House of Commons
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
We have provided unprecedented support worth more than £190 billion to protect public health, businesses and jobs, and the Government remain committed to supporting the economy throughout this crisis. In July, we published our plan for jobs, which announced further support for the economy, with initiatives such as eat out to help out, the £2 billion kickstart scheme and the £9 billion job retention bonus, all of which aim to support, create and protect jobs.
David Linden
I hear what the Chancellor says, but emergency food parcels for children are up 107% this year and the Trussell Trust now expects to distribute 300,000 more than expected in the fourth quarter. Given that there is a hard Tory Brexit on the horizon and the end to the furlough scheme will certainly push more people into poverty, will the Chancellor do the right thing, adhere to his moral duty and make the £20-a-week increase to universal credit permanent?
Rishi Sunak
Throughout this crisis we have endeavoured to make sure that the most vulnerable in our society get the help that they deserve, which is why results published in July showed that our interventions have meant that those on the lowest incomes have received the most support, through the temporary increase to universal credit, the hardship fund delivered through local councils and, indeed, increases to the local housing allowance to help people with their rental payments.
Joanna Cherry
The events and conferences industry was the first to be affected by lockdown and will be the last to see demand return. Many freelancers, such as my constituent Karen Colvin, have not benefited from support in the same way as other workers. Does the Chancellor have anything new to offer to people such as her?
Rishi Sunak
Many self-employed people have received the second of the self-employment income support grants—almost 3 million people have now received support through that scheme—but the hon. and learned Lady is right that the best way to provide support for people in that industry is slowly and safely to reopen those bits of our economy. My colleague the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary of State is engaged with that industry to start piloting the return of business conferences and events. The situation remains under review.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend has done a tremendous amount to support jobs in our country, but does he agree that many thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of jobs are going to be viable after covid is dealt with but will not make it unless they are provided with further targeted support after the end of October?
Rishi Sunak
As ever, I am grateful for the advice from my right hon. Friend. He is right that businesses do need support, which is why many of the interventions that we have put in place—for example, the business rates holidays and, indeed, our support for the economy and jobs through initiatives such as our stamp duty cut to catalyse the housing market—last through to next year. I hope he will be reassured that throughout this crisis I have not hesitated to act in creative and effective ways to support jobs and employment, and I will continue to do so.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Many employees, self-employed people and freelancers in sectors such as hospitality, aviation, tourism, showpeople and the arts cannot go back to normal because of the public health measures brought in by the Chancellor’s Government, so will he examine the calls by the Treasury Committee to consider a targeted extension of support for those sectors? If not, why?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady mentions hospitality and tourism, which is an industry disproportionately represented in Scotland. That is why the Government took steps in the summer to support the industry, with a temporary VAT reduction from 20% to 5% and, indeed, the eat out to help out initiative, both of which were targeted at helping to protect the 2 million jobs and 200,000 businesses engaged in the industry.
Alison Thewliss
That is woefully inadequate, as we head into the winter, for many of these industries that have already suffered with a low income. The Chancellor said that he would do “whatever it takes” and that
“if the situation changed”,
he
“would not hesitate to take further action.”
Those excluded from support schemes, the 700,000 made redundant since March and those losing their jobs because of the premature ending of the furlough scheme want to know whether the Chancellor will be true to that commitment or his words are worth nothing.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady claims that it was woefully inadequate; the VAT reduction was the single biggest ask from the UK hospitality industry. Not only was that delivered, but it was delivered with an extra initiative, eat out to help out, which proved to provide an enormous fillip to the reopening of that part of the economy. It is also worth bearing in mind that all the businesses engaged in that industry are not paying any business rates at all until March next year.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
As of 16 August, 9.6 million jobs have been protected by the coronavirus job retention scheme, helping 1.2 million businesses with a total value of £35.4 billion.
Mr Holden
Thousands of jobs in my constituency of North West Durham have been protected by the Government over this period, but my constituents are aware that such levels of taxpayer support cannot go on indefinitely and also want to see new jobs being created. Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me as to how many jobs we are looking at getting through the kickstart scheme, which is now coming forward to help to get new jobs into the economy?
Steve Barclay
The £2 billion kickstart scheme has the potential to support more than 250,000 young people and, as my hon. Friend is well aware, it is part of a comprehensive package of £30 billion of support that my right hon. Friend set out as part of his plan for jobs in the summer economic update.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Despite countless warnings from these Benches, the Government are pulling away the job retention scheme just at the moment when infection rates are rising again right across our country. Businesses have said it, unions have said it, and even Tory Back Benchers are saying it: the one-size-fits-all withdrawal of wage support risks a jobs crisis this autumn. Will the Minister not listen and change course before it is too late?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is simply wrong. What she ignores is the fact that my right hon. Friend has put in place a furlough bonus as support that goes beyond October to retain that link for employees to come back. That is part of a wider package of measures that goes alongside the furlough and stands comparison with the most generous in the world.
Bridget Phillipson
The Chief Secretary knows full well that the jobs retention bonus risks giving all the money to companies that simply do not need it. We would happily support the Government in developing a targeted, flexible wage support scheme for hard-hit sectors central to our country’s future. We have been saying this day in, day out for months now—the Government just have not been listening. Rather than stubbornly sticking to a decision made back in July, can he not accept that the situation has changed and that the Government must also change course?
Steve Barclay
There seems to be some confusion because, just last week in the debate that we had in this House, the shadow Chancellor actually recognised that the Chancellor had indeed listened with regard to the design of the furlough. In fact, they claimed credit for the role, which I salute, of the trade unions and others. So we have listened, but the reality is that the furlough pays a higher rate of people’s wages than the scheme in Spain. It supports a wider range of businesses than the one in New Zealand and the scheme runs for twice as long as that in Denmark. That shows the flexibility and the willingness to listen on the part of my right hon. Friend.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government have put in place a £190 billion plan to protect people’s jobs, incomes and businesses, one of the largest and most comprehensive economic responses in the world, and that includes the £30 billion made available under the plan for jobs.
Nickie Aiken
The Eat Out to Help Out scheme has been a phenomenal success in my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster. More than 890,000 meals have been discounted—several eaten by myself, I hasten to add. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the amazing package of help that the Government have given to the retail and hospitality sectors? Moving forward, what policies can we hope to expect to support these vital sectors, which are responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in my constituency?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to recognise the effectiveness of that scheme in supporting demand. It was dismissed as a gimmick when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor launched it, but it has been warmly received by the hospitality industry. As she knows from her constituency and that of others, it is part of that wider package of support, including the cutting of the rate of VAT, which again has been a huge boost to that industry.
Mr Harper
I thank the Treasury team for the support that they have provided so far. My experience during the summer was that there was a great deal of support from local businesses for the variety of schemes, particularly those in the hospitality and tourism sectors, which are very important in my constituency. Turning to the future though, we must make sure that we provide the job opportunities that we are going to need. In Gloucestershire, we had a lift-off event last Friday, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and supported by all six Gloucestershire MPs, where we focused on skills and training and brought together a range of employers. That is the kind of thing that I would like my right hon. Friends in the Treasury to think about supporting. It is the future we need to focus on, not the past.
Steve Barclay
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for that event. I saw the read out and how positive it had been. He is right to focus on that forward piece, using the package of measures that my right hon. Friend set out. That includes, for example, the payment to employers for each new apprenticeship—up to £2,000 for those over 25—the £2 billion kickstart scheme, but also other schemes such as the tripling in the number of traineeships. Events such as the one he mentioned are ones that I am sure other Members will wish to follow.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
By 31 August, over 84,000 UK businesses had registered for the eat out to help out scheme and more than 100 million meals had been claimed for. By getting people back into the habit of enjoying a meal out, the scheme has helped to support nearly 2 million jobs in the hospitality sector and has played an important part in the Chancellor’s wider plan for jobs.
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. Friend’s eat out to help out scheme was also hugely successful in Beaconsfield, where 88,000 discounted meals were enjoyed. I cannot say what percentage of those meals were enjoyed by me personally, but one can wager. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend provide to the House that he will continue to support the hospitality industry through reductions in VAT on food and attractions until next January?
Jesse Norman
I am delighted that the eat out to help out scheme has been so enthusiastically taken up in Beaconsfield, as it has been around the country, and I thank my hon. Friend for her personal service in this important area. She will know that the Chancellor’s plan for jobs and support for over 150,000 businesses and the effort to protect 2.4 million jobs are all part of a package. To them, of course, as she will know, the Government have also added a reduced rate of VAT for tourist attractions, which will run through to 12 January next year. It all fits together as part of a wider picture of support for these very important sectors of the economy.
Steve Double
In St Austell and Newquay, almost 250,000 meals were eaten—not all by me—as part of the eat out to help out scheme, which put around £1.3 million into our local economy, so on behalf of businesses in mid-Cornwall, I thank the Chancellor for his support. August has been incredibly busy in Cornwall, but the hospitality sector faces a big challenge as we head into winter. Will my right hon. Friend consider a similar scheme to be run in the winter to help as many businesses as possible survive the winter and be here next summer?
Jesse Norman
There is a danger of a bidding contest between colleagues over the number of meals eaten under the eat out to help out scheme. I would dissuade them from that. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, however, I would say that there is this wider package. Of course the Treasury keeps all its measures under review, but it is a pretty formidable combination of VAT reductions, business rates relief and billions in tax deferrals and loans.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
Given the great success of the eat out to help out scheme in Lincoln and Lincolnshire and across the country, which has led to higher spending in restaurants, will my right hon. Friend now consider further targeted support for struggling industries, such as the arts and tourism, which are drivers of the Lincoln and county economy of my constituency, not least the excellent Usher Gallery and under-pressure Drill Hall in Lincoln?
Jesse Norman
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has highlighted the great work of the Usher Gallery and the Drill Hall. As he will be aware, the Government have announced a £1.57 billion package of support for the culture sectors, which is designed to support, and will support, thousands of cultural and arts organisations across the country, including theatres, galleries, museums, heritage sites, live music venues and independent cinemas. I think that he will also know that, within that scheme, priority is given not just to organisations with a national or international reputation but to those that are central to the cultural fabric of our towns and regions. That is a very important further component.
Dr Wallis
Eat out to help out has been a massive lifeline for many pubs and restaurants in my Bridgend constituency. Some have told me that, because of it, they could remain afloat and keep people in work. What assessment has been made of the number of people and businesses in my constituency supported by the scheme?
Jesse Norman
I can tell my hon. Friend that 67 local businesses registered for the scheme and that it was used 53,000 times in Bridgend, which, while not like the heroic figures we have seen elsewhere, will have provided a very important boost to the local economy. I am sure that he will have had the experience that Members across the House will have had of walking into a café or restaurant and having the proprietor say, “Thank you so much. It has made a vital difference at a critical time of year for us.”
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government recognise the extreme disruption that the pandemic has caused businesses, which is why we have delivered a generous and comprehensive package of support, in line with best practices globally, totalling more than £190 billion. That has included grants, loans, the furlough scheme, the self-employment income support scheme, deferred VAT payments, business rate reliefs and protections for commercial tenants.
Bim Afolami
I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he and the Treasury consider reviewing the rules of the furlough scheme to deal with cases where some small businesses, particularly one in my constituency, missed out on that scheme through administrative error and, in effect, paid staff when that could have been done through the furlough? Will he discuss that with me separately to see whether we could review the rules to deal with that sort of administrative mistake?
John Glen
Obviously, the scheme has helped 1.2 million employers, and that involves 9.6 million jobs. I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on the specific example he raises. No appeal process is available for those who have made administrative errors, but if a mistake has been made by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a complaints procedure can be followed. I will follow up on this with him personally.
Miriam Cates
This Government’s support for businesses throughout the pandemic has been wide-ranging and delivered at speed. Without the real-time information held by HMRC, it would have taken significantly longer for those grants to reach employers and many more jobs would have been lost. Digital tax administration not only helps HMRC, but cuts costs to businesses, so what is the Treasury doing to build on those successes and make the UK one of the most digitally advanced places in the world to run a business?
John Glen
My hon. Friend is right; it is incumbent on the Government, in all Departments, to look at how we can refine the way we operate, to be more effective. That is why in July my right hon. Friend the Chancellor published a 10-year tax administration strategy, setting out our vision for a modern system, which will involve extending making tax digital to more taxpayers. That is a first step, and we hope it will bring us to a world-leading situation in this country.
Holly Mumby-Croft
I have been told by businesses in my constituency that the hospitality VAT cut was a lifeline to them and helped them to continue. Will my right hon. Friend consider extending that VAT cut beyond January next year, to help those businesses with that recovery?
John Glen
Clearly, every intervention has a cost, and that measure provided support for 150,000 businesses, protecting 2.4 million jobs. As we approach future fiscal events, all contributions and businesses cases for changes will be looked at carefully by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I am sure that he has heard my hon. Friend’s representations today.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
As the House will be aware, in recognition of the extreme disruption caused by the pandemic, the Government have delivered one of the most generous and most comprehensive packages of support around the world. That response is so far totalling close to £200 billion. In addition to affordable Government-backed loan finance, the job retention scheme and deferred VAT, retail businesses have also received specific support, including a 12-month business rates holiday for all eligible retail businesses in England and retail, hospitality and leisure grants worth £10,000 or £25,000.
Duncan Baker
Since being elected, I have raised on many occasions the issue of the economic and social loss that online trading is having on our towns, cities and high streets, and the pandemic has accelerated that problem. Surely, must not the Government now start to consider a VAT-style online sales tax?
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend will be aware, many offline businesses are also extremely effective online businesses; as Adam Smith almost said, we are a nation of virtual shopkeepers. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are committed to a fundamental review of business rates. We published a call for evidence in July and invited views on reform and on potential alternative taxes, including an online sales tax. Our intention is carefully to consider the merits and risks of introducing such a tax, and I encourage all Members, including my hon. Friend, to contribute their views.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
While a number of wealthier inner-city areas have received over £100 million each in rate relief and small business grants, many constituencies in the midlands and the north have been left behind, with some receiving barely a fifth of that support or even less—Dudley North, Rother Valley, Blyth Valley, Don Valley, Penistone and Stocksbridge, Wolverhampton North East, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Redcar, Sedgefield; I could go on. Is that what the Government meant by levelling up?
Jesse Norman
As the Chancellor has already highlighted, the Government’s intention has been to support vulnerable people, vulnerable businesses and vulnerable families across the country. As he has also pointed out, the evidence appears to be that we have been very successful, with the most targeted support being most heavily felt at the lower end of the income spectrum. If numbers in the aggregate do not please the hon. Gentleman, let me simply tell him the reaction of one chief executive of a retail business in this country, who said to me that without the furlough scheme, that company alone would have laid off 30,000 people. With the furlough scheme, it has been able to continue and recover.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government have put in place a broad set of policies to support businesses and individuals through this crisis. The coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employment income support scheme have supported more than 9 million and 2.7 million jobs and people respectively. As the economy reopens, we must adjust our support to ensure that people continue to get back to work, protecting the UK economy and people’s livelihoods.
Helen Hayes
The Institute for Employment Studies is now predicting 450,000 redundancies over the three months to September and a further 200,000 by the end of the year—more than double the levels seen in the 2008-09 recession. Many of those whose jobs are at risk work in the creative industries, performing arts and hospitality, which would be thriving without coronavirus. Why is the Chancellor persisting with a cliff-edge approach, which will inflict the hardship and misery of unemployment on so many people, instead of taking a flexible approach to furlough to save good jobs for the long term?
Rishi Sunak
The furlough scheme, as it is currently constructed, is flexible. It was a key demand from business groups and unions, which we responded to. As the economy is slowly reopening over the late summer and autumn, the furlough scheme has adapted to that, allowing businesses to bring back their employees in a flexible fashion, and that is exactly what they are currently doing.
Alun Cairns
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the introduction of the self-employment income support scheme in particular, but does he recognise that it cannot continue indefinitely? Does he also agree that the self-employed are some of the most innovative individuals in our economy, and it is time to release their innovation to kick-start us?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Now that we have begun to reopen the economy, it is right that our support becomes differentiated and the focus shifts to getting people back to work. It is not possible to sustain this level of intervention. I fully agree with him: those who are entrepreneurial and self-employed deserve our support, and they will continue to get it as we drive our recovery out of this crisis.
Gerald Jones
Hundreds of thousands of people across the country, including many in my constituency, have not been able to get support during this pandemic. The Government have repeatedly said that it is too difficult to get support to people who are not on the coronavirus job retention scheme or the self-employment income support scheme. The Government have had six months to put something in place, so will the Chancellor outline to the House what barriers exist now to getting support to the people who have so far been excluded?
Rishi Sunak
As I have said from this Dispatch Box, we have not been able to help absolutely everyone in the exact way that they would have liked, but that does not mean that support is not available. Through considerable increases to universal credit and local housing allowance, we have provided support to the most vulnerable. Through measures such as mortgage holidays, which one in six mortgage customers have taken up in the past few months, we have ensured that everyone, one way or another, can access some degree of Government support.
Peter Gibson
Over £33 million of bounce back loans have been granted to businesses in Darlington, but many businesses in my constituency bank with new start-up, online and challenger banks and have faced some issues with accessing bounce back loans. What steps is the Treasury taking to assist with access to bounce back loans for those who need them?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and we recognise the vital role that alternative lenders can play in providing finance to SMEs. We continue to work with them and the sector to see what more we can do. As he recognises, the bounce back loan scheme has proved enormously successful, and so far we have accredited 28 bounce back lenders, who have provided loans to more than 1 million businesses. In the first instance, I urge businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency to look online at one of those 28 lenders, and see whether they can provide the loans that that business requires.
Chi Onwurah
The Chancellor, and all of us whose salaries have been paid throughout the pandemic, may find it difficult to grasp the deep sense of unfairness felt by those who, through no fault of their own, are entirely excluded from any support. Perhaps they followed their entrepreneurial dream and left a good job to start their own business, as encouraged to do by this Government, but did not file their tax returns in time. Perhaps they have an event business that has been left to fend for itself without any events. There are thousands of such people in my constituency alone. How can the Chancellor expect the country to come together to fight the virus when so many have been excluded from all support?
Rishi Sunak
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady. Most people in the country recognise that the Government have provided unprecedented support at this difficult time to millions of people, as well as to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of businesses. Although people may not have been able to get support in the exact way they would have wanted, across the spectrum, whether through the welfare system and local authorities, or through banks and the provision of credit, we have ensured that some form of support is available to the vast majority of the British public.
Tracy Brabin
It is now been six months during which 3 million self-employed people have been excluded and locked out of the coronavirus support schemes, and it is no coincidence that this week the Trussell Trust announced an unprecedented need for support. Nearly half of those people are first-time users, and if the forecasts are right, the situation will only get worse, with six emergency food parcels being delivered every minute as we get to winter. I implore the Chancellor to tell hon. Members what he will do to support those who are excluded, so that this disaster does not turn into a catastrophe for families around the country.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady is slightly confused. On one hand she speaks about people who were not eligible for the self-employment scheme, but those who were excluded earned more than £50,000 and were in the top 5% of all earners, with an average median salary of £200,000. In the same question she speaks about targeting support to those who cannot afford food. She should figure out which issue she cares about.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
When the circumstances change, policies should adapt. Infection rates are growing, local restrictions are becoming more common, and this morning’s figures show levels of unemployment at a two-year high, and rising, particularly among the young. France and Germany have extended their employment support for a further year. Is it time to reconsider the jobs cliff edge that is approaching at the end of next month, and at least to extend employment support to those sectors that cannot yet go back to work, and areas hit by local lockdowns, so that businesses and workers are not punished for doing the right thing?
Rishi Sunak
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the increase in cases, which is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that we remain in control in suppressing the virus. He talks about local lockdowns, and he will have seen the announcement last week about extra business rates support for businesses that find themselves in those areas, with a payment of up to £1,500 per three weeks of lockdown. He mentioned other countries. He is right about Germany and its scheme, but it is worth bearing in mind that Germany has had such a scheme, in co-operation with businesses and through its social security system, for more than a decade.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As you might expect, Mr Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee is already beginning the reckoning of costs, and there is a cost to the Exchequer from all those people who were self-employed, or employed on short-term contracts, and who received no support. Ultimately, the state still has to support those people, and no tax comes in from them. Will the Chancellor go back to the drawing board and consider the long-term issue of the cost to our country of not supporting people who have a good track record with HMRC and who could be supported? They have lived on fresh air for all these months.
Rishi Sunak
I hear what the hon. Lady says and will certainly reflect on it. I refer her to my response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) about the importance of a digital taxation system, which I know the hon. Lady’s Committee will have an interest in. As throughout this crisis, our ability to respond in the way that we would want to is often limited by the information that we hold. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has put out a 10-year tax administration strategy that will ensure that our tax system collects in real time the information we need about people and businesses up and down this country, so that, should something like this happen again, the Government can respond in the way that they would want to, as quickly as possible.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Chancellor has regular discussions on a range of topics with Cabinet colleagues. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are committed to a fundamental review of the business rates system in England and have launched a call for evidence inviting views on reform. That review will also consider the merits and the risks of introducing an online sales tax.
Mr Carmichael
Online shopping offers a range of choice and opportunities for many of my constituents and other people throughout the highlands and islands that they simply cannot get from local shops, but it often comes with the whammy of delivery charges that make the purchase itself look small, or a refusal to deliver at all. An online sales tax could be an opportunity to give a small tax break to those making online sales who deliver as a universal service with a single price across the whole country. Will the Minister consider that along with his other considerations?
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful for the suggestion. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has placed it on the public record, I will ask my officials to look more closely at it and to engage with him on it. He will know that we have already introduced, in a quite different context, a digital services tax. We are open to these potential ideas. We will be looking very carefully at this area. Intelligent and well thought through feedback is always of great interest to us.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government have been actively engaging with businesses and fully committed to providing them with the information and support needed to prepare for the end of the transition period in Northern Ireland. As was set out in the Command Paper, the Government’s position is that there should be no additional process, paperwork or restrictions on Northern Ireland goods arriving in the rest of the UK.
