the Government’s policies. I am assured that the provisions on active farmers, including the rules on airports and railway services, have been maintained in a way that allows each part of the UK to continue to operate the rules in exactly the same way as before.
On exchange rates, the position in the past has been that we in the UK are subject to fluctuations in exchange rates in the same way as other parts of the EU. I am told that the level of funding available for direct payments this year will be the same as it was in 2019. The funding is based on the same financial ceiling and exchange rates that were used in 2019. That may end up being beneficial for us, and the SIs ensure that, at the very least, we have continuity for our farmers.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly anticipated, I am afraid the exchange rates that will be used to calculate BPS payments in 2020 will be set in a statutory instrument that will follow later this year. In line with EU regulations, the exchange rates for BPS have been set out each year based on the average of exchange rates set by the European Central Bank in the month of September, so we are possibly getting a good deal this year. Next year, we will set them out in a statutory instrument. I hope that answers his question.
On inter-pillar transfers, I took the hon. Gentleman’s little dig about the 15% rate in the past. This year, each part of the UK will set its own level for direct payments for 2020 under the current rules, which will enable up to 15% of the direct payments budget to be used for rural development. That is a very good step forward.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock talked about the money that has been provided for Scottish farmers and crofters following the Bew review. The extra money that the Government have committed to provide to Scotland and Wales ensures the fair allocation of farm support funding. We will amend the UK financial ceilings for direct payments to take account of the extra funding in relation to the 2020 scheme year. We will do that by producing a further statutory instrument and, in advance, we will seek the consent of, and work closely with, the devolved Administrations to ensure that that consent is forthcoming. The Government will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations to agree the longer term funding position.
On exchange rates and funding generally, the level of funding available for direct payments for each part of the UK in 2020 will be exactly the same as it was in 2019. The funding is based on the exchange rate that was used last year, which should ensure continuity. On future schemes, we know very well that farmers need stability, certainty and a smooth transition to move to a replacement system, so we will not switch off direct payments overnight. We have provided an agricultural transition period of seven years, beginning next year in 2021, so that farmers have time to adapt to the new provisions. During that period, we will offer schemes to boost industry productivity and improve animal and plant health and animal welfare. There will be schemes to enable farmers, foresters and growers to invest in new equipment and improved technology. We will talk about that a great deal over the coming weeks in the Agriculture Bill Committee.
The new environmental land management scheme is being piloted from this year. The full scheme is due to be rolled out across England in 2024, so we have three years to get it absolutely right. I look forward to working with Members from all parties to ensure that we do that.
The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned crisis reserves. We will rely on our usual domestic powers and procedures to respond to a crisis, as we have done many times before, such as with animal disease.
Any future trade agreements must work for consumers, farmers and businesses in the UK. We will not water down our standards on food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection as part of any future trade deal. Goods seeking access to our markets will have to meet our standards. We will discuss those issues again—probably tomorrow.
The instruments we have discussed correct deficiencies in the legislation that establishes the scheme eligibility rules for farmers’ direct payment schemes, as well as the legislation governing the financing, management and monitoring of the schemes. They ensure that the 2020 schemes can continue to run effectively with no disruption for farmers, providing farmers across the UK with stability and certainty. They pave the way for a smooth transition to our new system of public money for public goods in England. I urge hon. Members to agree the amendments that the instruments propose, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendments) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 91).
The Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 90).—(Victoria Prentis.)