Sammy Wilson
While I welcome the provisions of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill debated yesterday, they do not cover the issue that the EU is demanding that goods coming into Northern Ireland have tariffs imposed on them until it is proven that they have not left Northern Ireland and gone into the EU. This is damaging to business, because it requires additional paperwork, will affect cash flow, and will put up costs. Given that the Government are committed to keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs union, that the Act of Union says that there should be no tariffs on trade between countries within the United Kingdom, and that 75% of goods do not leave Northern Ireland once they enter anyhow, will the Minister give a commitment to ensuring in the Finance Bill that the EU demand for those tariffs to be collected will be removed so that Northern Ireland businesses are not disadvantaged?
Jesse Norman
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, these topics are currently very live matters of discussion between this country and the EU, and I am not going to comment on that. However, we are, as a Government, very engaged with this issue across a number of different Departments, and we will be looking to support the principles and positions set out in the protocol as we go forward.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government recognise the importance of energy efficiency in achieving our climate change objectives and tackling fuel poverty. That is why in July my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced over £2 billion of new funding to upgrade homes through the green homes grant scheme. In addition, we have a range of policies in place to support home energy efficiency improvements.
Kemi Badenoch
From the end of September, homeowners and landlords across England, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, will be able to apply for vouchers to fund at least two thirds of the cost of upgrading the energy performance of their homes. In additional, Greater Manchester Combined Authority has the opportunity to bid for part of the £500 million being made available to local authorities to help low-income households directly.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Yes, Her Majesty’s Treasury is responsible for the allocation of ODA across all Government Departments. The comprehensive spending review will determine all ODA budgets.
Mrs Latham
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but how can we ensure that all money spent qualifies for ODA categorisation and is particularly focused on relieving poverty?
Steve Barclay
I know my hon. Friend takes a close and expert interest in this issue, not least through her work on the relevant Select Committee. Individual Departments are responsible for ensuring that all money spent as ODA meets the criteria of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, and that it is spent through the powers of the International Development Act 2002, which requires funding likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government are committed to all groups in society, including the most vulnerable, facing the challenges caused by covid-19. That is why we have put in place an unprecedented package of support, including the job retention scheme, the self-employed income support scheme and a package of welfare measures that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates to be worth in excess of £9 billion.
Stephen Crabb
The commitment of this Government to ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society are protected through this crisis cannot be questioned. The scale of the intervention has been remarkable, but may I encourage the Chancellor and the Treasury team, as they begin making their plans for next year’s spending, to bear in mind the importance of the increase in universal credit that we made at the beginning of the pandemic, and to ensure that we keep it in place, because many more families will be relying on it in the months ahead?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is a passionate champion of this issue. He will have seen from the answer given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the distribution analysis at the time of the summer update illustrated that the measures taken by the Chancellor had protected the poorest households the most as a proportion of income. I know that he will have listened closely to my right hon. Friend’s representations.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Afzal Khan
Analysis undertaken by 10 Greater Manchester councils and combined authorities shows that the impact of coronavirus and the actions taken to manage the pandemic will be in the region of £732 million by the end of 2021. The Government have promised to level up the country, and it is time to make good on that promise, so will the Minister give Greater Manchester and its councils the resources they need to lead the recovery and build back better?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of levelling up across the United Kingdom. It is a key objective of this Government. That is why we are backing councils with the resources they need to meet the challenges caused by coronavirus. That includes more than £3.7 billion of grant funding so far, to address many of the pressures that they face.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Spending on devolved matters is a matter for the Welsh Government. The UK Government do not set the levels of pay for care workers in England, but we are focused on ensuring that the social care system is funded, so that providers pay a fair wage.
Jessica Morden
Can the Minister tell my constituents who are care workers why, when they have worked their hearts out and been given a £500 thank you by the Welsh Labour Government, this Government see fit to deduct money from them, leaving those on universal credit with around £125? That is just mean-spirited.
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady should point out to those same workers that this Government have allocated an unprecedented £4 billion of guaranteed funding to the Welsh Government to enable them to allocate funding under what is a devolved matter. If she is drawing attention to the fact that there is a shortfall in what she feels should be going to care workers in her constituency, she needs to address why more of that £4 billion is not being allocated to care workers in what is a devolved issue.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The manufacturing sector has a key role to play in the Government’s ambitious agenda to build back better, which is why last week I met representatives of the UK’s major manufacturing trade associations to hear their views directly. To support the sector, we continue to provide extensive support for research and development as part of our commitment to increase it, economy-wide, to 2.4% of GDP by 2027.
Lucy Powell
Many of the communities that voted for Conservative MPs for the first time in the recent election rely on our key manufacturing sectors such as aerospace and automotive for jobs. Given that the Government were prepared to create a £3 billion demand stimulus for the housing market, which was not as adversely affected by the pandemic, why will they not do a lot more to protect those jobs and communities with a demand stimulus for aerospace and automotive, which is desperately needed?
Kemi Badenoch
The Government are acutely aware of the demands required across various sectors. The hon. Lady mentions the aerospace and automotive sectors, which the Government are supporting with over £8.5 billion through the covid corporate financing facility, grants for research and development, loans and export guarantees expected over the next 18 months. There is also further support in place for the automotive industry through the Budget, in which the Government committed over £1 billion to promote the uptake of ultra-low emissions vehicles, including up to £500 billion to support the roll-out of a superfast charging network. Those amounts will help those various sectors.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
This Government’s comprehensive and generous package of support in response to the coronavirus has protected millions of livelihoods and supported hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the country. Our plan for jobs announced in July will protect, create and support jobs, notably through our recently launched kickstart scheme, as we look to get the UK economy back on its feet.
Patricia Gibson
Scottish Government analysis has revealed that ending the transition period in 2020 could cut £3 billion from the Scottish economy over the next two years—on top of the impact of coronavirus. With the UK Internal Market Bill making the risk of a no-deal Brexit even greater, what reassurances can the Chancellor give to my constituents and the people of Scotland that there will be no real-term spending cuts that will inflict even greater damage on our economy?
Rishi Sunak
The Government and I remain committed to getting a deal and will continue to engage constructively with our European partners in pursuit of that aim. With regard to funding for Scotland, I can tell the hon. Lady that the Scottish Government have received £6.5 billion in advance of it being called for, so that they can provide the support required to their residents.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Manufacturing and exports, especially from the west midlands and the Black Country, will play a key part in driving our recovery. I am pleased to tell him that the Exchequer Secretary is shortly meeting with the Mayor, Andy Street. That comes on top of our plans to provide £1 billion to develop the UK supply chain for electric automotive vehicles over the next five years, and £850 million of allocations from the local growth fund for his region.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor will be aware of concerns that the UK risks a slower recovery than comparable economies for self-inflicted reasons. Despite the devastating impact on jobs, the Treasury Front Benchers have yet again today—six times—rejected targeted wage support. Economists are concerned about this Government’s inability to get a grip on the public health crisis, which evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies suggests stems in part from a failure to adequately support people who have to self-isolate. Rumour has it that the Chancellor is blocking attempts to improve sick pay, so I put it to him: can he put himself in the shoes of those low-paid workers who often have to choose between paying their rent and bills, and putting food on the table for their kids? If these workers are advised to self-isolate, they get £95.85 a week—and that is if they are even eligible for statutory sick pay. Surely the Chancellor must agree with the Secretary of State for Health that statutory sick pay is not enough to live on.
Rishi Sunak
From the beginning of this pandemic, we have made changes to the operation of statutory sick pay and our welfare system to ensure that those who are isolating in any circumstance receive support from day one, and that we improve flexibility, particularly for the self-employed, through the removal of the minimum income floor. As the hon. Lady knows, we are also trialling incentive payments in local lockdown areas.
Anneliese Dodds
I did not ask the Chancellor about the precise details of delivery and I did not ask about the scope; I asked him about the value of statutory sick pay. He needs to get a grip on this issue. If he fails to do so—and the blockage appears to be his responsibility—then we will see additional localised re-impositions of lockdown, with all the implications that has for jobs and businesses. Please, Chancellor, get a grip on this issue.
There are two other reasons why economists are worried about the UK’s recovery. First, of course, there is concern about our future as a trading nation. Both of the Chancellor’s predecessors warn that the threat to override the withdrawal agreement could damage our country’s reputation and prosperity. Why do those former Chancellors appear to be more concerned about our country’s economic prospects than the current one? The second reason for concern stems from the prospect of premature spending cuts or tax rises. According to the Financial Times, it is politics that could drive the Chancellor towards early tax rises, so will he rule them out for the rest of this year?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do want the Chancellor to answer, but we will have to shorten the questions.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady talks about our place as a trading nation. She may have missed the news last week that this country has concluded an enhanced free trade agreement with Japan. I pay enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade for concluding a deal that will be better for British businesses, particularly in the areas of the economy we do so well on such as digital and services. It will protect more of our great agricultural produce, open up more markets for our businesses to sell to and reduce prices for British shoppers. That is what the future of global Britain looks like.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I thank her for it. She will know that some of the interventions we have already put in place last through into next year, for example the removal of the need to pay business rates for businesses in hospitality, which has been particularly affected. She may be reassured to know that we recently introduced the new business support grant for businesses forced to close as a result of local lockdown, where the Joint Biosecurity Centre gold command has instituted that measure, and those grant payments will be available up to £1,500 per few weekly cycles.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Rishi Sunak
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the aerospace industry to our economy. It is, in common with aerospace industries across the globe, suffering a deep depression in demand for all the obvious reasons. He can rest assured that we engage regularly with the companies in that sector. In particular, to support their future success, we are investing heavily in R&D alongside those companies to make sure we remain on the cutting edge of advanced manufacturing capability.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of good childcare and he is right to highlight that the Government support people with 20% of their childcare costs up to a cap of £2,000 through tax-free childcare. I can also tell him that, in recognition of the importance of this issue, we made some adjustments to how tax-free childcare operated during the pandemic, so that if someone’s income fell below the minimum income requirement as a result of what was happening they would continue to receive financial support up until the end of October.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the disproportionate economic impact that this crisis will have on young people. I have spoken about that from the Dispatch Box before, and he is right that we should focus our attention on them. That is why, in our plan for jobs, we outlined the kickstart scheme, which will initially make available fully-funded Government job placements for a quarter of a million young people at risk of long-term unemployment. I am confident that many young people in his constituency, like all of ours, can benefit from that scheme, and I urge him to work with his local businesses to get them signed up to the scheme and take on a young kickstarter.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the particular impact on that sector. It is something we are engaging on closely with it, and I am very happy to continue to have dialogue with my hon. Friend on the issue.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Steve Barclay
I think my right hon. Friend addressed this in his reply to the shadow Chancellor. The key issue is to look at the package of measures the Government are putting in place. First and foremost among those is retaining people’s link to employment. That is the most important issue. Alongside that, the measures on welfare, including support for businesses that are in lockdown, are part of the comprehensive response, and statutory sick pay is one of a suite of measures.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the underlying principle behind furlough—to enable the labour market to bounce back, with jobs in businesses that were viable before the pandemic being able to recover quickly. It is also part of the three-phase strategy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out. The second phase is to concentrate on skills to create jobs, protect jobs and support jobs, and to enable those workers to come back into the economy and for the economy therefore to recover quicker.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise ARM, which is obviously a key employer in his constituency. The Government are taking a very close interest in this transaction. It was pleasing to see yesterday that parties close to the transaction said that the headquarters would remain in Cambridge. It is a matter we are engaging very closely on, and I am very happy to engage with him personally on any questions arising from that.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
John Glen
My hon. Friend is right to raise this point, which he has raised before. In his constituency, 1,400 businesses have benefited from the bounce back loans from 28 providers across the country, but I am happy to engage with him in relation to the number of cases he has dealt with and see what interventions can be made at this time.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
It is right that companies pay the tax that they owe the Exchequer so that we can fund the public services that all our constituents rely on. That is why this Government instituted the digital services tax for online companies, which came into force this year. We remain committed to that tax, although we work with our partners around the world to replace our unilateral one with a multilateral solution through the OECD that will properly tackle this issue once and for all.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government have a range of schemes that have been supporting businesses throughout the pandemic, as my colleagues have mentioned time and time again. If my hon. Friend has specific requests from the businesses in his constituency, I am very happy to discuss those with him so that we can work out the best way to continue to spur economic recovery.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Kemi Badenoch
We have been looking at this relief for several years now, and the changes that we have made are going to benefit the vast majority of brewers. The smallest brewers will be exempt from most of the changes, and those brewers who have been unable to grow will now be able to do so. We had a long consultation and quite a few brewery groups have been very supportive of this change. We will have further announcements to come after the next technical consultation on this relief.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am now suspending the House for a few minutes.
Petition
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
This is Pension Awareness Week, and I rise this evening to present a petition on behalf of the women of Glasgow East born in the 1950s regarding the state pension inequality perpetuated against my female constituents by successive British Governments. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the state pension age.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Glasgow East Constituency ,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002077]
Coronavirus
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to update the House on his response to coronavirus.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Coronavirus exists only to spread, and yesterday the World Health Organisation once again announced a record number of cases globally. France and Spain have both reported daily figures of over 10,000 positive cases and increasing hospitalisations. Here in the UK, we saw around 2,600 new cases yesterday, and last week medical advisers advised that R is above 1. The epidemic is growing.
There are signs that the number of cases in care homes and the number of hospitalisations is starting to rise again, so last week we acted quickly, putting in place new measures—the rule of six, which came into force yesterday. We do not do this lightly, but the cost of doing nothing is much greater.
Testing also has a vital part to play. Everyone in this House knows that we are doing more testing per head of population than almost any other major nation, and I can tell the House that we have now carried out over 20 million tests for coronavirus in this country. As we expand capacity further, we are working round the clock to make sure that everyone who needs a test can get a test. The vast majority of people who use our testing service get a test that is close to home, and the average distance travelled to a test site is now just 5.8 miles —down from 6.4 miles last week; but the whole House knows that there are operational challenges, and we are working hard to fix them.
We have seen a sharp rise in people coming forward for a test, including those who are not eligible. Throughout this pandemic, we have prioritised testing according to need. Over the summer when demand was low, we were able to meet all requirements for testing, whether priorities or not, but as demand has risen we are having to prioritise once again. I do not shirk from decisions about prioritisation. They are not always comfortable, but they are important. The top priority is, and always has been, acute clinical care. The next priority is social care, where we are now sending over 100,000 tests a day, because we have all seen the risks this virus poses in care homes. We will set out in full an updated prioritisation, and I do not rule out further steps to ensure our tests are used according to those priorities. It is a choice that we must make.
Finally, to defeat this virus in the long term needs effective vaccines and treatments. I am delighted to say that over the weekend the trial of the Oxford vaccine restarted, and I can tell the House that we will now be trialling a promising new antibody treatment on coronavirus patients in the UK. The challenges are serious. We must work to overcome them, optimistic in the face even of these huge challenges, and to keep this deadly virus under control.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful for advance sight of the Secretary of State’s answer. That was decent of him.
Yesterday LBC revealed that there were no tests available in covid hotspots, including Rochdale, Pendle and Bradford. Over the weekend in Bolton, where infections are the highest in the country, a mobile testing centre failed to turn up. Meanwhile, in Bury hundreds queued for five hours for a test. In Walsall, a father with his sick child travelled 76 miles to an appointment in Wales, only to find on arrival that tests had run out. Increasing numbers of teachers and pupils are not in school. In hospitals, operations are cancelled while NHS staff are stuck in limbo, waiting for tests.
The Secretary of State blames increased demand, but when tracing consistently fails to reach 80% of contacts, when less than 20% of those with symptoms self-isolate properly and there is a lack of financial security, infections rise. When schools reopen and people return to workplaces and social distancing becomes harder, infections rise. Extra demand on the system was inevitable. Why did he not use the summer to significantly expand NHS lab capacity and fix contact tracing?
Just as demand is increasing, the ability to process tests is diminishing. Post-graduate students working in the Lighthouse labs are returning to university, so why did the Secretary of State not plan for the inevitable staff shortages in the Lighthouse labs? Those commercial pillar 2 labs, The Sunday Times revealed at the weekend, have a huge backlog of 185,000 tests. Thursday’s data revealed that 65,709 test results were not returned by the end of the week. Care home residents now wait an average of 83 hours for their result. The Prime Minister promised us a 24-hour turnaround for results, so what is going on? What is the current backlog and what is the timeframe for clearing it?
We were promised a world-beating system, so why are we sending tests to Germany and Italy for processing? But, most importantly, people want to know when they will get a test and when this mess will be fixed. Today there will be thousands of ill people trying to book a test, only to be told none is available. When will people be able to book a test online again, or has the online booking system been deliberately disabled? When will ill people no longer have to travel hundreds of miles for a test that should be available on their doorstep? When will pupils and teachers out of school get access to testing, so they can get back to school? When will NHS staff have access to regular testing, so they can focus on their patients and not be sitting at home?
We are at a perilous moment. Imperial College estimates the virus is doubling every seven to eight days. We all want to avoid further restrictions or another national lockdown, but when testing and contact tracing break down, the growth of the virus cannot be tracked. The Prime Minister promised us whack-a-mole, but instead his mallet is broken. The Secretary of State is losing control of the virus; he needs to fix testing now.
Matt Hancock
Well, the good news, in responding to that, is that capacity for testing is at a record high. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of testing in the top 10 local authorities—well, I have got the figures here. Yesterday, we processed 9,278 tests just in pillar 2—so outside of the NHS testing capacity—in just those top 10 local authority areas. Just yesterday, we processed 1,428 tests in his own local authority area.
The good news is that capacity is at record levels and that a record number of people are able to get tests. I do not deny that it is an enormous challenge. When a service is free, it is inevitable that demand will rise. The challenge is to make sure that we prioritise the tests that we have as a nation for those who most need them, as I set out in my answer.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the backlog, which is actually falling and is less than one day’s processing capacity. He also asked about our being able to have testing capacity so that we can re-enable the economy and get things going. As he well knows, there is a huge effort to expand—using the next generation of technologies —the tests that we need to deliver to reopen parts of the economy, and we will deliver on that.
We will deliver on the challenges of today. I do not deny those challenges, but I face the facts in order to deliver on those challenges, rather than simply complaining. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the record capacity and the contact tracing, which are playing their part in responding to the virus.
Mr Speaker
Let us hear from the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
A week ago today, the Secretary of State told the Health and Social Care Committee that he expected to have this problem solved in two weeks. Since then, in my constituency, two Farnham residents have been sent to Bristol for their tests, a councillor has been sent to the Isle of Wight for her test and a teacher who tested positive had to wait a week for her results. Is the Secretary of State, given the efforts that his Department is making, still confident that in a week’s time we will have this problem solved?
Matt Hancock
I think that we will be able to solve this problem in a matter of weeks. In his constituency yesterday, 194 people got their tests. We are managing to deliver record capacity, but as he well knows, demand is also high, and the response to that is to make sure we have prioritisation, so that the people who most need them can get the tests that they need.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
With covid cases doubling every week, it is clear that laboratory capacity for diagnostic testing is not keeping pace with demand, leading to testing slots being cut. For example, only 70 new covid cases were reported in Scotland yesterday, yet 267 were reported today, many from tests carried out over the weekend. With a reported backlog of 185,000 tests, is the Secretary of State not concerned that results will not be received quickly enough to allow timely contact tracing, and that the delay in data means that new outbreaks will not be identified until they are out of control? Last week, the Secretary of State appeared to accept that additional NHS funding could allow hospital laboratories across the UK to rapidly increase their testing capacity, so can he confirm whether he plans such an approach, and on what timescale?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I think it is important that we expand the NHS labs, and that we work across the whole of the UK to get the testing capacity needed. For instance, in Scotland, when there was a surge in demand for tests last month, we diverted more of the UK’s capacity to support people in Scotland, and we currently deliver more tests per head of population in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. In the tone of the hon. Lady’s question, it is absolutely necessary to work together, across party lines, between the Scottish devolved Government and the UK Government, to make sure that we get the support to the people of Scotland as to every other part of this country.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State about the rule of six? Many of my constituents struggle to understand why they can play five-a-side football but two connected families of five each cannot meet. Will the Secretary of State look at flexibility when local rates permit, and also at excluding under-12s from the rule? Christmas is just around the corner. I know he has to think of the health of the nation, but I really urge some flexibility on the part of the Government.
Matt Hancock
Of course, I do worry first and foremost about the health of the nation, and we need a rule that is super-simple. Children do transmit this virus, and we have made the decision to keep the rule as simple as possible considering all those risks. I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. We take a different approach in different areas according to the extent of cases locally, and that is an important tool in our armoury.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Like many other Members, I have been inundated with emails from doctors, teachers and parents unable to access the tests that they desperately need. Several of them have been advised that if they put an Aberdeen postcode into the system, they can get a test in Twickenham—and they have succeeded. How on earth is a world-beating test and trace system functioning like this, and what is the Secretary of State doing to fix it? In the meantime, does he recommend that I tell constituents who desperately need a test to game the system in that way?
Matt Hancock
No; in fact, it is incumbent on us all to take a responsible approach and tell our constituents that tests are available in large numbers, that the average distance travelled is 5.8 miles and that people should take this seriously and not game the system.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am grateful to the Government for all that they are doing to fight covid-19 and keep the population safe. May I ask my right hon. Friend if there is a formal trigger for easing the rule of six and measures like it?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it comes to the point that was previously made about Christmas. Of course, we will keep the rule of six in place only for as long as is absolutely necessary for health reasons. The vaccines and treatments that I spoke about and the mass testing regime are all important in trying to find a way through this virus with a minimal impact on the economy, education and people’s social lives. There is not a formal rate at which we will make that review; we keep everything under control, and I have no doubt that we will constantly debate the matter in this House in order to ensure that we come to the right decision.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is in danger of believing the global figures without looking at the reality on the ground. In my borough, which has been working hard with the Government to keep an outbreak down, we have two walk-in test centres, which have been advertised as such to reach the digitally divided and make sure that people can get tests quickly. Over the weekend, staff from Deloitte—a private company running this public service—told people that they could no longer walk in. That was not communicated to the local authority, so the service was still being advertised as walk-in, and more than 90 people were turned away from one test centre alone. This is a fiasco of the Government’s making, and the Secretary of State could intervene now to make sure that, at the very least, there is communication. I hope he will release the correspondence between Deloitte and the Department of Health and Social Care so that we can see exactly what has happened.
Matt Hancock
I will happily look at that individual case. Of course, there are many hundreds of tests being done in the hon. Lady’s constituency, as well as across London. I can look at the individual point and make sure that communications occur as necessary.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
We have heard case after case of failure when it comes to testing. I have heard from parents, teachers and a vicar in Luton North all saying that there are no walk-in tests, no drive-through tests and no home kits available when they need them. The Secretary of State talks about capacity, but what we need is access to testing. Capacity is nothing without access to testing. When can people with symptoms expect to be able to get tests when and where they need them?
Matt Hancock
The vast majority of people do. In Luton yesterday, 484 people got tests. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) that we should follow the data.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on their efforts to increase testing capacity and on working with local authorities to do so. As a result of the soaring number of covid cases in Manchester, however, some people are still unable to get the testing they need. We know that children are back in schools now and that schools are natural incubators of colds and tummy bugs, which mimic some of the covid symptoms. As the flu season gets going, will the Government look at the guidance they are giving to schools and people about how to access those tests?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely; of course I will do that. We have put significantly more testing into Stockport and my hon. Friend’s constituency: 720 tests just yesterday. One reason for that is the higher rate in Greater Manchester. She makes an important point about ensuring the capacity so that tests can be there when someone has the symptoms of coronavirus, but it is also incumbent on schools to send pupils for testing only when they have the symptoms of coronavirus, to make sure we can prioritise the testing for the symptomatic people who really need it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State and the Minister for the help he provided over the weekend with Vaughan Gething, trying to get the mobile testing centre in Porth, which has now moved to Clydach, fully functioning in the Rhondda, not least because we have a very high number of infections at the moment and are trying to work out what the specifics look like in terms of a potential lockdown.
Today, however, the best part of 60 people turned up for a test, having made an appointment in Abercynon, only to be told there were no test kits but that there might be some available that afternoon so to try again later that day. Still people are being told to go to Aberdeen. I do not know if it is just the alphabet—people think that Aberdeen is near Abercynon—but it is a very long way away. I also gently say to the Secretary of State: I know he knows there is a problem here, but trying to rebut every argument with, “Honestly, we’ve got more people doing more stuff and people need to get with the programme”, and all of that, just does not wash with the public. There is a danger, if he does too much of that, that people will simply say, “We can’t trust you any more”.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is right: we spoke over the weekend and worked hard to get those mobile testing units into the Rhondda, where there is a significant outbreak. It showed the effectiveness of people working together to deliver solutions. I do absolutely acknowledge the challenge, but I also urge everybody to ensure the message gets through to people in the Rhondda and across the country that tests are available. I use these figures to demonstrate that hundreds of people in every constituency are getting tests. I want people across the country to know that we understand there are challenges and are working incredibly hard to fix them but that tests are available.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My disabled constituent Ian Kenny has been trying to get a home test since 8 September. He cannot drive so he cannot get to a test centre. He has symptoms but has been told there are no home tests available. Until he can prove he does not have covid, he cannot access the hydrotherapy he needs or go back to work. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give Dr Kenny that he will be able to get a test? He speaks today of prioritisation and difficult choices, but disabled people living in their own homes must be a priority and must not be forgotten.
Matt Hancock
Absolutely, and I will of course be happy to look into the case in detail. Such cases, where there is a clinical need, should be at the top of the prioritisation. We have set out the prioritisation and will continue to update it to make sure it matches the latest science. My right hon. Friend has made her point and I will make sure the matter is looked into.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is certainly a very busy person. Will he outline what steps have been taken, in co-operation with the Department for Education, to see that school bubbles that have a positive case are returned to school as a matter of urgency? The reason I bring this to his attention is simply that if one child in a household has a classmate with covid-19, and they are tested and are proven not to have it, they are sent home with their mother, but other children in the same households go to different classes in the school. It seems a bit absurd, does it not?
Matt Hancock
If somebody tests negative in a school environment, as in the example the hon. Gentleman gives, the school can of course carry on as normal because there is no sign of covid. I will double check that the guidelines around exactly that circumstance are clear and will speak to the Department for Education.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
To what extent is there a possibility that it is the exponential increase in testing itself, in identifying genuine new cases, and the very significant possibility of false positives, that is giving a distorted impression of the trajectory of the disease?
Matt Hancock
I like my right hon. Friend very much and wish that that were true. The reason why the Office for National Statistics does the surveillance testing is to ensure that we are constantly looking, on a national representative sample, at what the case rate is, as well as, of course, using the tests, and as we increase the testing numbers, we will inevitably find more of the cases that are there. The ONS survey published on Friday shows a rise in the numbers commensurate with the rise in the numbers of tests that have come back positive, and that does take into account the point about false positives, which is an important one.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Work is under way to set up a walk-through testing centre at Glasgow Caledonian University in my constituency, but with universities now returning, what additional capacity is being put in place to deal with what could be an additional surge of tests that need to be processed?
Matt Hancock
We are working with universities to try to ensure that testing is available as appropriate. Of course, that has to follow the wider prioritisation, but it is very important that universities right across the UK are ready for the return of students, including with testing, where that is appropriate, and we are working on that right now.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
My constituents are sharing the same experiences as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), so I encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do everything he can on testing capacity.
May I ask him about the rule of six? If someone is lucky—or unlucky—enough to have four very young children, under the rules they are not allowed to meet another household at all. I do hope that the Government will keep the rules under careful review and look at every possible way to make them as fair as possible for every family.
Matt Hancock
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. We do understand the impact of the rules that we have to put in place. It is the same around the world: the rules that need to be put in place to deal with a pandemic are not pleasant ones or ones that anybody would want to have in force, but unfortunately they are necessary to save lives. Sadly, we are seeing the consequences, including in some of our closest neighbours, of what happens if we do not take the action that is needed.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Although I am sure that many ordinary people were thrilled to learn that the Government’s rule of six does not apply to so-called sports such as grouse shooting, for which up to 29 people can mingle, expectant mothers in my constituency and throughout the country are unable to take their partners to crucial checks during pregnancy. Currently, individual health trusts are left to make decisions on this issue, leading to a postcode lottery. Is it not time that the Government stopped passing the buck, as they did to school leaders, and instead provided national leadership across the country on matters as vital as maternity care?
Matt Hancock
I have a huge amount of sympathy with the case that the hon. Lady makes. In fact, last week we changed the guidance on this issue to allow partners to go with pregnant women to these sorts of tests and, of course, to the whole of the birth. The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), is responsible for this issue and leading on it, and we have made some significant progress in the past week. I commend the campaigners who are pushing so hard to make sure that each hospital follows the new guidance so that people can have a loving partner with them during these very special moments.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
On the rule of six, I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of clarity and simplicity. Early on in the pandemic, we saw some of the problems that arise when different rules kick in in different parts of the United Kingdom. On that point, is there not a strong case for having one simple, understandable rule of six that applies right across the country and has high levels of public support? To that end, I encourage my right hon. Friend to keep an open mind about the rule of six that is in place in Wales and Scotland and the exemption of small children.
Matt Hancock
I absolutely keep an open mind on all these things. We are constantly looking at the evidence and data, and updating policy accordingly. We have made the decision on the basis that I explained. Of course, I understand the other point of view, but the cause of simplicity and clarity of explanation won the day.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
My constituent in Barnsley has been trying for seven days to get a test for her teenage son after he was sent home from school with a temperature. She has been offered a test in Bolton, Edgbaston and Oldham, and nearly 400 miles away, in Inverness. When will the Secretary of State stop denying that there is a problem, apologise to my constituent and sort out access to testing, once and for all?
Matt Hancock
I ask the hon. Lady to get in contact with me about that individual case; 686 people in Barnsley got tests yesterday, and I am sure we can ensure that her constituent gets that test.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
As demand for testing increases, some of my constituents are struggling to get slots, are having to travel significant distances or are even being turned away from mobile test centres. So will my right hon. Friend confirm whether the Government’s plans to increase capacity are aiming for 10 million tests a day or the 2 million to 3 million that Sir John Bell talked about this morning? As part of that welcome boost, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at my request for a public testing site in King’s Lynn?
Matt Hancock
I will absolutely look at my hon. Friend’s request on King’s Lynn. Thankfully, after an outbreak a couple of weeks ago, the number of positive test results in Norfolk has come right down. I commend the work of Norfolk County Council, my hon. Friend and colleagues from across Norfolk, who have done so much to ensure that the public messages get through. On the “moonshot”, we do not have and have not had any plans for 10 million tests a day, but we do have a goal to get to the millions of tests a day when we can. That is dependent on new technology, so that is what we need to drive forward. It is vital for this country, for the resolution of exactly the problems we are talking about today, and then for expanding testing availability more widely that we really embrace those new technologies.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Yesterday, I was contacted by an NHS nurse who had spent the weekend unsuccessfully trying to get a test for her symptomatic seven-year-old. On Friday, I visited the new Brinnington test centre in my constituency. It was very quiet, yet it seems to have been unable to offer a test to a nurse, who, it seems, will now need to take time off work. Is that what world-beating looks like? What is going on?
Matt Hancock
Again, I am happy to try to solve the individual issue for the nurse, not least because the figures that I read out for Stockport do not include the NHS capacity, which is there for NHS staff in order to resolve exactly the sort of issue that the hon. Gentleman talks about.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Cancer Research UK estimates that the screening backlog because of covid-19 might mean that as many as 3 million people are waiting. Will the Secretary of State update us on the work he is doing to ensure that all areas of the NHS are able to carry out screening programmes and on the work he is doing to reassure people that it is safe to attend these screening tests?
Matt Hancock
That is an incredibly important subject, as we need to make sure we get the screening available. It ties into the questions on testing, because prioritising testing for those about to have NHS procedures, be they diagnostic, such as screening, or an operation of some sort, is so important, for instance, in making sure that we tackle the backlog in cancer cases that inevitably built up. We are tackling that backlog and it is down by about half. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend and all others in this House to make sure that people get the early diagnosis of cancer that can so often be lifesaving.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State will be aware of a recent survey which found that one third of children feel more anxious, sad and stressed now than before lockdown. The charity Action for Children has therefore asked the Government to prioritise children’s mental health in covid-19 recovery planning and provide adequate funding to meet this demand. Could he tell the House exactly what he has done about that and when we can expect him to announce a covid recovery mental health strategy?
Matt Hancock
This is an incredibly important subject, and I commend the hon. Lady for raising it and for her work on it, along with many Members across the House. We are putting more funding into mental health, and paediatric mental health in particular, to ensure that we tackle the inevitable consequences of the pandemic.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
“Hands, face, space” has been the public safety message for weeks now. However, I feel that the public are not as safe as they could be. What thought has my right hon. Friend given to ensuring that face masks and hand sanitiser offer the fullest protection by regulating for the need to meet set safety criteria, whether that be the British Standards Institution standard or the World Health Organisation formula for hand sanitiser, so that we are all as safe as possible using these mitigating factors?
Matt Hancock
We do have a standard for clinical masks, but for the widespread use of face coverings, we do not set a standard, because the evidence is that for the general public, using a face covering can make a big difference without drawing on the supply of clinical masks for personal protective equipment. Standards are set by the European Union that define what can be put into a hand sanitiser, but I am happy to work with my hon. Friend on the details if that needs to be strengthened.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
A world-beating app that is nowhere to be seen, the national R rate rocketing and local testing all but impossible—in Ealing, we would be lucky to get offered a test in Aberdeen—all bode ill for the start of the educational year. With press reports swirling around that there are hundreds of school outbreaks already, can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how many of those there are? Can he up the number of testing kits that schools are supplied with from 10 a piece? As universities go back, which means that people will be moving around bits of the country with different infection rates, can he ensure that everyone on campus gets a test, whether they have symptoms or not? We cannot let education be the next care homes crisis.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady raises important points. It is important to note that in Ealing, 462 people got a test yesterday, so tests are widely available in Ealing. The other issue she raises about ensuring that schools and universities have access to testing is important within the prioritisation. As she knows, we have sent tests to every school for use in exceptional circumstances when they need them. It is very important that those tests are used when people are symptomatic, rather than asymptomatic.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Last week, a mobile covid testing centre was set up in Ashfield, which helped hundreds of my constituents to get a test, but over the weekend, several constituents said that they struggled to book online due to the demand. Will my right hon. Friend advise the people of Ashfield what more can be done to ensure that everyone in my constituency who needs a test gets a test?
Matt Hancock
We have put the extra capacity into Ashfield that my hon. Friend talks about, and I am delighted that the number of people in Ashfield who are getting a test has therefore increased. We have to get to a position where everybody who needs a test can get a test, ensuring that we follow the prioritisation. I look forward to working with him to fix the problem in Ashfield and across the country.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
In Warrington we have seen spiking numbers, with over 200 confirmed cases in the most recent weekly figures. Our rate is now the sixth highest in England, and we have real issues with demand for testing far outstripping local capacity. Can the Secretary of State outline what additional support he will give to Warrington Borough Council to increase our testing capacity, so that we do not have to go back into lockdown like our Greater Manchester neighbours?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady is right to raise the concerns in Warrington about the increase in the number of people testing positive. I am happy to work with her, Warrington Borough Council and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) to ensure that we get the best possible response, including putting in that extra testing.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Traditionally, the start of the autumn term is the peak for returning schoolchildren showing signs of colds and sniffles. I am now increasingly getting reports from my constituency of young children being turned away or returned from nurseries and primary schools if they display any cold symptoms. I am afraid that I have to tell the Secretary of State that testing is not at a record high in my constituency, because of capacity being moved up north and to hotspots, despite Worthing now being on the watch list because of a single outbreak of 23 people not abiding by the regulations. I heard yesterday from a constituent who had been referred from the Sussex coast all the way to Aberdeen. Can he not forget those very young children and the huge impact that they can have on families and schools if testing is not properly available for them?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. It is so important in Worthing, as it is across the rest of the country, that we prioritise the testing that we have. My hon. Friend is quite right that, when schools go back, children often do get a cold, a non-coronavirus illness—a normal illness if you like. Obviously, that is contributing to the increase in demand, as well as people who are not eligible coming forward. That is one reason why we have been building capacity throughout the summer, and I look forward to working with him to make sure that we solve the problems in Worthing.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Greater Manchester is a covid hotspot. The nearest testing centres to me are: Hyde, one and a half miles; Ashton, three miles; Brinnington, three miles; Belle Vue, four miles; Etihad Campus, five miles; Oldham, nine miles; and Manchester Airport, 11 miles. They might be testing there, but local people cannot get slots. Instead, too many of my constituents have been allocated: Telford, a 152-mile round trip; Llandudno, 174 miles; Leicester, 216 miles; Glasgow, 450 miles; and Aberdeen, a 716-mile round trip. My constituents do not want to become superspreaders, so why is this world-beating system going so spectacularly wrong for them?
Matt Hancock
As the hon. Gentleman outlined in his question, we have put an enormous amount of testing into Manchester. There is availability in Manchester because there is a prioritisation on testing. Because it is such an outbreak area, we have put in a huge quantity of tests. As I have said repeatedly, there are operational challenges, but thousands of people are being tested in Manchester every day, to get a grip of the outbreak there.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has my sympathy and support as he discharges his duties. He is well aware of the position across the west midlands and, in particular, in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we do have testing difficulties. I am very concerned to hear today that Ley Hill Surgery has no fewer than four GPs who are having to self-isolate and cannot get a test. May I make two points to him? First, I join with those who want an exemption for informal childcare, so that parents in certain circumstances can still go to work. Secondly, I ask him to look at a system whereby all Members of Parliament get access to regular infection rate details both by local government wards and by postcodes?
Matt Hancock
I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support. I am working very closely with him and with the other Birmingham MPs, because there is a serious challenge in Birmingham and in other parts of the west midlands. On the point about getting the data down to a ward level, I will absolutely ensure that he gets that data. We look at it down to a lower super-output area level, and we publish that data weekly. I will ensure that it gets to him and that we get the full details of exactly how many cases there are in each part of Birmingham. I recognise that, while Sutton Coldfield is in the Birmingham local authority, it has a distinct geography within that area. As he knows, both from our discussions and from how we have acted in other parts of the country, we will take action on a sub-local authority area where that is supported by the data. Unfortunately, for now, we do have that local action in Sutton Coldfield, but we keep it constantly under review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Has the Secretary of State seen today’s analysis revealing the terrifying scale of the backlog in cancer treatment and diagnostics? It is now clear that it would take the system operating at 135% capacity for six whole months just to catch up with where we were in March. Until then, the tragic reality is that people in my constituency and around the country will be unnecessarily losing their lives. I beg him to urgently meet the clinician-led Catch Up With Cancer campaign so that we can give him the solutions to boost cancer services and save tens of thousands of lives.
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to meet the campaign. Of course I have seen the reports. I feel very strongly about this. We have worked very hard to get through the backlog, and we are making progress against that backlog. Nevertheless, I am happy to look at anything we can do to speed that up, so I look forward to listening to the details of what we can do.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, sporting venues are suffering financially because of the restrictions, and it does not help when planned pilot events are cancelled at the last minute. Who takes the decisions on whether to allow pilot events to carry on—is it done centrally, locally or a combination of both? There is a feeling that there is some confusion.
Matt Hancock
My colleague the Culture Secretary is responsible for the programme of pilot events. For a pilot event to go ahead, it needs both the support of the local council and to have been advised as covid-secure by Public Health England. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport takes the lead. As the MP for Newmarket—one of the four towns in my constituency relies on sport, as do the livelihoods of thousands of my constituents—of course I understand the impact, in exactly the same way that my hon. Friend does, as the MP for Cheltenham racecourse. I speak a lot to the Culture Secretary and the Prime Minister about this subject. I hope that we can get as much going as fast as possible, but safely.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I understand that it is not dead easy, but rather than come here and give us big numbers about tests completed or the average journey, why does the Secretary of State not listen to what people in all parts of the House are telling him today? Why does he not try to understand what it is like to be a parent in special-measures Birmingham who is directed to Oldham for a test when there is a walk-in centre two miles down the road virtually empty? Will he just recognise that there is a problem and tell us what he is going to do to try to put it right?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I absolutely recognise that there are challenges: I set them out in my initial answer and have done repeatedly. I urge colleagues in all parts of the House, and the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have huge respect, to accept that we are only going to solve these problems if we use the data as our guide.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I have constituents in Scunthorpe who have struggled to access a face-to-face GP appointment. Can my right hon. Friend reassure those constituents that, should they need one, they will be able to have one?
Matt Hancock
Yes. There is no greater supporter than me of the ability to access medicine by telemedicine. It is an incredibly important option that is available and should be a choice for our constituents. We have made access by telemedicine the default method unless there is a good clinical reason not to use it. It is, however, as I have always set out, critical that there is face-to-face access as well. The NHS has written to all GPs to explain that while telemedicine should always be available, and that option should be available where it is clinically right, face-to-face appointments should also always be available and are absolutely necessary. The combination of the two is the future of the NHS.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
People in Sandwell and Birmingham certainly want to know why their whole boroughs are being suddenly locked down and not just the currently affected areas within them, but they also need a plan on how we are going to contain the virus without paralysing society and the economy. We may have to coexist for years with the virus, as countless societies and countries have had to live with many awful diseases over millennia, and even now today, so when are we going to transit from reactive risk avoidance to prudent risk management?
Matt Hancock
We absolutely need to control this virus. I very much hope that we will make very significant progress, through treatments and vaccines, within the sorts of times that I set out previously—definitely in less than a millennium. I think that we will make significant progress in the coming months. However, in that time, we do have to control the virus.
We took the action in Sandwell having looked carefully at the data. Working with the right hon. Gentleman’s local authority, we also looked carefully at whether we should only put some parts of Sandwell under local measures—in particular, the Smethwick area was much more significantly affected earlier on—but it was clear that the virus was spreading throughout Sandwell, so working with the local authority, we decided to take local action across the whole district. That is the sort of action that we have to take.
The strategy that I have set out many times at this Dispatch Box is that social distancing is the first line of defence: the rule of six, and hands, face and space. The next line of defence is testing and tracing, which is why it is so important that we have record testing capacity and are trying to boost that further. The next line of defence is local action and ensuring that we do take that local action where necessary, even though it is uncomfortable to do so.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his visit to Shotley Bridge in my constituency yesterday and look forward to working with him on the campaign for a new community hospital in the coming months. I welcome the massive increase in testing, including the mobile testing unit that has been at Consett AFC over the past few days. Across the north-east more broadly, we are seeing an uptick in the virus. The Secretary of State has now had meetings with various north-east councils on this issue, and I encourage him to give local authorities the powers they need to enable targeted local action in the north-east if necessary.
Matt Hancock
It was a real pleasure to be in Shotley Bridge yesterday, to meet my hon. Friend there and to visit Shotley Bridge Hospital. He and the whole House know that we will build 40 new hospitals, so it was interesting to see the plans that are in place. I will absolutely take away his point about the rise in cases in the north-east. The seven north-east councils have written to me with a proposal for tackling that increase. I have been studying their proposal and will make an announcement as soon as a decision has been made.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We have heard about people in England registering as coming from Aberdeen and perhaps other places. Is the Secretary of State not concerned, as I am, that this may completely undermine the data and any resultant decision that is taken to act on and manage what might appear to be a Scottish outbreak?
Matt Hancock
Obviously, I talk to the Scottish Government, who are responsible for local action in Scotland. We work as closely as we can to try to bring both the UK capacity and the local capacity to bear. We have put much more testing in Aberdeen, which is right, and I support the Scottish Government in the action that they take to bring down the number of cases there.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the biggest testing regime in this nation’s history? Twenty million tests is a monumental feat. That said, it would be wrong of me not to highlight the calls that my office received at the tail end of last week and yesterday, with people in Cornwall unable to access tests. What progress is he making on expanding the number of tests in Cornwall so that my constituents can access them?
Matt Hancock
There have been more than 600 tests a day in Cornwall over the past couple of days, so people in Cornwall can access tests—and it is very important, if they have symptoms, that they continue to do so—but of course I acknowledge the challenges that have been faced as well. We want to increase testing capacity right across the board. Sometimes we have to discuss difficult issues in this House, but I am pleased to say—especially with so many people having gone to Cornwall over the summer, because, as I can personally attest, it is such a wonderful place to have a summer holiday—that the case rate in Cornwall has stayed really low. I pay tribute to everyone in Cornwall for the work that they are doing on social distancing, on hands, face and space, and on being cautious and careful to stop the spread of the virus. Let us hope that that remains the case.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
There are three testing centres in Coventry, but constituents have told me of their distress and despair that they cannot access a test. Some cannot book a test anywhere, while others have booked only to be turned away at the centres. There are also cases of people in Coventry being directed as far away as Inverness. The Government have had six months to get testing sorted, and this is a complete and utter farce. The Secretary of State’s quoting figures is not good enough, so when will this mess be fixed and when will my constituents be able to access the tests that they need?
Matt Hancock
Of course, as the hon. Lady well knows, we are working both to increase capacity and to ensure that we have prioritisation so that the people who need a test most can get access to those tests. I am sure she will agree that it is important not only to listen to voices and the stories of those people who have had difficult experiences, but to ensure that we look at the facts on the ground. There were 762 people yesterday who got a test in Coventry, and that is an increase over the previous week. I am really pleased that we are able to do hundreds of tests a day in Coventry, but I appreciate that we need to keep expanding capacity.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am really keen that we proceed on the basis of reliable and agreed evidence, so what would the Secretary of State say to people who point to Sweden as an example of how we can control the virus and minimise the impact on the economy and our social lives?
Matt Hancock
I have looked very closely at the situation in Sweden, and the challenge is that Sweden brought in significant laws curtailing social activity and that the population in Sweden followed more closely more than in almost any other country in the world a lot of guidance that was not enforced by law. The case rate in Sweden was also higher than in other geographically comparable countries.
The conclusion I have come to is that the approach we are taking, where we look around the world, learn from similar countries and take action where necessary, is the best way to control the virus and protect the economy. The rule of six is designed to try to restrict the transmission where we see it happening most, which is in social circumstances, and to protect the economy as much as possible by keeping the economy open within those social constraints. We are constantly vigilant and we are looking around the world for other examples of where we might be able to make changes. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made changes to our approach as we have learned throughout this unprecedented pandemic.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
My constituent Rachel has an 11-year-old daughter who came down with covid symptoms on Sunday. All her family have spent days self-isolating and desperately trying to book a test. At one point, they were directed to Wales, which is a six-hour round trip. At the same time, Rachel has seen private tests for £140, and often much more, that seem to be easily available. Does the Health Secretary think that this disparity is acceptable?
Matt Hancock
We do not recommend any private tests that are not signed off and verified. Therefore we are providing as many tests as we possibly can with a growing capacity. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details of that individual case, I will absolutely look into it and make sure that one of the hundreds of tests that are being done in Ealing today is available for his constituent.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Having raised the issue of testing capacity in Buckinghamshire last week, I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for the supply of two mobile testing units this week, in the town of Buckingham and in neighbouring Aylesbury, but like many hon. and right hon. Members I also continue to receive a lot of emails every day from constituents unable to access testing, so will he update the House on progress for a permanent uplift in the capacity for Buckinghamshire residents?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, and we have put more testing into Buckingham. There are hundreds of tests available across Buckinghamshire for his constituents and others, and we are working hard to ensure that the overall capacity has increased as well. Our constituents understandably want to get access to a test whenever they want one, and I understand that yearning, but we have to prioritise and, as I said in my opening answer, we have to put NHS and social care needs at the top of the list. I make no bones about that prioritisation, but at the same time we need to get overall capacity up, which is what we are working incredibly hard to do.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Like elsewhere, the numbers in Harrow with covid are on the rise. Tests are available for key workers, but I am told that parents and their children cannot get a covid test “for love nor money” in Harrow or near Harrow. I say gently to the Secretary of State that that does not yet feel like a world-leading test and trace system. Will he take a specific look at the circumstances in Harrow, and in particular why the nearby test centre at Heathrow is so unused at the moment?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman makes an important case for Harrow and I am very happy to take a look at Harrow specifically. The capacity constraint is in the labs, rather than the centres. We have the centres available to be able to process a huge amount of tests. We have record capacity in the labs, but it is in the labs where there is the constraint. We are bringing in more machines. More are being installed all the time, which is why capacity is constantly going up. Nevertheless, we clearly need to keep driving at that, because demand is going up as well.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
We need to use every tool at our disposal to stop the spread of coronavirus. I welcome the news that the NHS contact-tracing app will be available by the end of the month, and I welcome the news that it will be available throughout England and Wales. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging businesses in Bridgend to get prepared with the NHS QR code scan poster?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The NHS covid-19 app, which will be available this month, will, as one of its features, ensure that people can go to a pub, restaurant or hospitality venue and scan the QR code quickly. Contact details will then be safely collected in case they are needed for contact tracing purposes. We are making the scheme mandatory. It has been very successful voluntarily and we are going to roll it out mandatorily, so I urge hospitality businesses in Bridgend, and right across England and Wales, to download a QR code for themselves and put it where it is very easy to use and obvious, so that all of us, when we go to the pub in Bridgend or anywhere else, can very easily scan in. If there is an outbreak, we can then contact trace that outbreak and keep the virus under control.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I do not underestimate the challenges the Health Secretary has faced over the past few months, but six months on, after many, many warnings of the likelihood of a second wave and of what would happen without a fully operational test, track and isolate system in place before lifting the lockdown, unfortunately the Government are still not getting the basics right. That is happening in my constituency in Oldham. We did not have a mobile testing unit turn up and we are still not getting the data we need to trace covid-positive cases.
For starters, will the Secretary of State sort out the private contractors for the national test and trace system; make sure that public health directors are getting timely, high-quality data on covid cases, including occupational workplace details; and, fundamentally, make sure our local authorities have the resources they need to trace all contacts, and ensure restrictions are understood and observed?
Matt Hancock
The answer is yes. In Oldham in particular, where there has been a very serious outbreak, making sure we have that connection between the national system and the data flowing through to local contract tracers is incredibly important. We are working on some innovative solutions proposed by the local authority and others in Manchester to enhance that system as much as we possibly can to keep control of the virus.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Lots of my constituents in Winchester have had tests, and the Government deserve credit for that, because we as a country started from a position where we did not have a system in place. The Health Secretary had to create a system from scratch, and he had great help in that from the private sector. We certainly should not be denigrating that; we should be thanking it and expanding on that help. Given the operational challenges that the Secretary of State spoke about, I wonder whether GP surgeries, or even our wonderful community pharmacists, could be part of the solution for front-door testing. What is the cross-Government superhuman effort part II to increase lab capacity—AstraZeneca was very helpful in part I —as that seems to be the challenge outlined by my right hon. Friend?
Matt Hancock
We are increasing that capacity, and we are bringing in new technologies to those labs to expand on that. My hon. Friend is a great expert in this issue and makes a really important point. The current technology works best in labs—people send a swab to the lab and get the result back, but there is a huge amount of logistics around that. We want technologies that can be in a pharmacy or a GP service, so that people get the test result back straight away. When such technologies come on stream—I am optimistic about this, as I am about a lot of things; I do not think I could do this job at the moment without being optimistic—that will give us a chance to get testing out into the community at every level.
We need to tackle problems such as the challenges you have in Chorley, Mr Speaker—you rightly brought them to my attention in your role as a local MP, as we all are—not by having a big national system, but through solutions that are deeply embedded in the community. When we have the technology to do that, we will be in a stronger place, and we are putting every possible effort and support behind people to try to make that happen.
Mr Speaker
I am pleased you are bringing me back into it. We still have a lab at Chorley Hospital that you can use if you get on to it.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
We have had a spike in cases in Redbridge, yet in recent days the Mildmay Road walk-in centre closed for walk-in appointments, without notifying the council or either of Ilford’s MPs. People have been struggling to get access to tests. A local secondary school says that it will close within two weeks unless staff get access to tests, and the local walk-in centre will not even share testing data, which the Secretary of State says is so important, with public health officials at the local council. It is an utter shambles. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that he will help us get a grip in Redbridge? Does he recognise from the voices we have heard across the Chamber that these problems are not only in Ilford? There are problems right across the country, and the only way that this system is world-beating is through world-beating incompetence. When will he get a grip?
Matt Hancock
I am happy to consider the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raises about Ilford. We have an extremely good working relationship with the London group, which is cross-party and includes health professionals. I am happy to take that point offline and work on a solution specifically for Ilford with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, nationally we are seeing an increase in overall capacity, but because of the increase in demand we have to prioritise. Having said that, in Ilford, like everywhere, I want to ensure that we have access to tests for the people who need them, and that is the job, day and night.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
Pregnancy can be one of the most surprising, exciting, but traumatic experiences of a woman’s life. That is why this week I launched a campaign with The Mail on Sunday, calling for all NHS trusts to ensure that partners support pregnant women during all scans and all stages of labour. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that women across the country have the Government’s support, and will he push NHS trusts to stand by pregnant women?
Matt Hancock
Yes, 100%. I strongly support my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on—[Interruption.] Somebody says, “Her pregnancy”. I hope it is public knowledge—well, it is now. I congratulate her on her pregnancy, and I know she has a strong interest in our getting this sorted. We put out extra guidance last week, and it has been a pleasure to work with her on the campaign to ensure that all hospitals follow that new guidance. We must ensure that partners can be there throughout each stage of pregnancy, in a covid-secure way, and that people get the support they need.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Coronavirus cases are on the rise in Hertfordshire, and yet in St Albans key workers, teachers, doctors and parents cannot access tests. They are frustrated for two reasons, first because they cannot get a test, but secondly because this was utterly predictable. We knew there would be a surge in symptomatic cases and we knew there would be a surge in demand from key workers. Was any modelling actually done, and, if so, will the Secretary of State publish it?
Matt Hancock
Of course, we have been increasing capacity all the time, and working throughout the summer to do that, to make sure that there is as much capacity as there is. The big change in capacity will come when one of the new technologies comes off, and that is why I am so passionate about them—because that is what is going to be able to get us out of the situation of having to have prioritisation and instead getting a test to everybody who wants one, not just those who need them according to the clinical prioritisation.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
A local high school student tested positive for covid late last week, so when parents had children from that school displaying symptoms over the weekend, they quite rightly tried to book a test but none was available on the portal. On Sunday morning, I directed one set of parents to a local walk-in centre a 45-minute drive away. The first centre had actually run out of tests, but after a drive to another walk-in centre, they eventually got one. Secretary of State, please, please, please, before we talk about the moon, can we just focus on local community testing in Marsden, Meltham, Mount and other communities in my constituency?
Matt Hancock
We have put a huge amount of testing into Kirklees, and it is very important because of the levels of coronavirus there. I am very glad that my hon. Friend’s constituents did manage to get a test, and I know that there is huge demand. But I would also say that getting the new technologies on board is also a part of solving the problem that we have right now. We absolutely have to push on existing capacity, but we have also got to make sure that we invest in that new technology to solve this problem once and for all.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Point of Order
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise me how I can ensure that the record is corrected in relation to Division No. 94 yesterday? I spoke in support of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill on Second Reading and I voted on all three occasions, but one of my votes has not been recorded. I suspect that the circumstances relate to the fact that there was a Government Whip there who said he could not see whether my vote had been properly recorded, but he did not give me any advice as to what would happen if there was a problem. I falsely, and quite wrongly, relied upon the Whips, and I hope that you will remind hon. Members that there is no point in relying on the Whips in the Division Lobbies.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has now put that point on the record and it will be investigated. All the Whips Office are now being sent to Specsavers to have their eyes tested.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Digitally Altered Body Images
Tuesday 15th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Digitally Altered Body Images Bill 2019-21 View all Digitally Altered Body Images Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require advertisers, broadcasters and publishers to display a logo in cases where an image of a human body or body part has been digitally altered in its proportions; and for connected purposes.
When I was 15 years old, I saved up all my pocket money to buy a multi-gym, with two goals in mind: the first, to improve my rugby; the second, to aspire to the physiques that I saw in the media—the likes of the Hoff in “Baywatch”. I spent hours working out. It definitely helped my rugby. I do not think that I ever made the grade, though, as a beach body Adonis. But the point is simply this: if my studies had not got in the way, if I had not had outside interests that caught my eye, perhaps, with the right diet and a perfect training regime and if I had been paid to do so, I might—just might—have been able to emulate them. At least it was physically possible.
However, here today, 20 years on, things have changed. With a click of a mouse. you can have bigger biceps. With a swipe of a thumb, you can have a slimmer waist. We are therefore creating a digitally warped reality, striving for bodies that can never be achieved. That is what I want to draw the House’s attention to today. Over the next few minutes I will set out the scale of the problem, what the Bill is intended to do, and why the Government and the House should support it.
Before entering the House I was a GP. I saw many patients suffering from low self-esteem, concerns over their body image. Patients would come in, desperate for diet solutions or a prescription for build-up drinks to make them get bigger. That was often tied up with anxiety and depression, and at worst, anorexia, bulimia or steroid abuse.
It is estimated that currently, there are about 1.25 million people suffering with anorexia and bulimia in the UK, and 1 million people using steroids or image-enhancing drugs. A survey of over 6,000 people, carried out last year by the Health Foundation, found that one in five adults and one in three teenagers felt shame about their body. Lauren Goodger, a celebrity, has spoken out about her anxiety when it comes to posting pictures of her body in social media. Spencer Matthews, of “Made in Chelsea” fame, has spoken candidly about his concerns about needing to bulk up, and turning to steroids to do so.
It is only human to want to compare ourselves with one another—our house, our car, our clothes and—possibly the oldest of them all—what we look like. Research carried out by the Florida House Experience showed that 87% of women and 65% of men compared themselves with pictures in the media. But what if what is shown in the media is not actually present in reality? Here lies the problem. We, society, are creating unrealistic and unachievable aspiration.
This very specific Bill is a small step to try and address that problem. Requiring advertisers, broadcasters and publishers to have a logo is a way of drawing viewers’ attention to the fact that all is not as it seems. It is not a call to ban; it is a call to inform. I do not want to stop people from removing red-eye on wedding photos or using filters to enhance lighting, but where the body proportions have been fundamentally changed, the viewer should know. This is a call for honest advertising, and we have a precedent for it already—we have the “P” showing product placement, disclaimers on political adverts and the, “Not actual game footage” notice on adverts for video games. This proposal is simply a translation of current practice into the digital world of body image.
Some detractors will argue, “This is the nanny state in action.” However, this Bill does not ban changes. It empowers the individual, giving them choice. Free marketeers will know that a perfect market needs perfect information, and this Bill is a step towards it. We do this in respect of physical health, with labelling on tobacco and food, and it gives people choice. Those who believe in parity of esteem between mental and physical health will see that this draws the two into line. The second set of detractors say, “That is all very well, but how can it be applied practically?” First, some countries already have similar laws in place, most notably Israel and France. Israel has the Photoshop law, which explicitly states that any airbrushing or editing on adverts must be labelled or people will face a fine. Similarly, France has legislation requiring the display of “photographic retouched” on edited images or people will face a fine.
The UK has the Advertising Standards Authority to regulate and enforce. It covers not only traditional media, but online media. In meetings with the ASA, the likes of Facebook and Instagram are all keen to stress how they proactively adhere to the ASA guidelines and, indeed, the law. Facebook already differentiates between content added organically—by a member of the public—and content added for commercial use. The latter is actively monitored and is held to a higher set of rules when it is published. Platforms such as Facebook for advertisers have algorithms to search for accounts using the platform for commercial activity. Therefore, if the law changes, the enforcement and adherence remains the same.
The big question is: what about social influencers? It is a grey area. I have already mentioned that the likes of Facebook automatically search for signs of commercial activity, and the industry is actively trying to determine how to define “social influencers”. Clearly, there is a distinct and tangible difference between having 100 followers and having 100,000 followers. This Bill will not answer that question, but neither does it have to. That is beyond the scope of this legislation and it is already being worked on by the industry, the ASA and the Competition and Markets Authority. In short, the industry draws a distinction between commercial and organic—the only question is: at what level? In conjunction, one further solution, building on what I have already set out, is to have a click-button declaration upon the uploading of the photo, whereby the user is asked whether the image has had its body proportions changed. If it has, a logo will automatically be applied. We already have a similar process when people are asked to declare the copyright when they upload an image, so why can the same thing not apply in this regard?
The UK has a strong and proven track record of self-regulation under the ASA, working within a legal framework. I see no reason why that would change under this Bill, so why should the Government and the House support it? I am glad to see the Minister, whom I thank for being here today. Ironically, my post about this subject has, organically, reached almost half a million people; there have been multiple stories in the national media about this topic and a big debate has been started since the mention of this law. Charities such as Girlguiding have come out in support of the cause. After all, research shows that 88% of girls between the ages of 11 and 21 want images to be labelled. The Bill commands support from across the House, and I am hugely grateful to the Chairs of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Select Committee on Women and Equalities for all seeing the value in this Bill and for supporting it.
Finally, what do I hope to gain from this Bill? I actually hope I will never see this logo, as advertisers, broadcasters and publishers do not feel the need to fundamentally alter the proportions, but if they do, I hope they are honest about it. I hope that those who are social influencers will not feel the need to change their images and, anecdotally, there are already reports in the press that the Bill would change habits. However, as someone who got married last year, I hope to be a father in the next year or two, so if this Bill is a small step that means my daughter is less likely to worry about her diet or my son is less concerned about building muscle in an aspiration that simply cannot be possible, I will rest a little bit easier. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dr Luke Evans, Jeremy Hunt, Caroline Nokes, Julian Knight, Dean Russell, Simon Jupp, Neale Hanvey, Sarah Owen, Chris Elmore, Dr Lisa Cameron, Jim Shannon and Wera Hobhouse present the Bill.
Dr Luke Evans accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 180).
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:58 - The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 51 / Noes: 351 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:13 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 356 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.
Clause 28
Functions of the CMA under this Part: general provisions
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 28, page 20, line 31, leave out “, Scotland”.
This amendment would exempt from the operation of Part 4 (independent advice on and monitoring of UK internal market) regulatory provisions applying in Scotland which did not apply to the whole of the UK.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 28 stand part.
Amendment 29, in clause 29, page 21, line 3, at the beginning insert
“Following legislative approval from all devolved administrations,”.
This amendment would ensure that the CMA may only undertake a review following legislative approval from all devolved administrations.
Clauses 29 to 34 stand part.
Amendment 21, in clause 35, page 26, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) Prior to publishing the information in subsection (1) the CMA must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland about how it is to approach the exercise of its functions.”
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that the devolved administrations are consulted before the CMA determines how to exercise its functions in regard to the UK Internal Market.
Clauses 35 to 37 stand part.
Amendment 30, in clause 38, page 29, line 22, after “must” insert
“obtain the agreement of the devolved administrations and”.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State cannot decide amount for penalties with CMA without agreement from devolved administrations.
Clauses 38 and 39 stand part.
New clause 1—Dispute resolution mechanism—
“(1) Within the period of two months after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland about how any disputes relating to the functioning of the internal market will be resolved between the four parts of the United Kingdom.
(2) Within the period of three months after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report detailing how any disputes relating to the functioning of the internal market will be resolved between the four parts of the United Kingdom.
(3) Any dispute resolution mechanism established by the Secretary of State must provide for representation from each nation of the United Kingdom.”
The intention of this clause is to help resolve the functioning of the internal market between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
New clause 2—Limits on powers to override common frameworks—
“The Secretary of State shall not make any order or regulations under this or any other Act of Parliament that has the effect of imposing lower standards on Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, in any area for which a common framework—
(a) has been agreed,
(b) is in development, or
(c) becomes necessary,
unless, where subsection (b) or (c) above applies, the Secretary of State judges that a reasonable period has passed and the negotiations have failed to reach agreement, and a draft of the order or regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause puts common frameworks on a statutory footing. Where there is a common framework agreed, Ministers would not be able to override them through secondary legislation to impose lower standards on devolved nations. Where a common framework was in development, or a new common framework became necessary, Ministers could not impose standards until the negotiation of common frameworks had taken place between the nations of the UK and failed to reach agreement after a reasonable period. The UK Parliament would be the ultimate arbiter of standards if reasonable agreement could not be reached.
New clause 3—Duty to consult, monitor and report—
“The CMA has a duty to consult with all relevant national authorities and shall produce monitoring reports on
(a) changes in standards, and
(b) assessments of whether standards have been met.”
New clause 4—Appointment of members to the Competition and Markets Authority board by the devolved administrations—
“(1) Schedule 4 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph 1(1) insert—
‘(1A) The members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(b) must include—
(a) a member appointed by the Scottish Ministers,
(b) a member appointed by the Welsh Ministers, and
(c) a member appointed by the ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive.’”
This new clause gives the devolved administrations the power to each appoint a member to the board of the Competition and Markets Authority.
Drew Hendry
Dame Rosie, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to talk to amendments 28 to 30 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
When the Institute for Government warned that
“it is not clear how disputes around the functioning of the internal market will be managed”,
it opened up the yawning and damning gap in the plans for the governance of the internal market. As a result of ditching co-operation over common frameworks, this Government propose to fill the gap with an Office for the Internal Market—an unelected quango. I will return to the composition of that body shortly. The Office for the Internal Market will have an effective veto over the Scottish Parliament, and the subsequent result is that devolution will be hamstrung. This is yet another step in introducing a system where standards are set by Westminster and they must be accepted by Scotland in devolved areas.
Analysis by the Scottish Government has revealed that successful Scottish policies such as alcohol minimum unit pricing, our policy on tuition fees and the ban on smoking in public places would be among the Bills referred to the Office for the Internal Market. That has been opposed by many bodies who have shone a light on this. The National Farmers Union Scotland has raised a series of concerns about the function of the Office for the Internal Market’s dispute resolution mechanism in managing policy differences, ensuring that the UK Government do not have the final say on areas of devolved policy, including agriculture, and enabling the devolved Administrations to act where it is considered that a policy aligning in a particular manner is unfavourable to devolved interests such as agriculture.
Of course, it would not have to worry about that if the UK Government had simply continued work on common frameworks. Common frameworks are designed to manage cross-UK divergence where EU law and devolved competencies intersect, including in relation to the functioning of the UK domestic market, together with existing processes for regulatory impact assessment and existing structures for regulatory co-operation and information sharing. Let us be clear: they do not need to be supplemented or undermined by a new, unelected body.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does this not get to the crunch? Government Members keep asking what powers are being taken away from the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend is outlining it—the power that is being taken away is the power to make all these decisions. The Scottish Parliament is going to be trumped by an unelected, unrepresentative body, instead of having agreements between the devolved Governments and the UK Government on the framework basis, which should be being implemented.
Drew Hendry
I could not agree more. This simply does not have to happen. Scotland does not need it, and Scotland does not want it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
So you say.
Drew Hendry
Yes, I am saying that, but that is also what the National Farmers Union is saying. It is also what the Institute for Government has pointed out. A number of other bodies have pointed out that this is just not necessary. We have something that we could work with, with co-operation, but of course, the UK Government do not want co-operation, consultation and working together. They just want to impose their will, and that is what they are trying to do again.
This Bill not only undermines the basic foundations of devolution but goes further, hitting all existing mechanisms for co-operation and the development of common frameworks. It is not this abomination that is required; it is the establishment of the common frameworks mutually agreed, developed and implemented through consent, with effective governance and processes for regulatory impact.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman called the Office for the Internal Market an unelected quango. Does he accept that, if he had his way, he would be handing powers back to unelected quangos in Brussels?
Drew Hendry
This is the argument that Government Members try to propagate all the time—that if these powers came to Scotland, they would immediately be transferred to unelected people in the EU. Two things are wrong with that. First, nobody in the EU is actually unelected when they make decisions; they are all elected by either the Parliament or the people who go there. The second and most fundamental point is that, under these proposals, the UK Government are simply taking all control and overriding the ability of Members of the Scottish Parliament to do their job by representing the people who voted for them and their choices.
Drew Hendry
I will make some progress.
The UK Government say that they want to
“guarantee the continued right of all UK companies to trade unhindered in every part of the UK.”
Under this proposal, businesses simply have to have deep enough pockets to challenge the democratic decisions of the Scottish Parliament and the Members elected by the people of Scotland to represent and make decisions further for them. For some, it will be “Sale of the Century” or “Bargain Hunt” as they go looking for these things. For those who set their sights on Scottish domestic choices, it does not stretch the imagination much to picture private health companies or private water companies operating in England looking at our publicly owned organisations and seeking to claim that, under the UK Government’s auspices, they have a guaranteed right to trade in Scotland. That is the first big flashing red light here.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. Is he as concerned as I am to find that when the CMA arbitrates on a dispute, it does not have to publish the report of its finding, on the basis that such a report contains
“commercial information whose disclosure the CMA thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests”
of any person? That means that the CMA could well cover up the report of any dispute in favour of private business.
Drew Hendry
Exactly; my hon. Friend makes a telling point. To say that the protections are opaque would be an exaggeration, because they are nowhere near as good as that.
Richard Fuller
I am keen, as I mentioned yesterday, to learn more about some of the points of view that the hon. Gentleman is expressing. In the absence of a common frameworks agreement, if it were not possible to get reconciliation between the constituent nations of the country on what the regulations should be, what would be the implications for business?
Drew Hendry
The problem with that question is that there is already, as I mentioned at the start of my remarks, a process for dealing with that—the common frameworks. I am saying that the UK Government do not have to take this hammer and smash devolution in order to organise things so that business can co-operate and work across the different nations of the UK, taking cognisance of the choices made by those nations’ individual Parliaments.
I turn to the composition of the Office for the Internal Market, and I would be grateful if the Minister intervened and gave me some answers to these questions. Who are these people? Who will sit down in judgment over the democratically made decisions of the Scottish Parliament? Do we know yet? Do we have any idea? These words from the Prime Minister—he was talking about the EU, of course—are coming back on him, as so many of his outpourings do:
“They may decide that now is the time—even though electorates are already feeling alienated from the political process—to hand sensitive decisions…to unelected bureaucrats.”
But that is what he has decided to do. He has decided to hand these decisions to unelected bureaucrats.
What grace-and-favour appointments will there be to this body? Will any of them have links to the many vested interests that apparently find it so easy to pick up contracts from this Government? The fact that that is something we can only guess at underlines how dangerous this proposal is for Scottish people and communities. We reject the idea of this body of unelected, unknown bureaucrats having power over the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people.
The SNP has tabled amendments 28, 29 and 30, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Amendment 28 would exempt from the operation of part 4, which deals with independent advice on and monitoring of the UK market, regulatory provisions applying in Scotland that did not apply to the whole of the UK. Via this amendment, the SNP wants Scotland to be removed from part 4 of the Bill, because it undermines devolution.
Decisions made by our elected representatives must be upheld, and this proposal to overrule the Scottish Parliament is a democratic outrage. Let us be clear that we cannot and will not accept this legislation in any form. Under the unelected Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister is forcing this power grab through, despite overwhelming opposition from Scotland’s Parliament and MPs. It proves that Scotland will never, ever be accepted as an equal partner in the UK. It attacks the foundations of devolution and gives Westminster and an unelected quango a free hand to overrule the Scottish Parliament in devolved areas, threatening our NHS, our food and our environmental standards. It fires the starting pistol on a race to the bottom.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I fully agree with amendment 28, which is very well drafted. The same should apply to Wales and Northern Ireland, because it would allay any fears in the respective devolved countries of the UK that the British Government are using the UK Internal Market Bill to torpedo devolution.
Drew Hendry
Indeed, and this is a matter that does not just affect Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman said. Even the Labour-run Welsh Government have come out to stand against these measures.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman has made some strong points, but does he agree that it does not have to be this way? He will know that our Counsel General, Jeremy Miles, has been giving evidence alongside one of the Scottish Ministers this morning to a Committee in this place. He spoke of the engagement and discussion they had had with the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and how that completely dried up at the start of this year, so much so that they did not even get the details of the Bill until the night before it was published.
Drew Hendry
That sort of attitude towards what should be co-operation over our common interest underlines the contempt that has been shown for the devolved nations. It is yet another example.
As I have said, we cannot and will not accept this legislation in any form. All the Bill does is simply and plainly underline why the democratic choices that represent Scottish people and the protection of our Parliament can only be delivered through the powers of independence for Scotland, so that it can take its place as an independent nation among the other independent nations of the world.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The arguments that I have just heard from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) are, in my judgment, completely unjustified. [Interruption.] He might expect me to say that; it is hardly surprising. The reality is that the Bill is intended to provide for independent advice and monitoring through the creation of this internal market within the Competition and Markets Authority arrangements. What the provision clearly states—far from it being just a bunch of nodding donkeys, which is more or less what the hon. Gentleman is saying—is that it will be a non-ministerial department, albeit sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and it will have an enormous amount and range of experience and knowledge brought from its predecessor.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I just recently concluded my remarks, but can he confirm two things for me? Who will be on the body, and who has—he will know the answer to this—the final say over this body?
Sir William Cash
What I can say for sure is that it will not be the European Union, and that summarises the argument in a nutshell. It is something I spoke about in the debate only yesterday, where I made it entirely clear that there is one thing we have to be absolutely clear about, and this Government, as compared with the previous Administration, have made it clear. In relation to that vast range of state aids that I mentioned yesterday—they are effectively decided by the European Commission and imposed on our own companies and our own internal economic sovereignty at the moment, but we are now going to insist on retrieving them, and we have retrieved them by leaving the European Union—the position is simply this: the manner in which the European Court and the European Commission operate needs to be revised, reviewed and abandoned for the purposes of ensuring that in the United Kingdom, we have a competition policy that enables us to be able to compete fairly, not only throughout the whole world, but also in relation to the European Union.
It is well known that the question of state aids, which goes across such a wide range of matters, as I mentioned yesterday, causes an enormous amount of problems in many sectors of the British economy. We have to be able to compete effectively. We have just heard a statement on coronavirus. The damage that has come about as a result of this uncontrollable—or virtually uncontrollable—disease, which has infected so many people, affects the operations of our businesses and has created a great deal of economic dislocation. We will need to be able to compete effectively throughout the world. This is a serious matter about a serious issue. What we cannot have, as I mentioned yesterday, is the situation that we have at the moment, which is where authorisations are given by the European Commission that either create discrimination against British businesses or have the perception or the potential for doing so. They will affect the voters in Scotland—and the voters in Sheffield, if I may say so. I was brought up in Sheffield. I saw what the European Coal and Steel Community did to the British steel industry. [Interruption.] I hear what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) says. The reality is that those businesses were driven out of business by, in many cases, unfair subsidies and unfair state aids that were given to other member states. I can give an example. I happened to know many people who worked at the coalface—I used to play cricket with them when I played for Sheffield—and I can tell Members that the Sheffield steelworkers, whom I also played with on occasion, sometimes it was rugger, found that they were very severely jeopardised by the massive state aids that were given to the German coal industry—it was as much as £4 billion—and authorised by the Commission. For a variety of reasons, we did not get the same kind of treatment here in the United Kingdom. This is all part of the problem of how to have fair and reasonable competition.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Let us come to the here and now, looking at this Bill. Say, in the future, the Scottish Government want to support the Scottish farming industry, but the UK Government have decided that, as free marketeers, they want to pool all support for their farmers. Under these proposals, is it not the case then that Scottish state aid for their farmers would be ruled illegal and they would not be able to trade in the UK internal market?
Sir William Cash
As far as I am aware, the answer is no. The Office for the Internal Market will not be able to override decisions made by the devolved Administrations. What has happened—
Sir William Cash
Just a minute. We have proposed in this Bill that monitoring and advice regarding the UK’s internal market should be provided on a non-binding basis by the OIM. That will support the development and monitoring of regulation across the UK.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill says that these reports, which are not in themselves binding, are made to the Scottish Parliament as well as to the United Kingdom Parliament? Because of course, the Scottish Parliament will have enhanced powers as a result of our leaving the EU just as the Union Parliament will.
Sir William Cash
That is absolutely right. In fact, I argue that the provisions of the Bill as a whole maintain the Union, which is absolutely essential to the future of our competitiveness internationally. I do not expect SNP Members to agree with me, but what I am saying is that I actually believe that they should reflect very carefully on the advantages that come from being part of a Union. There are so many people—our friends and relations—who come from different parts of the United Kingdom and who work in different parts of the United Kingdom. When they are doing is contributing to the welfare of the Union as a whole.
Stephen Doughty
I am a Unionist, too. I believe in our Union and I believe that we are stronger together, but the reality is that the approach taken by this Government with this Bill disrespects the devolution settlement and rides roughshod over the wishes of the Welsh Government, which, let us not forget, is run by a Unionist party, Welsh Labour, but one that believes in devolution. So why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Welsh Government, who want to co-operate with this Government in finding common frameworks, are so unhappy with the approach taken in this Bill?
Sir William Cash
If Euro-integrationism were to get in the way, that would be a problem, but on the question of whether the UK Government are engaged in some kind of power grab while depriving the devolved Administrations of a say, the answer to that is no, too.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir William Cash
Wait just a minute. The Office for the Internal Market’s provisions will be available to all four Administrations and legislatures on an equal and purely advisory basis. It will provide information to support separate political or legal processes, to resolve any disagreements and to enable intergovernmental engagement. Subject only to my overriding concern that in no shape or form should we end up having a continuation of European Commission decision making, authorisation processes and the rest, which have severely inhibited our capacity to compete effectively throughout the world—and for that matter within the United Kingdom as a whole—I believe that the arrangements here will respect the devolved Administrations on the basis that I describe.
Joanna Cherry
To take the hon. Gentleman back to his comments a moment ago, when he lectured myself and my colleagues on the importance of being part of the same political union in order to trade freely and competitively, if that applies to Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom, why does it not apply to the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union? Can he explain that?
Sir William Cash
It is a good question. In fact, I will answer it the other way: why on earth would the people of Scotland—
Sir William Cash
No, I am going to put it the other way around and do it my own way. Why on earth would the Scottish people, in their desire to obtain independence from the United Kingdom, actually want to surrender to the European Union, which discriminates against us day in, day out?
Joanna Cherry
I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Scottish National party wants Scotland to remain part of the European Union—a single market of more than 500 million consumers. The SNP does not wish to put up trade barriers with England. It is his party that wishes to enforce upon us trade barriers if we dare to exercise our democratic right of self-determination, which he has spent the last 40 years banging on about in this House for England.
Sir William Cash
I am very happy to remain to be seen and to be heard. I will give an example of a company in my constituency that, because of certain economic problems, found that it needed help and wanted some state aid and grants and things of that kind. It so happened that the company owned another company that happened to be in Ireland, and strangely enough, when it came to it and applications were made—I do not know all the details, but this is the general thrust of it—the company in the United Kingdom that needed the benefit of state aid and subsidy unfortunately did not get it, but the company in Ireland did.
The point I make is simply that it seems most peculiar to me that a system that is completely fair should have what I regards as such wanton discrimination in favour of one part of the European Union as compared to another.
Sir William Cash
Just a minute. I think the hon. and learned Lady is probably exhausting herself by her interventions. I gave the House but one example yesterday, on the issue of Lufthansa. There is a body of opinion and evidence demonstrating the serious discrimination that goes on, although I make the point that European Court of Justice cases on this have gone both ways. However, I think it is very important that we are absolutely clear and certain—because it affects jobs, businesses and people who work for the companies concerned—that the national interests of the United Kingdom, in our mutual interests, are reflected in the decisions taken by whatever the competition authority may be. I know that the previous Administration had in mind the idea of providing for some special reserved powers, which this Government have now decided should be displaced to ensure that we have a proper system—with proper external and internal advice that will be provided by the new Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority—in order to guarantee that we can be world-beating competitors. We have to be able to trade across the world as we have done.
If I may say this to the very distinguished Scottish National party Members, I am sure that they will not forget that Adam Smith was the Scotsman who defined the whole nature of free trade and the ability to compete effectively. The tradition in Scotland has always been to support the ideas of fair and free competition, and that is the essence of these provisions. I am afraid that I cannot come up with an example from Wales, but I am sure there is one. What I can say is that the objects of the Office for the Internal Market will not override decisions made by the devolved Administrations. That is my understanding, and we will hear what the Minister has to say.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Claire Hanna has withdrawn so we go straight to Richard Fuller.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thank you very much, Dame Rosie—that was unexpected. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to have the opportunity to raise some general points and specific questions relating to the clauses under consideration today.
Overall, I am very supportive of the Bill, but, as with any substantial change, caution, checking and prudence should be part of the Government’s process. When I look at regulations and regulatory frameworks—which perhaps I do a little too often—uppermost in my mind is the quality of the regulations or framework, their effectiveness, their relevance, and whether we have the correct allocation of decision authorities given the different parts of the United Kingdom or different groups for which the regulations are being made.
On that last point, I want to pick up on some of the issues that animated the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and perhaps others in their questions about the choice of a common approach compared with a common framework. I should perhaps know more about this area, but it is alluded to in paragraph 8 on page 5 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which states:
“As part of its vision for the UK internal market, the Government is also engaging in a process to agree a common approach to regulatory alignment with the devolved administrations. The Common Frameworks Programme aims to protect the UK internal market by providing high levels of regulatory coherence in specific policy areas through close collaboration with devolved administrations.”
Where is that in the Bill or today’s considerations? What is the Government’s current thinking around engaging in a process to agree a common approach as part of their vision, as the explanatory notes state?
I did not get an answer from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to my question about how disputes would be resolved in a common frameworks approach, which seems like a fundamental issue.
Drew Hendry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make good my deficit in not answering his question fully. I am happy to try to do so now. I understand that before the Bill was introduced, the Joint Ministerial Committee, with Ministers on both sides, was working on a programme, with some success, I understand, by which all these issues could have been ironed out in a collaborative and consultative way with each of the Governments of the devolved nations, but that has now been torn asunder. I look forward to the answer to the question about how this collaboration will work in the future, given that the Bill simply overlays that with an unelected quango and the ability for the BEIS Secretary and this Parliament to make the ultimate decision.
Richard Fuller
I think I have the answer—it might not be the one he thinks he is conveying—which is, there is none. There is no answer to how disputes will be resolved because it does not appear that that has actually been achieved.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I think I can clear some of this up. Essentially my hon. Friend is right and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) is not right. The very meetings the hon. Gentleman has just described are still going on and will deliver five frameworks by the end of the year, so I hope he will withdraw his remarks about how that programme is not being co-operated with, because that is simply wrong. My hon. Friend is correct in that the section he refers to in the explanatory notes is, as the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) will explain later, being delivered alongside the Bill.
Richard Fuller
I am very grateful for that clarification.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey also said that the Office for the Internal Market was overlaying that process. That is not correct either. It is an advisory body that informs the decisions made by the common frameworks agreement. Perhaps I did not hear him correctly, but on both those points he did not sound precisely on point.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman is highlighting the fundamental weakness of the Bill from our perspective. The internal market is a shared asset between the four countries of the UK, but what is missing from the Bill is clear intergovernmental structures to govern it.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. “So get on with it”, would be my suggestion to him and his colleagues. I have heard several points of strong opposition to the Bill rather than engagement. A more constructive engagement with the UK Government would help everyone, because as he rightly says the internal market is a shared asset between the four component nations of the UK. So I urge him and his party to encourage that work with the UK Government.
On the specific clauses in the Bill, I have a general point to make. We are very keen as politicians to do the new things, set new regulations, but we spend very little time checking whether they work or whether the regulatory body is doing any good or indeed doing what it said it would do in the first place, so it is important to get a bit more precision from the Government in some of the words they use in the Bill.
Clause 29 talks about the reports—the Minister may be able to help—the Competition and Markets Authority must prepare or report on. Clause 29(5)(b) states:
“developments as to the effectiveness of the operation of that market.”
The word “effectiveness” can have lots of different meanings to lots of different people. What remit are we giving to the Office for the Internal Market on how it will judge the definition of an effective operation of the market? Does it, for example, include whether the operation of the market continues to have the consent of all constituent devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom? Does it mean that the country has an adequate spread of production across the country? Does it mean that each market is promoting competition? Does it mean that prices are going down? The word “effectiveness” covers a lot of issues.
That issue also relates to clause 29(8), which states:
“So far as a report under this section is concerned with the effective operation of the internal market in the United Kingdom, the report may consider (among other things)—…(i) competition, (ii) access to goods and services, (iii) volumes of trade”.
I would say that that is a partial list. There may be other aspects that we would wish the Office for the Internal Market to look into when it considers the operation of the internal market, some of which I have mentioned. For example, is the Minister considering, or would he consider, that that should include the impact of the internal market on consumer rights? Should it include regional disparities? Most importantly, should it include innovation and competition?
Clause 30(3)(a) talks about advising on proposed regulatory provisions on request. This is an important issue relating to the points raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, which is not only on the decision authorities but the scope for devolved Administrations to raise issues with the Office for the Internal Market. Clause 30(3) states:
“The condition is that it appears to the requesting authority that—
(a) the regulatory provision to which the proposal relates would fall within the scope of this Part and be within relevant legislative competence, and
(b) the proposal should be further considered in the light of the significance of its potential effects on the operation of the internal market in the United Kingdom.”
It seems to me, particularly in light of the desire of devolved Administrations to have some potential for innovations in regulations such as minimum alcohol pricing, that that “and” might be better considered as an “or”. It would be feasible for devolved Administrations to raise issues which may be outside the scope of their current remit of responsibilities, but for which the devolved Administrations, elected by their local voters, wish to see as a potential regulatory change in the future. What is the harm that could be caused by enabling that to be considered by the Office for the Internal Market?
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) tabled amendment 21 to clause 35, which relates to participation in the Competition and Markets Authority. Obviously, she may wish to speak to her amendment directly, but I draw the attention of the Minister to the issue of participation in the CMA. It is a relevant question to ask who will be on those bodies. We put the so-called great and the good on such regulators, but we do not really know who they are. What oversight do we have of their performance? What oversight and decision rights do we have of appointments? Would it not be a consideration to spread that beyond this Parliament to include devolved Administrations? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, as well as her new clause 4.
I welcome the Bill. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned, the internal market is a shared asset and we all want it to work effectively. The Bill is a very good start in making us move in the right direction, but we need some prudence in its implementation. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) for her intervention to clarify some points on where we stand in relation to the common framework.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Before I consider part 4, I wish briefly to set the context of the comments that I will make.
Yesterday, Scotland’s friends in the EU and the wider international community were concerned that a UK Prime Minister was prepared to sacrifice the rule of law in a vain attempt to save his own bacon. Of course, there is disbelief that this arrogance is voiced outside the Cummings bubble, but the deliberate trashing of the UK’s international standing is now endorsed by 340 parliamentarians so can no longer be regarded as the ravings of a few. They are all now complicit in this grand folly of legislation.
The Bill is a disgraceful piece of legislation led by a Prime Minister whose words mean nothing and a party that is lurching ever further to the right, breaking the rules, acting unlawfully and now rewriting its own laws, while rubbishing any moral authority the UK had to hold rogue states—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I draw his attention to the fact that he needs to address the amendments before us. This is not a Second Reading speech all over again; it is important to address what is before the House today.
Neale Hanvey
Thank you, Dame Rosie. My preface to my comments was just to set the scene, which is what I am doing, but as I move on my comments will relate to the amendments.
The Prime Minister has presided over a summer of U-turns, U-turned on his own Brexit deal and turned away from the rule of law. The comments in terms of Scotland can be summed up by the Law Society of Scotland’s reflections on the Bill. It has stated that
“as a matter of principle”
the Bill should comply with the oldest principle of international law,
“pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be kept)”.
Quite unfortunately, Scotland has a head start in knowing the hollowness of such a principle. [Interruption.] I’m sorry?
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have conversations across the Chamber. I would be grateful if he moved on to the amendments before us as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Neale Hanvey
This debate is focused on part 4, in which the authority of the Competition and Markets Authority and the wide-ranging and poorly specified powers of the UK Government’s man in Scotland are nothing short of a British nationalist inquisition. There are wide-ranging powers that cut to the very heart of the devolution settlement across every policy area—powers that the Government claim they will never use; they are there just in case. Well, Scotland is not buying it, and we are not having any of it. Devolution is the settled and robustly expressed will of the Scottish people, and it must be for the Scottish people alone to decide whether it should ever be restricted or changed in any way.
Part 4 of this wrecking-ball Bill takes decision-making powers away from Holyrood and hands them to the unelected body of the Office for the Internal Market. This office of inquisition will have the power to pass judgment on devolved laws and could quickly become the target of rich corporate lobbyists determined to see activities such as fracking go ahead against the will of the Scottish people.
Patrick Grady
Is not the power grab compounded by the fact that the Government clearly intend to push this legislation through without legislative consent to the Bill from any of the devolved Administrations? When they ask, “Where is the power grab? Give us an example,” that is it. They are refusing even to accept the fact that the devolved legislatures will not consent to the Bill and they will not engage in its detail. The power grab runs right the way through this process.
Neale Hanvey
If I could just answer my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I will address the notion that there is a power surge of any shape or form shortly.
Jane Hunt
Sorry, I was a bit keen. Do you agree that without the Bill—without the internal market structure—Scotland would be worse off? [Interruption.] Forgive me, but let me explain my point. I will not talk about whisky, because we always do that when we are talking about Scotland; I will talk about lenses for glasses, which are often made in Scotland. A large number of them are made in Scotland and go across the whole UK. If we did not have the internal market structure, then there could be tariffs—restrictions—on their being sold in, say, Wales or England. So why would you not want to accept this now?
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. May I just point out that it is very important not to use the word “you” to another Member? We speak to the Chair, so it is “the hon. Member” rather than “you”, just to clarify that.
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Lady raises a really interesting point. I wanted to get it into my remarks, and she has now given me a very clear avenue in which to do it. I cannot understand how she could come up with the suggestion that the UK would enforce its own internal tariffs, but with regard to Scottish competitiveness in this internal market, Scotland is already at a disadvantage. There is a company in my constituency that imports chassis from the EU but does not make its lorries here completely—like many of its EU competitors, it buys certain parts and puts them together. Those EU companies would be allowed to import a fully completed vehicle without any tariff, while that company would be subject to a high tariff on the importation of those chassis and therefore at a competitive disadvantage. That is because of Brexit. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point. I would also be grateful if the Minister took cognisance of my comments and gave me a detailed response about how the Government will protect companies such as that in my constituency from this type of disadvantage in the importation of completed vehicles.
Paul Bristow
The internal market does not just guarantee costs and prices of things—it also guarantees standards. One of my favourite Scotland-to-England exports is BrewDog’s Punk IPA. How can the hon. Member, without the internal market, guarantee that my pint of Punk IPA in Peterborough is the same quality as in Aberdeen?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Member for raising yet another very helpful point. The problem is not whether the quality of Punk IPA will be consistently high in the north and the south, or even in Europe if it is still able to import it; the problem is that the quality at the lowest level will have to be accepted everywhere. It is not the highest level that is the issue; it is the lowest level. I will now try to make progress. I hope that it is now beginning to make sense, Dame Rosie, why I had that preamble.
As I said, devolution is the settled and robustly expressed will of the Scottish people, and it is for them alone to decide if it should ever be restricted or changed in any way. If this law had been in force during the past 20 years of devolution, it would have affected Scotland’s ability to prioritise important issues like free tuition for Scottish students or to set important health policies such as minimum unit pricing for alcohol and introducing the smoking ban before other nations. Those would all have been at risk and may not have happened. Looking forward, there are things like the procurement of changes to food standards that can be imposed on Scotland as devolution is reduced to the powers of compliance, complicity or subjugation. Can you imagine the howls from Government Members if the EU had proposed such legislation? Yet they are content to do this to Scotland, and then tell us that we should be grateful. What a charade!
Well, Scotland is not buying it and we are having none of it. This legislation strips powers of decision making away from our democratically elected representatives in Holyrood. In an email to MSPs on 14 September, the Royal Society of Edinburgh warned that, while final decision-making power ultimately would remain with the UK Government, the use of that authority by the CMA against the wishes of devolved Administrations
“would constitute a failure of intergovernmental relations”.
The reality is that part 4 grabs the powers of devolution and gives them to an unelected, barely accountable quango. The Bill grabs the powers of devolution, animal welfare, forestry, voting rights, food standards and energy—all currently the purview of the Scottish Parliament. The Government say that they are empowering Scotland; the truth is that they are robbing Scotland of democracy itself.
Sir William Cash
How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has just said with what the Scottish Retail Consortium has said, which is that protecting the UK internal market means that
“Scottish consumers”
will
“benefit enormously”?
It talks about the importance of the
“largely unfettered internal single market”.
In the consortium’s view, Scotland welcomes the measures to protect the UK internal market.
Neale Hanvey
The way that I reconcile it is that I am talking about democracy and the hon. Member is talking about trade, and I would say that democracy is slightly more important than trade.
The Bill would make Scotland’s Parliament and our law meaningless and smash devolution. And what of the protestations of this Government’s man in Scotland and his self-congratulatory talk of a power surge? It is crystal clear now that the only power surging is to the CMA, to the Office for the Internal Market and to the Secretary of State in Scotland.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that the protestations that there is some kind of power surge are simply incompatible with the suggestion that the Office for the Internal Market will be set up in such a way as to enable it to lie above the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Neale Hanvey
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, because they illustrate very well the sophistry with which the whole charade has been presented. We are told that it is a power surge, and a power surge it is; but it is a power surge in the wrong direction—it is a power surge away from the devolved Government of Scotland. To judge by past behaviour, those powers will be used to interfere, undermine and diminish not just the elected Government of Scotland but the very voice of the Scottish people.
Yesterday, I heard Members claim in this Chamber that the Bill would strengthen the Union, and in their mind that may be true, but the Union is not being strengthened by a shared vision, mutual respect or other honourable means. It is the strength of bondage, of subjugation and of the pomposity that only Unionist voices matter. I’ve got news for you: it does not strengthen the bonds of the Union; it exposes the bondage of the devolved nations and illustrates why Scotland must choose an independent future. “Lead Not Leave”; “broad shoulders of the Union”; “Vote No to stay in the EU”; “We Love You Scotland”—well, nothing epitomises our Union of equals like the Prime Minister bestowing the effective status of viceroy of Scotland on the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), his very own Union Jack.
Today, the international community knows something that the Scottish people have known since 2014: believe not a word, not a promise, not even a vow. To this Government, agreements are always optional. The Bill does not strengthen the Union; it strengthens the case for Scottish independence.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I want to look at the clauses. On clause 28, it is proposed that “Scotland” be left out. On clause 29, amendment 29 would insert that following a legislative appeal from all the devolved powers, we would have a consultation before any changes. On clause 35, it is proposed that prior to publishing any information, the CMA must consult all Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers and the devolved Administrations. All these amendments seem to have one thing in common: they are asking for all consultation on how we move our internal market forward to be done with the devolved powers in the United Kingdom. Many in the House have raised the issue of who will be holding the CMA to account. We here represent the entire United Kingdom. We are elected to represent all parts of the United Kingdom.
Alan Brown
Is the hon. Lady therefore confirming that Westminster should take sovereignty over the devolved Administrations and the will of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments?
Joy Morrissey
Let me clarify for you. An internal market is something that is brought together historically. When we look at successful internal markets of the past, where have they been successful? We can look at the single market within the EU and at the 13 original colonies in the United States. They were 13 separate entities that had no regulatory system and were bound together by an internal market that allowed for free trade and the movement of goods and services. This Bill is not a political Bill—it is an economic Bill to enhance our competitiveness with the world. It is not to detract from the powers of Scotland—it is to make Scotland stronger through the power of free trade within the internal market.
I have been listening very carefully to what hon. Members across the House have been saying and the points that you have been raising, and I am very sympathetic to your cries about a lack of democratic representation. That is why I voted to leave the EU: for the very reason of the lack of democratic representation by the European Commission, which oversees the single market.
Joanna Cherry
Is the hon. Lady aware of the Sewel convention? If so, what is her objection to amendment 29, in the names of my hon. Friends?
Joy Morrissey
Amendment 29 states:
“Following legislative approval from all devolved administrations”.
Are you asking for all the devolved Administrations to be represented at the federal level?
Joanna Cherry
The Sewel convention, which was put on a statutory footing—before the hon. Lady was a Member of the House, but many of us who were at that time will remember it—states that this Parliament will not normally legislate in respect of devolved matters without the consent of the devolved Administrations. That convention exists. It is on a statutory footing, so what is her objection to amendment 29?
Joy Morrissey
I would argue that this is not an infringement of your rights or those devolved powers. This Bill is about enhancing all of our abilities to work in a single internal market to allow goods and services to flow freely. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) mentioned glasses being made in one part of the Union and then being put together in another part. We have this so that we can frictionlessly move goods and services through the United Kingdom without tariffs and restrictions. There has to be a system through which that federal system is united, in terms of the economic objectives that we are setting, making ourselves globally competitive.
Joy Morrissey
I will not give way—I will make some headway and then give way in a moment. When we talk about the internal market, we are talking not about a political objective, but about an economic objective—to remove regulatory obstacles from more goods and services in the UK so that we are able to trade freely among ourselves and make ourselves globally competitive. We are removing the technical, legal and bureaucratic barriers to allow its citizens to trade and do business freely, for its citizens to enjoy products from all over the UK.
When SNP Members raise concerns about state aid, I would imagine that they are referring to the EU structural funds or the EU development funds, the criteria for which have, in the past, benefited certain deprived areas in regions in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I can understand how there would be concern, and perhaps something could be established to look at how that fund and the targets were set to help in disadvantaged and impoverished areas where the EU structural funds have helped to improve the livelihoods of people in the United Kingdom, and to look at how we move that forward. This is not a Bill to take any political power: it is to make us stronger economically. It is purely on the grounds of economics—
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the decisions being made in Shetland that if the nationalists get their way and there is separation of the United Kingdom following a second referendum, Shetland will seek to go independent itself? Therefore, not only are the nationalists seeking to break up the United Kingdom, they are seeking to break up Scotland.
Stephen Doughty
I do not want to break up the United Kingdom. As I have said, I am a Unionist and I want to see a functioning UK internal market. Does the hon. Member think it is respectful for her Government to give details of the Bill only the night before it was published to Welsh Government Ministers, who also want to see a functioning internal market and want to make sure our country functions effectively and economically in the way she suggests?
Joy Morrissey
I thank you for your point, but I wonder if you would find it respectful for the EU to threaten to put a tariff in the sea—[Interruption.] No, that is a completely valid point to raise. I find that to be disrespectful of our sovereignty and our ability to govern internally.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joy Morrissey
I will carry on. On that point, the EU’s threat to disrupt our food exports from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage fundamentally undermined our credibility and our sovereignty within the United Kingdom itself. The Bill will strengthen our ability to create—
Kirsten Oswald
On the point about credibility, does the hon. Lady think it is just possible that the reason that credibility has been lost is because of her Prime Minister disagreeing with himself rather than for any other reason?
Joy Morrissey
You say it was mentioned by the SNP earlier about wanting to throw off the bureaucratic chains and wanting to have democratic representation, but that is exactly why I voted to leave the European Union, and that is why I will fight to make sure that we have a regulatory system that has less red tape and that has representation. We talk about democratic representation, but we are representing the will of the people who voted for Brexit in one referendum and we are delivering the result. Scotland also—[Interruption.]
The Temporary Chair (Sir Graham Brady)
Order. Can I just remind Members on both sides of the House that these are very specific amendments that are being debated. We cannot go back to a Second Reading debate.
Joy Morrissey
I probably should make headway. I am trying to understand and sympathise with the amendments that have been tabled, but I do not feel that they are in any way needed to enhance what is in the Bill. I urge hon. Members to vote to keep the Bill the way it is.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Graham Brady)
Before I call the next speaker, because a number of new Members are participating in Committee, I remind everybody that Members speak through the Chair, so saying “you” is a reference to me—and I might take that personally. I call Beth Winter.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
This Tory Government leadership said during the Brexit campaign that leaving Europe would enable the British people to take back control. This Bill does the opposite of that. It is driving a race to the bottom by harmonising standards in a way that gives the UK Government the power to overrule the devolved nations. Experience tells us that this Conservative Government have repeatedly refused to commit to higher standards in legislation, and there has not been negotiation, involvement or informed consent to any of this with the devolved nations.
While it is important, as the UK leaves the EU, for us to have a system to harmonise standards across the four countries, any internal market legislation should look to do the least possible on a centralised basis and as much as possible on a decentralised basis. In the view of the Senedd in Wales, there already exists a successful regime to form the basis for all future arrangements: the common framework.
This attempt to harmonise standards throughout the UK is, in fact, an attempt to replicate the EU’s internal market but with some crucial differences. In the EU, dispute resolution is independent and done in a way that prevents bigger members from being able to force smaller states to accept undesirable standards. Under the Government’s proposals for the UK, the opposite will be true, as the Conservatives prefer a mutual recognition principle of harmonising standards, so that the lowest standards legislated for by any of the UK Parliaments must automatically be adopted by all.
Devolution is not just an abstract concept. It has allowed the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government to develop more ambitious standards and policies than their Westminster counterparts, such as protecting the NHS as a publicly owned service and developing world-leading standards on food, animal welfare and the environment, which are now under threat from the Conservatives’ internal market Bill.
I am an environmentalist, and I have a great interest in reducing the use of plastics. The Minister for European Transition in Wales, Jeremy Miles, has spoken on this issue in the last couple of days. The Welsh Government propose to introduce a ban for nine single-use plastic items, but the UK Government propose a similar ban on just three of those nine items. The principle of mutual recognition in the UK could mean that Wales will be unable to enforce the ban on the sale of the other six items. The Chair of the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw MS, has stated that it is clear from this Bill that the aim of the Tory Government is
“to cement their neoliberal economic and social agenda into the framework of a centralised… state”,
and that the Bill shows their
“contempt for devolution, the constitution and the rule of law”.
I agree with him.
Mutual recognition is a blunt instrument, and it is not clear why this path is the Government’s preference when it renders the notion of common frameworks completely obsolete at a stroke. The Government have previously supported a common frameworks approach. In fact, all four UK Government signed up to that in 2017, although it should perhaps not come as a surprise that the Government in Westminster are prepared to sign things in bad faith. Common frameworks would allow for a genuinely collaborative approach between Westminster and the devolved Administrations, with standards between the nations being harmonised through discussion and negotiation between equals—I stress that point: equals—as opposed to new obligations being imposed on the devolved Governments against their wishes under the new mutual recognition principle.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making a very strong speech and getting to the nub of this issue. She has explained why we should be concerned about unilateralism. I share her concerns about food and environmental standards. We have also seen this with covid testing in recent days, including in her own constituency—unilateral decisions are being taken at a UK level to reduce testing in Wales, which is having an impact on our constituents. Does she agree that there is absolutely a reason why we are so concerned about the way that the Bill is being put forward?
Beth Winter
I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution.
Labour’s new clause 2 proposes a common frameworks approach. I will be voting for it, and I do not see a valid reason for any Member of the House not to do the same. New clause 2 supports the objective of the Bill—the creation of a UK single market to reduce barriers to trade—while still respecting the principles of devolution, which is supported by a strong majority of Welsh people. Diolch yn fawr.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Today we are debating the creation of the OIM. I will try to keep my comments brief and not repeat what has been said. Clauses 28 to 39 set out that the OIM will provide independent and technical advice to the Parliaments—that includes the Westminster Parliament and the devolved Administrations—on any regulation that might damage our internal market. That market is hundreds of years old and spreads from where I live in Cornwall to the rest of the UK, including, happily, Northern Ireland, and that is why we are here today. The OIM is vital to ensuring the integrity of the internal market. We should pay particular heed to the National Famers Union’s comments that the UK’s internal market should operate as effectively as it does now. This body will ensure proper competition and fairness for our businesses, which, I hope will be reassured. I am pleased that the body will have responsibilities and be accountable to this Parliament and all devolved Administrations, so that all parliamentarians, in all of those Administrations, have the opportunities to scrutinise its findings.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be pursuing a system that supports British jobs for British people, and that is what this Bill seeks to pursue? If we maintain the status quo, we have a system in which EU law intervenes on us and we open our procurement to all manner of companies from overseas within the EU. That does not support British jobs, particularly given that we know that some of these countries have under-the-radar state aid, which is unfair to British companies.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and agree 100% with what he said. I want to confine my comments to the specific measures we are discussing today. We are here today, with this Bill progressing through the House, for exactly the reason he set out and because of the comments made at the joint committee’s negotiating table, where what I will refer to as a “foreign power”, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, is trying to interfere in our internal market. That is why we are here. While wanting to keep my comments specific, I must absolutely reiterate that point.
I am hearing what Opposition Members are saying about devolution and their fears that they are being overruled by Westminster, but that is simply not the case from what I have read in this Bill. The advice goes equally to all the devolved Administrations and all politicians get the chance to sit and scrutinise it.
Cherilyn Mackrory
If I may, I will make some progress. I wish to talk about similarity with the Committee on Climate Change, which spoke to all the devolved Administrations and gave advice to all of them. From that advice, this Westminster Government have formed the Environment Bill, and I am happy to be serving on that Bill’s Committee—I hope it will sit later this autumn. That Bill is facing very little opposition in this place, because it is what we are calling a “broad framework”, and the semantics can be decided after, in this place and by experts in the field. Although I take a great interest in environmental issues and am passionate about them, I am not an expert and I would not expect to be. I hope that those specifics—the targets and everything else being met by that Bill—will be decided with much input from those people.
Kirsten Oswald
I do not know whether the hon. Lady is aware that Scotland has more stringent targets on net zero emissions than the rest of the UK. So if there were a conflict over a new project, does she think the Scottish Parliament would simply have to accept a ruling from the OIM and break its own environmental commitments by doing so?
Cherilyn Mackrory
That discussion would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. I do not agree that the Westminster Government should overrule and I do not think they are doing so in this case, because we are talking about an advisory body. If the Scottish Parliament does not agree with what it is saying and the Scottish people do not agree with the Scottish Parliament’s view on that, the people of Scotland can change their politicians at an election, as we can elsewhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Cherilyn Mackrory
I am going to make some progress and will draw my remarks to a conclusion quickly.
The reason we are here today and why this Bill is having to be put through Parliament is because of negotiating in bad faith at the joint committee. I was so pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday that if the treaties come into conflict, Her Majesty’s Government will ask for arbitration—I was reassured by that. These are all things that have to happen, have to be said and have to be set into domestic law in order for us to proceed at these negotiations. That is the only reason why we are debating this Bill today.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. This Bill is difficult for the Scottish National party. It is offensive to our values, it is not our world view, and it is being introduced in pursuit of a project that Scotland comprehensively rejected. We are engaging in good faith, but we do not consent to this project. Scotland does not consent to the way the Bill is drafted.
However, I was not sent by the people of Stirling to showboat and walk away, or to grandstand and not try to find solutions. As is typical of all our amendments, we have tabled amendments 28 and 29 in good faith, and to insert into this dreadful Bill the principle of consent from the Scottish Parliament and other devolved Administrations. If we cannot do that, we seek to exempt Scotland from this madness. We are engaging in this process in good faith. We are working within the constitutional reality of the United Kingdom, and by rejecting the amendments, this House will prove, in full view of the people of Scotland, that the constitutional reality of the United Kingdom does not work for us.
I was sent here to try to find solutions, and amendments 28 and 29 do that. We believe that decisions for Scotland should be made in Scotland. It is a fundamental principle of devolution that, unless reserved to this place, decisions should be made by the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland. That principle was endorsed by the people of Scotland with 74% of the vote in 1997, and those Government Members who are keen on referendums should be aware that they are up-ending a deeply held principle of the people of Scotland.
As I have said, this Bill is a poor piece of legislation, and it did not need to be this way—that is what I find so frustrating. It is offensive morally, politically, even intellectually, but it did not need to be that way. We are open to negotiation and to frameworks. We respect the fact that we have left the European Union—we regret it deeply, but it has happened. As a solicitor by trade, I accept that a domestic legal construct is needed to replace the single market legislation of the European Union, but it does not need to be this abomination. We could do this better. Our amendments seek to make this bad Bill better. We will still not be keen or in favour of it, but it does not need to be the naked power-grab that it is.
Part 4 of the Bill seeks to replace 60 years of juris- prudence from the European Court of Justice and the European Commission, democratically overseen by democratically elected Members of the European Parliament, and member state Governments who are themselves democratically elected—60 years of expertise on how the single market and internal competition works.
Joy Morrissey
I’m back. To clarify that point, it is actually the European Commission that oversees the single market, and it is that unelected body that oversees and creates the market framework—[Interruption.]
Alyn Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. In my 15 years at the European Parliament I was always struck by how many unelected bureaucrats had been democratically elected by the people they served. It is great to engage with something that does not quite exist, such as the European Commission that the hon. Lady wishes did exist.
For those who are against unelected bureaucrats, I suggest only that they consider the reality of the Bill. The Bill replaces 60 years of jurisprudence, overseen by experts in the European Commission and the Court of Justice—be they democratically elected MEPs or democratically elected member state Governments—with a group of people who will be unelected. They will be appointed, but they have not been appointed yet. We do not know who they are. They will be operating a competition policy that has not as yet been revealed by this Government, who are so desperately negotiating with themselves that they cannot tell our European partners what they are trying to do. Those people will be operating with a budget that has not yet been shown to us, and with jurisprudence that does not yet exist. It takes a heroically Panglossian approach to think that that can be created in a matter of months.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Could the hon. Member clarify for me how he thinks replacing 60 years of jurisprudence will be terribly difficult, yet replacing 300 years—[Interruption]—will be simple?
The Temporary Chair (Sir Graham Brady)
Order. Stick to the point of the amendments.
Alyn Smith
Sir Graham, I will try to stick to the amendments. I was hoping for a point of consensus with the hon. Lady, but the lady is not for turning. I will stick to the matter at hand, if I may.
This chimera, this shibboleth is going to be created by this Bill. I have already explained the reality of how devolution works: unless reserved to this place, decisions should be made in Scotland. This shibboleth—with people not yet appointed, operating to a policy not yet decided, to a budget that has not been agreed, with a jurisprudence that does not exist—will sit above, as a politically appointed death panel, every single decision of every single public authority in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England. Every decision involving public expenditure will be gainsaid by this unelected quango that does not yet exist, and we do not know what it is.
From our perspective, this is replacing a system that we are comfortable with. We respect the fact that we have left the European Union; we do not like it, but we have. A system that works tolerably well is going to be replaced with a system that does not exist. It is politically motivated, ideologically driven and owes nothing to the creation of jobs or safeguarding of jobs or standards. It is entirely a political project to get as much power to this place as possible against the objections of the Senedd in Wales.
Stephen Doughty
Does the hon. Member suspect, as I do, that appointed to this unelected body might be more chums of the Prime Minister of the likes of Tony Abbott—a disgraced former Prime Minister of Australia, a political appointment and totally unsuitable for the role, yet appointed because he shares the same political views as the Prime Minister?
Alyn Smith
I am very grateful for the point, and I very strongly agree. We do not know who these people are going to be. We do not know how they are going to be appointed and, forgive me, but from the track record of the Government thus far, I have little faith in who they are going to be and what their agendas will be in practice. Our concern is about the lack of power that the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England will have over that process—and, indeed, this Parliament. The oversight that this Parliament will have over this process under the very text of the Bill, which is a wider discussion than these amendments, is appalling, but it did not need to be this way.
We heard earlier in the debate from some Conservative Members that there should be uniform standards across the UK. It is a superficially appealing point as superficial arguments go, which seem to be what Conservative Members deal in, but the single market within the European Union operates very successfully with different standards. The whole point of devolution is that different places are empowered to make different decisions, so there may well be different standards, different practices, different expectations or different rules in different parts of the four home nations. That is the point. This Bill is a mechanism—a political mechanism—to override and destroy that democratic diversity and replace it with devolution as power retained. It is a naked power-grab for all to see, and I would urge people outside this House to read the Bill carefully, because it makes the case for independence for Scotland all the stronger.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Talking about standards, the British should be very proud of their standards in animal welfare and particularly in farming—I am certainly proud of our Cornish farmers—and we have done that while we have been part of the European Union. Our standards are higher than many of our counterparts in the European Union. Having a single internal market does not mean that we will lower standards. If anything, we can learn from each other and keep our higher standards in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Alyn Smith
In which case, I do hope the hon. Lady is going to be supporting our new clause 5, which would make it explicit in the Bill that there will be no cutting of standards. That is not under consideration today, but it is there in black and white. It was curious to see Conservative Members refuse to support a previous reasoned amendment from a former MEP colleague of mine, who put forward precisely that on a previous piece of legislation and it was rejected. This is a Government who are so desperate not to tie their hands with such considerations as lowering standards, because that may well be what needs to be traded away in future trade deals.
Drew Hendry
Was it not just this Sunday that a UK Government Minister refused to rule out our having to import and sell chlorinated chicken? The product is chlorinated due to the filth of animals living in the cage among pests.
Alyn Smith
Absolutely. We are deeply concerned on behalf of Scotland’s farmers—and, indeed, everybody else’s—that trade deals could see a lowering of standards. Mutual recognition of the UK internal market could undermine the capacity of the different authorities to have those rules.
Alan Brown
On that concern about the lowering of standards, the International Trade Secretary said previously that consumers would choose what products they wanted on the shelves. Does that not indicate that the Bill is a Trojan horse for a lowering of standards that would affect Scottish farming?
Alyn Smith
Exactly. I fully agree with my hon. Friend, who has been fighting for farmers in his constituency for many years. New clause 5, for which I hope we have some support from those on the Opposition Benches, is specifically about the maintenance of minimum standards, so I hope that when the House comes to consider it, there will be support for it. If we are scaremongering about lowering standards, then Members can support the amendments to make it explicit in the Bill that standards will not be lowered. Prove us wrong. By refusing to back the amendments, we will be proven right.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very cogent speech in favour of independence, basically. I thank him for his lectures on constitutional history and I thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for her lectures on the Sewel convention, but those predate us getting into the internal market in the first place. The Bill seeks to restore the status quo ante in this country, which is an internal market. It is not a power grab. The amendments are a grab for independence, and I understand why they have been tabled, but that is what is going on here. The hon. Gentleman is trying to further independence through these amendments. I completely understand that, but that is why we will reject them.
Alyn Smith
I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He accuses me of promoting the case for independence and, indeed, I do promote the case for independence, but Government Members need to be in no doubt that a substantial element of the population of Scotland is deeply disgusted by this process. They are frustrated by the disrespect that Scotland has been shown since the EU referendum, where we rejected Brexit significantly, but were told to shut up and get back in our box. Just after the 2014 referendum, we were told we were a partnership of equals, but we were then told immediately afterwards that we are part of the United Kingdom, not a partner in it. The Bill makes that explicit in the eyes of the people of Scotland.
I won Stirling from the Conservatives with 51% of the vote precisely because I am in favour of the rule of law and international solidarity, as demonstrated by the multilateral, binding, voluntary solidarity of the European Union. That is a structure we are comfortable with and a structure we are very comfortable with Scotland fitting into in the future. Dare I say it, but Scotland has a far sharper sense of its place in the world than the UK does right now.
This Bill seeks to cement power in the hands of the unelected, aided and abetted by people who—with good intentions, I do not doubt—are facilitating that power grab, but in so doing are upending the principle of devolution that is dear to the hearts of the people of Scotland and Wales and is deeply sensitive in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Gentleman says I am promoting the cause of independence, damn right I am, but I am also defending constitutional probity in the rule of law within the United Kingdom. Perhaps Government Members need to think a little harder about what they are being whipped through the Lobby to support.
To conclude, our amendments seek in good faith to insert into this package, which we dislike so much, the principle of consent of the Scottish Parliament and the devolved Administrations. Failing that, we seek to exempt Scotland from this madness. I urge Members to support the rule of law and democracy within these islands.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I do not think I have spoken under you before. My constituents in Rother Valley and fellow Members of this House will be aware of my deep and unwavering commitment to the Union. I am an avowed Conservative and Unionist, and I never pass up an opportunity to celebrate the success of our British family. As such, it is a privilege to promote our Union and this Bill, unamended, which promises to protect the jobs and safeguard the unity of our nation.
As I said last night on Second Reading, we are one family. The Bill strengthens the familial ties between the four countries of our family, but I fear that the amendments—particularly amendments 28 and 29— weaken those ties and fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill. The Bill binds us ever closer together. It provides that any goods that are legally sold in one part of UK must also be freely sold in any other part of the UK—equality.
Alan Brown
Where is the equality in goods of a lower standard being forced on another country in the UK?
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but my point is that this is about equality. We are one country and one family, and everyone should be equal. The father is not superior to the mother, the wife not superior to the husband, and the husband not superior to the daughter. I do not know what sort of family the hon. Gentleman comes from, but everyone is equal in my family.
Alexander Stafford
I have just given way, so I will make some progress first. I am mid-flow.
As I was saying, any services that are authorised in one part of the United Kingdom may be offered without any additional authorisation in all other parts of the UK. Professional qualifications issued in one part of the UK will also be recognised in all parts of the UK. This makes it easier for us to trade and work between our four great nations. The SNP’s amendment 28 goes against the fairness and terms of the Bill, and it will make trade and equality harder for everyone.
For centuries, our internal market has been at the heart of the UK’s economic and social prosperity, and it has been a source of unhindered and open trade across all four countries. Our internal market predates all other economic unions, and it has been uniquely successful in pushing forward economic progress and prosperity across the country. This Bill provides businesses with the certainty they need to grow and thrive. What is more, business organisations agree that the Bill, unamended, does so. The CBI has said that protecting the UK internal market is essential, and the Scottish Retail Consortium has said that protecting the UK internal market will mean that Scottish consumers benefit enormously. Are we honestly saying that if the amendment is accepted, Scottish consumers will benefit more? I do not think so. If the voice of business says this, we should listen to them. We are, after all, Conservatives—the party of business. Business will make us prosper.
I turn to some substantive clauses of the Bill and the nub of today’s discussions. This Bill will see the creation of an independent Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority. It will be a British body monitoring British trade, putting mutual recognition and principles of non-discrimination at its heart—equality. If we are to continue with the levelling-up agenda, we must welcome the OIM, so that we have a body that ensures effective competition in every aspect of the country. It will provide balanced oversight and, ultimately, a central point for the different Parliaments to plug into, thus binding us closer together. In other words, everyone will get a say. The Parliaments and Assemblies of the country will get together to talk and work through difficulties. We will not be pulling apart; we will be coming together under this body, and that will strengthen us. That is why the SNP do not like this Bill. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, they want independence, and they want us not to come together. Under this Bill, we will all come together.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but he has just suggested that the Scottish Parliament and other bodies would come together under this new office. May I clarify if that is really what he is suggesting?
Alexander Stafford
I will clarify that I believe this organisation brings the parties together so that we can discuss and get through any issues that arise. Of course, there will be issues and differences of opinion, but this body allows us to talk in a good way. We have heard antagonistic rhetoric from many different parties on both sides of the House, but with this body, we will talk as equals.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman spoke a moment ago about families. I believe in this family as well, and I believe in the United Kingdom staying together. The problem is that in families, without respect or communication things go pretty wrong. Does he think it was acceptable for the UK Government only to share the contents of the Bill with the Welsh Government the night before it was published? Does he think that that fosters the type of familial relationship that he so espouses?
Alexander Stafford
I do believe in respect, and I do believe in recognition. I also believe in respecting the will of the people. I think it is disgraceful that Members on the other side of the House come here and talk about respect when, over and over again, they have tried to thwart the will of the people on Brexit. I will take no lectures from such a party talking about recognition.
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. With all this coming together, we should bear in mind that we do not yet know who the CMA and the OIM will be made up of, but we know that they will be appointed by the Government, and that Dominic Cummings will probably have a hand in that, so what are the chances of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish business interests being represented by those people? There’s not much coming together there, is there?
Alexander Stafford
I have every faith that the Scottish people will be represented, and the Welsh and the Northern Irish and—I hate to say the word; I do not think the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—the English people as well. This Government and this party want to represent the United Kingdom. The SNP wants to represent the Scottish people only. I want to represent the entire country, so of course we will come together.
Going back to the main part of my speech—
Alexander Stafford
I have taken a huge amount of interventions already, so I will make some progress.
This body, fundamentally, is at last going to look after Britain and British interests, and that to me, is vitally important. Moving on to the main clauses of the Bill, clause 28 as it stands will allow the OIM to monitor the internal market, which is another example of how we have taken back control of Britain’s future. We are looking after our own markets at last. Clause 29 states that the CMA will be able to conduct research of its own volition in addition to research requested by political parties, the devolved Administrations and legislatures and, of course, the UK Government. It will regulate cross-border competition, cross-border investments and the levels of trade between the different parts of the UK. This will be great for the levelling-up agenda, because the CMA will look at all aspects across the borders.
Clause 30 will make the system more transparent. The CMA will have to share all reports commissioned with all national authorities—including the Scottish Parliament—after 15 days, regardless of who requests the report, in order to be compliant. All parties should welcome this level of transparency and openness in politics. In other words, if one body asks for it, everyone gets to see it. There is no cloak and dagger; everyone is involved and treated equally. Clause 32 states that the CMA will be able to report on the economic impacts of the Bills passed into law. It is fantastic to have objective-free reporting, without party-political goggles or restraints. This will allow us to have an objective-free, open way of looking at things.
Clause 34 will allow the CMA, at its own discretion, to exclude particular categories of information from its reports, where they are judged to be significantly harmful to UK business interests. That puts our economy first, which is exactly what the body ought to do. It is not a political body, and it is not a Parliament making political points. It is trying to say, “We are here for business”, because this is a business Bill to promote British business and our British trade. It is not about independence. Is not about a so-called power grab. It is about promoting trade, and nothing more. It is about making things better for everyone—for the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Clause 36 grants the CMA information-gathering powers, and states that no information can be requested if it cannot be compelled to be given in the course of civil judicial proceedings before a court. This gives a level of protection against invasive Governments of all colours, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, because this party backs business. Despite what the SNP is telling us about a so-called unelected cabal of people being in control, that is simply not the case. This body is about business. We have had many interventions in the debate, but now that I am talking about the clauses and about business, how many times have SNP Members intervened to talk about the nub of the Bill rather than going on about independence? The Bill is not a power grab. It is about business and the economy.
Clause 47 sets out conditions on non-compliance. The CMA will be able to decide whether information requests have been supplied to a satisfactory level, and non-compliance will be punishable with a financial penalty. Dispute resolution will ultimately be a matter for the courts, and the Government will be kept out of it. Once more, we are talking the language of business. We are not doing this in a party political way; we are doing it in a business way. As anyone who has worked in a business or run a business will know, we do not want politicians sticking their noses in business. We actually want a fair way to get through things.
Alyn Smith
As an utterly pro-business but also pro-democracy party, we would contend that the Parliament of Scotland is best placed to look after jobs and work in Scotland, so will the hon. Gentleman condemn the Prime Minister’s earlier comment when he used a four-letter expletive about business?
Alexander Stafford
I am not sure what word the hon. Gentleman refers to, I will be honest. There are lots of great words for business. “Great” business? That is five letters.
We can all talk about business, but all I know is that this Government are pro-business and always have been; we are the business party, because only through business can we get prosperity. I know that the SNP is not pro-business—it is a sort of left-wing socialist party that wants to stamp down on free trade—but the Conservative party wants businesses to be managed and to operate properly and to get the Government off businesses so that they can do what they do, which is to thrive and create jobs. That is what the Bill is about.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I believe that my hon. Friend just answered my question. I was going to ask whether it is the case that the Scottish Parliament should not interfere in business as much as possible and actually allow businesses to run their own affairs?
Alexander Stafford
I completely agree, obviously. Parliament should not be getting into this.
Alexander Stafford
I will give way in a second. Government should not get in the way of business. Business will thrive and needs to thrive. When we fully leave the European Union, we need business to thrive, and we need this internal market to be turbo-charged.
Owen Thompson
On interference, is it not the case that the Government are now interfering in devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by imposing the Bill against the wishes of those devolved Administrations?
Alexander Stafford
I completely refute that point. In fact, I think the Bill will actually create a better working environment, as I said, by bringing the four components together. Since ’97, the Union has been pulling apart, and the Bill will actually bring the parties together, to talk better. That is why the SNP does not want the Bill, because the Bill actually says that we are one family. Yes, we have differences, and yes, we have different opinions, but we are a family and we need to work together. The Competition and Markets Authority is the Christmas table, bringing us all together from across the land to share the stuffed goose.
Paul Bristow
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is essentially an economic argument, not a political argument, despite how much Members opposite—the nationalists—are trying to make it into a political argument?
Alexander Stafford
I completely agree—this is an economic thing. In fact, I am about to talk about clause 38, which brings me on to answer my hon. Friend’s point. Clause 38 says that the CMA is able to choose between a number of penalties to punish non-compliance, which is good, but is unable to levy a penalty against national or devolved Governments. It can therefore never be a stranglehold on Governments and can never be used as a tool between Governments; it is not going to bash the English Government or the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government. The CMA is actually a business body. This is not a political Bill but a Bill for business, because business will bring us together. Fundamentally, the Acts of Union of 1707 came together over business. Lest we forget, after Scotland’s failed colonial project in Panama, when Scotland went bankrupt, we had to come together to promote business. That is why the Acts of Union happened. This helps to create business.
Ultimately, the Bill ensures that high standards are protected across the whole UK. Our legislation will maintain consistently high standards across every part of it, promoting co-operation between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. There will be no diminution of our food hygiene or animal welfare standards. I know that the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not buy into this nationalistic, manufactured hysteria. Scottish National party Members claim to represent all the people of Scotland. No, they do not. They represent their own views, and those of many people —I grant them that; many people want independence—but not the whole of Scotland. What represents the whole of Scotland support for business.
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but how does he explain that those of us who are not nationalist, who do not want to see independence in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and who believe wholeheartedly in the United Kingdom feel that this part of the Bill is damaging and is the very thing that will potentially tear apart the United Kingdom? How does he allow for that, and for the fact that we object to the Bill?
Alexander Stafford
I say sorry that those people are falling into nationalist arguments and giving succour to the independence movement, rather than actually coming together for business, as true Unionists in the House should. They should celebrate coming together for business rather than playing these party political games that will only tear us asunder. We should work together, and I encourage them to work together.
Alexander Stafford
I have already given way once, so I will make progress.
The Bill is not a Westminster power grab, but a guarantee of a strong United Kingdom that will safeguard jobs and make us stand tall on the world stage. It will make us all more prosperous. The devolved nations, like Rother Valley, stand to benefit greatly from this Brexit bonanza, and I will lend them my support every step of the way.
Through the Bill we will enshrine in law the principle of mutual recognition so that goods and services from one part of the UK will be recognised across the country, and the principle of non-discrimination so that there is equal opportunity for companies trading in the UK, regardless of where they are based. This not only protects the integrity of the United Kingdom, but strengthens it. However, I wish to appeal to all our fellow Britons, north of the border, across the Irish sea and in Wales. This is about more than just pounds and pence. The economic benefits of the Union are undeniable, but our United Kingdom stands for so much more than that. I have the greatest respect for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and their people, history, culture and devolution settlements. That is why I back the UK Internal Market Bill—it empowers all Britons, wherever in the United Kingdom they may live, and strengthens devolution.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and to speak to new clause 2, which was tabled by Labour’s Front Benchers. This new clause seeks to put common frameworks on a statutory footing. Only yesterday the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassured Members of the importance of common frameworks. If that is the case, I expect the Government to have no problem accepting this amendment, which seeks to prevent Ministers from overriding and imposing lower standards on devolved nations against their will. However, the devolved nations have every reason to be worried because when it comes to empty words, meaningless platitudes and empty promises, I am afraid that this Government have form. There is a pattern here: the Government promise to maintain our standards while simultaneously passing laws to allow themselves to lower them.
Let us take, for example, the Environment Bill, which the Government used not to set targets, but to give themselves the power to set their own targets in the future. They voted against the principle of non-regression to stop environmental standards being lowered. We have also heard about agriculture today. The Agriculture Bill offered nothing to guarantee that food standards would not be lowered and undercut in new trade deals. Hon. Members might be wondering why the Government would keep making promises and then refuse to legislate for them. The agenda is pretty clear to me. This is about creating a race-to-the-bottom economy. It is about undermining our standards. It is about the Government allowing themselves to sell off our rights and protections in dangerous trade deals that will undermine our future for decades to come.
Meanwhile, when we tried to amend the Trade Bill at least to ensure parliamentary scrutiny, the Government rejected that, showing very clearly what taking back control actually means—not parliamentary sovereignty, but an Executive power grab. Now with this Bill, especially in its current, unamended form, the Government are trying to cement that power grab by giving themselves the right to impose lower standards on devolved nations while ripping up the withdrawal agreement that they so proudly campaigned on just nine months ago, and breaking international law in the process.
The Government’s posturing will do nothing to protect the millions of workers in all four nations across the country who are worried about losing their jobs; nothing to reassure the British farmers who are worried about their products being undercut and dangerous trade deals that lower food standards; and nothing to foster the international co-operation that we need to defeat this pandemic or tackle the climate crisis. I urge people who have spoken passionately about our food, environmental and trading standards, and the Union, to vote for new clause 2 so that the Bill does not ride roughshod over our devolved nations and so that it resembles something that is fit for purpose.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham
This is a good Bill, and a necessary Bill. It will protect the integrity of the United Kingdom and our internal market as we leave the European Union. In our considerations on part 4, the description we heard earlier of our internal market as a shared asset is very apposite. Part 4 provides an important part of the framework that will allow us to uphold our obligation under the Articles of Union, which state clearly that all parts of the United Kingdom should be on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation and in all treaties with foreign powers. The United Kingdom is built upon a commitment to free trade between our four nations, and prosperity and peace are built on such trade and partnerships. The European Union, for all its faults and all its deviation from its original vision, was founded on that principle and purpose: to preserve peace through trade.
I speak, therefore, in support of an unamended Bill and unamended part 4 in its entirety. Clause 28 to 39 give us an independent advisory office for the internal market under the auspices of the Competition and Markets Authority that will act purely for the benefit of the UK and each of its nations. This replacement of EU legislation will see practical powers brought back to our devolved Parliaments to help regulate the strength and progress of our internal market and ensure a smooth transition for businesses away from the European Union. The Office for the Internal Market will strengthen the internal market’s might and efficient operation and enable real-time and considered advice to the Government to help direct their route forward.
As a one nation Conservative, I believe that global Britain itself begins with one nation—it begins at home between all four parts of the Union—and the Bill will set us up for that mission by reinforcing the United Kingdom and its internal market. We need these provisions to protect, strengthen and monitor the internal market and to make safe the Union and the businesses and jobs within it, and to protect our sovereignty and that of future generations; and we need them to become that outward looking and strong global nation that this Government and I want us to be and which the might of our internal market demands.
The Bill is a demonstration of the UK’s preparedness to manage our markets abroad and at home. It will ensure unfettered trade across the UK and avoid new burdens and barriers being put on us unreasonably. As we begin our recovery from the covid-19 crisis, these two implications of the Bill could not be more important. Businesses in my constituency rely on seamless trade across our four nations and further afield. While the Government can enable growth, they cannot create it. Throughout the crisis, we have relied on frontline heroes, in the NHS, schools, shops, and elsewhere, to get us through, but in this next stage of the recovery, it will be the wealth creators, business people and entrepreneurs who take us forward, but they need a secure, dynamic, investable playing field from which to operate. That is what these clause provide: the framework in which to grow, the springboard from which to flourish, and the rules to operate within.
I will finish by stressing our obligation to uphold the internal market and ensure that our sovereignty as one nation is secured.
Julie Marson
No, I will not give way. We have heard so many canards in the Chamber this afternoon, it is beginning to resemble a duck pond, so I will press on to the end.
We have acted in good faith throughout these negotiations and for many of us too many concessions have been made in the name of good politics and friendship, but a reliance on friendship and good faith is not, it seems, assured, so the Government are right to act to provide a safety net. The potential implications of not doing so are too severe to ignore. The easy choice is to hope; the right choice is to prepare, and that is exactly what the provisions in the Bill set out to do.
They will prepare the UK’s internal market for the next stage of our journey and give businesses confidence in, and understanding of, our business and economic ecosystem. By voting for the Bill in its entirety, including these clauses, we are fulfilling our obligations to protect the integrity of our internal market, our United Kingdom. We simply cannot risk the integrity and functionality of the internal market itself. For those reasons, I will be supporting the Government’s clauses and encourage other hon. Members to do the same.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
The most important element of the debate around this Bill and its amendments is that the most successful union of nations in the world continues to thrive. The UK’s internal market has functioned seamlessly for centuries. Amendments to this Bill should be accepted only if they make this market more effective. We all have a duty in this House to prioritise that. The Government are absolutely right to ensure that there are no internal barriers to trade within the UK following the end of the transition period, so that business is able to trade unhindered across the United Kingdom.
As has been mentioned in this debate, the Bill establishes the Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to provide independent and technical advice to Parliament and the devolved Administrations together on regulations that may seek to damage the UK internal market. It will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on our own internal market, and it will do so impartially, away from the undue influence of Ministers, whether here at Westminster or in the devolved Administrations. This is important for obvious reasons. Ministers want and need technical advice. Goods and services must move unhindered and conform to the same standards and requirements whether they are sold in Peterborough, in Paisley, in Prestatyn or in Portrush.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving a very strong argument as to why this legislation is so important. Does he agree with Grahame Crook, the director of Kent Periscopes, in my constituency, who says:
“Barriers to trade within our own borders will not just be harmful but are patently ridiculous. We, the four nations of the United Kingdom, face enough challenges to our prosperity at the moment from outside forces–notably covid–without hobbling ourselves further by having restrictions on trade within the UK”?
Paul Bristow
I absolutely agree with the businessman in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I think it is the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales that has said that ensuring stability in the UK market is vital. What businesses in Peterborough want to hear is that they can trade freely across these islands. It is an economic argument, not a political argument, which is what many of the amendments tabled by the nationalists are. It seems ridiculous to have to say this, but the vast majority of business-to-business traders in the UK are selling to, and buying from, other businesses within the UK. The Scottish economy and Scottish jobs rely on UK-wide trade. The Welsh economy and the Welsh jobs rely on UK-wide trade. The Northern Irish economy and Northern Ireland jobs rely on UK-wide trade and, of course, the English economy and English jobs rely on UK-wide trade. The Office for the Internal Market is not there to lecture the devolved Administrations. Let me repeat the point that I made earlier: if the SNP had its way, it would hand the powers of the proposed OIM straight back to Brussels.
The nationalists are okay with quangos, just as long as they are European Union quangos and not British quangos. Let us be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said earlier, the Scottish Retail Consortium has said:
“Scottish consumers and our economy as a whole benefit enormously from the UK’s largely unfettered internal single market”.
That is what is at stake. Would amendments 28 and 29 make the Scottish economy or Scottish jobs healthier? They would not, which is why we need to reject them.
The Office for the Internal Market is there to achieve the things I have described; it is not some sort of power grab. It will advise all four Governments of the United Kingdom, including the United Kingdom Government, as equals. As was said earlier, the internal market is a shared asset of all four nations. All four Governments need to be advised equally. If the internal market is a shared asset, we want it to work well.
New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), would require that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers have a say on who will advise them. I urge Ministers to give that due consideration and listen to those arguments, because if they do, we can avoid some of the politics that surround the argument. It does not matter how many manufactured grievances there are from the Scottish nationalists; we can avoid some of the politics and just get on with it and vote the Bill through unamended.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman is making some points on which we might be able to agree. The issue at hand is who sets the rules for the new UK internal market. Does he agree that the four Governments should play an equal role in setting the rules? Or does he believe that it is a matter for Westminster alone? That is the fundamental issue at hand.
Paul Bristow
I have heard the arguments, as have Ministers, I am sure. Points have been made about the internal market being a shared asset; having clear input from the devolved Administrations on who is appointed to the Office for the Internal Market would be an inherently good thing. I am sure that Ministers have heard those arguments, and if they have been heard, we can go ahead with the Bill unamended and just get on with it.
The CBI has said that protecting the internal market is essential and, as I said earlier, the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales has said that ensuring stability in the UK market is vital. Let us not mess around with the most successful internal market in the world, which has worked well for centuries; let us reject the amendments and vote for the Bill unamended.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
I rise to speak to amendment 21 and new clauses 1 and 4, which I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have tabled with the purpose of building consensus, which has been sorely lacking in the whole process of the Bill. From the publication of the White Paper and its incredibly short consultation period back in July, to the rushed programme for debating the Bill, there is clearly no willingness on the Government’s part to find any degree of consensus. We have heard some of that rancour this afternoon.
The devolved Administrations have indicated that they are unlikely to give legislative consent to the Bill. Although it will not, that should be something that gives the Government pause for thought. It is not just the SNP that thinks the Bill does real damage to the devolved settlements, but Welsh Labour and colleagues in Plaid Cymru. As a Liberal Democrat, I must say that the Government are making it hard for those of us who want to keep the United Kingdom together to make the emotional case for doing so.
It seems easy to forget that just four years ago the Conservative Government were passing the Scotland Act 2016. That piece of legislation was grounded in consensus and, although it was an Act of the UK Parliament, the Smith commission that preceded it was made up of Scottish political party representatives. I am afraid that in the past year the Government have taken us far away from that model of consensus.
The Government have been determined to leave the customs union and the single market above all else, and the Bill is a clear indication of that. I fear there has been no consideration of cost, and not simply in financial terms. The Prime Minister signed a withdrawal agreement that created a border in the Irish sea—one voted for in January and overturned by the Bill we are debating. How many more people in constituencies such as North East Fife that voted clearly to remain in the EU are the Government willing to alienate?
It is a matter not just of conduct but of the practical realities. For example, the University of St Andrews, the largest employer in my constituency, has ongoing concerns, not assuaged by this Government’s current actions, about the impact of our final departure from the EU in December. I urge the Government to change tack. Surely working in co-operation and trying to find consensus should be the way to demonstrate Government good faith in the UK and its workings. That is why I have tabled my amendments, along with my parliamentary colleagues.
New clause 4 and amendment 21 try to take some of the spirit of what was in the Scotland Act 2016 and apply it to this Bill. I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who is now back in his place, and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for their supportive comments on them. I hope that the Government will give some indication of seriously considering them.
One of the steps recommended by the Smith commission was put into law by section 65 of the Scotland Act, which gave Scottish Ministers the power to appoint a member to the panel of Ofcom. This Bill creates new responsibilities for the Competition and Markets Authority —a body, as has been well debated already, whose public appointees are chosen by the Secretary of State for Business in the UK Government. As others have rightly pointed out, the Government have a less than transparent approach to appointments and contracts of late. Would it not be simpler to mirror what the Scotland Act did for Ofcom for the CMA, given the Government’s intention that the CMA has a very important role in relation to the functioning of the Union? That is what new clause 4 is about. It would give the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations the ability each to appoint a member of the CMA board, giving them a degree of buy-in to this body. I really hope that the Government will consider supporting the new clause. There is a clear precedent for it in the Scotland Act. It would give the devolved nations a degree of ownership over the CMA and make it a more collective body.
Amendment 21 tries to ensure that, as this raft of new responsibilities is going to the CMA, there is proper buy-in and consultation with the devolved Governments in that regard. Again, this is based on provisions that currently exist in law in the Scotland Act, which specified that for agencies such as the Maritime and Coast- guard Agency there should be consultation with the Scottish Government about their strategic priorities in the exercising of their functions. Consensus, consultation and collaboration, with a four-nations approach, should be the root of all we do as a United Kingdom. It should be and must be our starting point.
One of the key concerns around this Bill is the fear of a race to the bottom, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said. One easy way that the Government could assuage these fears is by accepting likely amendments to the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill in the Lords, which they have previously failed to do in this place.
New clause 1 fills in one of the missing pieces of the Bill but also provides an opportunity to strengthen intergovernmental relationships. The White Paper for the Bill posed the question of what body to use to examine the functioning of the internal market, but it did not discuss what to do when there is a dispute, nor is this answered in the Bill itself. I find that strange, because there is lots in part 4, not least in clause 32, dedicated to the CMA investigating whether a provision passed by a national authority has a detrimental effect on the functioning of the internal market. If the CMA does indeed find that there is a detrimental effect, then other than clause 33, which states that the relevant Administration should table a written statement in their respective Parliament in response to the report, not a hint of the process to be used to reach a resolution in order to do that is detailed. It may be that the UK Government are intending for dispute resolution to take place within existing intergovernmental bodies such as the Joint Ministerial Committee. As part of the ongoing review taking place, that may well be the case, but it is important that that is set out. It is also important that such a decision is made with the support of the devolved Administrations. New clause 1 will ensure that the Secretary of State has to carry out that process of consultation and that any dispute resolution mechanism provides for representation from each of the devolved nations.
The Joint Ministerial Committee has been at the heart of the devolution settlement for the past 20 years, as the previous Parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee reported in its inquiry into devolution, but it has its limitations. The Committee’s inquiry found that the
“existing setup and organisation of the JMC has resulted in it being predominantly controlled by the UK Government”,
which has “limited its effectiveness”. In the Committee’s current inquiry into coronavirus, we heard that the JMC has not even met during the pandemic. There is also no formal mechanism for coming to agreement or resolving disputes generally. As I said, there is an ongoing joint review of intergovernmental machinery. The Minister mentioned that that is due to report by the end of the year, but it has been ongoing since March 2018. New clause 1 would set the UK Government and the devolved nations on a path to a dispute resolution mechanism. Fundamentally, we need a route to rebalancing the relationship between the four nations and moving to a more equitable, and arguably more federal, United Kingdom.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
I must say at the outset that I agree with the thrust of the points made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) when he said that the Bill was a move in the right direction. I think that in Northern Ireland we can actually agree on that point. This is definitely the right step for the House to take. The Bill is about the internal market of the United Kingdom, so it is important to set the context of what that market means for a place like Northern Ireland.
It is vital that people understand the significance of the United Kingdom internal market for businesses, people and the employed across our beloved Province. Great Britain accounts for 52.7% of Northern Ireland’s external sales, so the majority of things we sell go to the rest of Great Britain. Northern Ireland’s food and drink sales—remember that food production is the single largest employer in Northern Ireland—to Great Britain are valued at over £2.3 billion to our entire local economy. It is the largest market in six out of 10 agri-food sub-sectors. It is absolutely essential that people understand that. Given that the vast majority of our people are involved in food and drink production, the fact that our largest market is our home market means that this market here is vital to understanding how our economy works. It does not look south. It does not look to the north. It looks to our neighbour, the biggest island in this archipelago of islands: it looks to Great Britain. It is essential for people to understand how significant this economy is for Northern Ireland.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for business in Northern Ireland, free and unfettered access to Great Britain is absolutely vital for jobs, growth and prosperity, and that any obstacle would be critical for jobs and businesses in both his constituency and mine?
Ian Paisley
My hon. Friend makes a vital point, one that I think is shared by Members across the House who recognise how vital GB is to the Northern Ireland economy, and to helping it grow and flourish.
Let me put more flesh on the bone on how vital the internal market is. We have had an increase in freight and vehicle traffic to and from Great Britain for nine consecutive years. Some 532,000 units move out of Belfast harbour to GB. That is absolutely critical to understanding how our economy works. I understand, Sir Graham, that you will want me to move on to our amendments and their effect, but when 65% of what Northern Ireland purchases is from GB, we get an idea of how big and important the GB economy is. That is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) makes. We make £13.3 billion worth of purchases from GB every year. Consider the size of the Northern Ireland economy, with 1.7 million people. We make almost £14 billion of purchases from GB—not from Europe, not from the south of Ireland, not from the United States of America, not from any other European non-EU country, but from GB. Getting this Bill on the internal market right is therefore vital to us. The amendments will ensure that our country either flourishes or fails.
I believe that Members of this House want to see a flourishing Union. We have different interpretations of what that Union is about, and I have to respect those different interpretations, but I believe that the Members from Northern Ireland plead earnestly to ensure we have a flourishing Union. The amendments that my party is bringing forward are about making sure that our Union flourishes and that the finances within it flourish. In terms of foreign and direct investment, after London, Northern Ireland is the single largest part of the United Kingdom that benefits from foreign and direct investment. Therefore, getting trade deals in place is equally important to us, but the Bill is the foundation stone.
Each of these amendments has an impact on the economy of Northern Ireland, and many would have a good impact, but some less so. We want to ensure that the power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures is implemented fully. We cannot have something that puts Northern Ireland at a disadvantage in terms of its trade and how it operates. In terms of clause 44, on the notification of state aid for the purposes of the Northern Ireland protocol, we want to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. We cannot have a situation where Northern Ireland’s opportunity to flourish from state aid rules from GB would be changed.
Let me give a specific example. The House has been debating for some time the issue of free ports, and there is an attempt to identify the best places for free ports across the whole United Kingdom. I would love some of those free ports to be in Northern Ireland, whether it is up in Londonderry at Foyle, in Belfast harbour, in Larne or in Warrenpoint. I would like to see those areas identified as potential free ports.
Under the protocol, our southern neighbour, who has different economic objectives—set aside its politics—from Northern Ireland, could object in the EU to Northern Ireland having a freeport and stop Northern Ireland having a freeport. Given that the UK Government appear to be looking at free ports as a way to drive the economy forward post Brexit, Northern Ireland could be completely disadvantaged because of the predatory financial interests of a country that wants to look after itself—namely, the south of Ireland, at the behest of the EU. That would be utterly disastrous. Whenever Ministers are considering these issues, I hope they will recognise that we welcome this Bill because it will prevent the attempt to tie Northern Ireland into a protocol and a withdrawal agreement that could damage financial and economic opportunities that would benefit all of us.
Some people put about the idea that this could damage the Belfast agreement. No matter what side we are on in terms of the Belfast agreement of 1998, at the end of the day, we should all be on the side of wanting to ensure that Northern Ireland’s economy flourishes, because it is through jobs and employment that people gain satisfaction and contentment. If we have contented people, we will not have people being dissatisfied, with community tension rising and problems flowing from that. Getting these economic aspects correct will ensure the peace that people cherish and therefore the principles of the Belfast or Good Friday agreement, which Members have enunciated their love for.
I have absolutely no doubt about the sincerity of those who have tabled amendments on how they want to see their part of the United Kingdom operate, but I hope that the Prime Minister is sincere in what he is bringing forward. I hope that Northern Ireland is not going to be used as a pawn in this, and I say that in all sincerity. The Government cannot afford to do that to the emotions of the people of my country. They cannot kick them up and down, turn the volume up and down and not expect a reaction. It is far too fraught with people’s concerns about their economic wellbeing to do that.
If the Government implement this Bill, I appeal to them to implement it with the sincerity with which we are reading through these clauses and agreeing with them. Do not use us as a pawn to extract some other general concession from the EU and then desert Northern Ireland. Once bitten, twice shy. If you fool me once, shame on you, but if you fool me twice, shame on me. There will be no shame on the Ulster Bench in this matter. We are warning the Government: treat us with sincerity, as we are entitled to be treated.
This problem protocol lies behind many of the amendments that have been tabled today. Some Members have objected to the protocol because it is perceived as discrimination against Wales and Scotland, disadvantaging those regions of the United Kingdom compared with Northern Ireland. I would say to my colleagues in the House from those parts of the United Kingdom, that the protocol actually damaged Northern Ireland, and fixing it now is the best way to move forward. We should stop and think about the idea that people can one day support the protocol as if it is the best thing ever, when for the last while we have heard objections to the protocol. The protocol is the problem and it needs to be adjusted and changed, and we need to address that.
The amendments do contain a running theme in that they seek to obtain consent for the devolved institutions, and Members have spoken at length about a perceived power grab. Those are issues that the Government must try to address cogently and they must try to reassure Members on that. It is very difficult for Northern Ireland Members to accept the arguments about making sure that the devolved institutions are entirely in step with all this, because the devolved institutions will never be in step with any of this for this reason: the devolved institution in Northern Ireland cannot make an opinion on this Bill because it cannot agree, it cannot find consensus. It is essentially gridlocked on this matter.
An amendment was drafted—it has not been selected —by the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) that would have required going back to an Executive that cannot agree or make an agreed statement on Brexit, the internal markets or any of those matters. I do not think we should push things to the gridlock in Northern Ireland. That is why we need legislation to come direct from Westminster and help us to make sure that we govern with the consensus of the whole House.
I was disappointed that the Member for Belfast South decided not to speak in this debate earlier and removed herself from the list. We understand the reason—the amendment was not selected—but I would have been interested to hear the points that the SDLP Members would make on why they would want to hand a veto to a deadlocked Executive or Assembly. The Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly need to focus collectively—I think they do focus individually—on businesses, and I hope that they will do that and ensure clarity on how businesses could operate under the Bill.
The one thing I hear every day from constituents—and I am sure it is the same for members of the SDLP, the Alliance party and my own party colleagues—is that they want clarity on how business should be done in Northern Ireland. Businesses from all across Northern Ireland have expressed concerns about the problem protocol and its lack of clarity. Indeed, some of those points have been well made in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, where we have sought answers from the Government on the clarity that is ultimately required. The report that we made to the Government showed where we need clarity. Will there be import declarations? Will there be entry summary declarations? Will there be safety and security certificates? Will there be export health certificates for everything? Will there be phytosanitary certificates and certificates of origin? If there are, who will pay for them? How will they be monitored—through a computer process, a desktop process? Will that be for every single good, or will it be for 2% of the goods that are currently moved? Please give us clarity on all of those matters, or do what the Bill suggests and remove the paperwork, remove the burdensome red tape, take it away altogether and let us trade.
I ask any Member representing an English constituency if they would tolerate having to fill in an export declaration form for goods that were moving from Yorkshire to London. They would not, so why should people and businesses in Northern Ireland have to tolerate filling in, or being threatened with having to fill in, declaration forms for that sort of movement of goods? It is not acceptable and will not be tolerated, and rightly so. The Government should address that.
I would also appeal to those people who have tried to be encouraged by what the US Congress have said about the Bill: that if the protocol is removed, they—the US Congress and the Speaker of the House—would do their best to block trade with the United Kingdom. Considering that the highest levels of foreign direct investment from the United States of America have come to Northern Ireland and benefit constituencies such as Foyle, the Belfast constituencies, my constituency and the Upper Bann constituency, who in their right mind would stand in this House and praise American politicians for trying to stop that trade?
Owen Thompson
There are many things wrong with the Bill. Today, we are focused on the creation of yet another unelected body with the monitoring responsibilities to investigate devolved decisions. The current Government seem very keen on creating record numbers of unelected roles. They threatened to abolish the Electoral Commission, so we know that they do not like oversight. But yet another bureaucratic body to investigate and veto what elected politicians decide in the devolved Administrations —is that really what we need? Just because the Prime Minister, and perhaps his Government, are averse to democracy and oversight does not mean that the rest of us are.
Perhaps, if I might be so bold, this is more about the fact that the Conservative party has been unable to win an election in Scotland or Wales since 1957, yet it wants to implement its own policies in disregard of the elected wishes of the Scottish people, who democratically elect the Parliament at Holyrood. Perhaps that is what the Bill is about. Perhaps the Conservative party has taken lessons from some of the donors in the Kremlin.
This unnecessary new body will decide whether a Bill meets the new test for the internal market, putting permanent constraints on the devolved competencies of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We cannot support such an anti-democratic move in either principle or practice. The amendments seek to remove the Bill’s remit from Scotland. The Office for the Internal Market should not be given powers to monitor the regulatory provisions that apply in Scotland but in not the whole UK. This is nothing short of a threat to Scottish democracy.
How will the OIM’s decisions be scrutinised? Yes, a report must be lodged annually in this place, but nothing tells us at what point that will appear before Members. Will it be like an estimates day? By what process can hon. Members genuinely scrutinise the OIM’s decisions? We need to know. How can we possibly have any clarity about how this will work if we do not know the process of simple oversight and scrutiny?
The regulations proposed to set up this body are unwarranted and lack the necessary clarity about the extent of its remit, how the CMA will receive and consider proposals for investigations and essential mechanisms for democratic scrutiny of the membership and dispute resolution. At very least, it should be essential for all four Administrations to agree at every stage. As the Royal Society of Edinburgh said, the use of this authority against the wishes of the devolved Administrations constitutes a failure of intergovernmental relations.
What happened to the respect agenda? We were told we were in a Union of equals and that we were to “lead not leave”. Where has that gone? Let us make this simple: scrutiny of Bills passed at Holyrood should be undertaken in Holyrood. Transparent, proportionate processes are in place to scrutinise Bills in the Scottish Parliament and consider the input of key stakeholders, including business, public authorities and the public. Replacing that with an unelected body and an unclear process is a retrograde step for transparency in our democracy. It could result in vested interests with financial clout having undue influence, or in regulators challenging the decisions of our elected representatives.
We hear a lot about unelected bureaucrats—we had a lesson from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who highlighted that some of the so-called unelected bureaucrats are in fact elected—but this is a genuinely unelected quango. There is no need for the creation of a new body that could scupper much of the excellent evidence-based policy work that has served Scotland so well. Policies such as the minimum unit pricing of alcohol and maintaining free higher education pose no threat to the integrity of the Union, but could fall foul of the rules for this new internal market.
Alyn Smith
I commend my hon. Friend on a powerful speech. Does he share my concern that as well as the general structure of this body, it is beyond ludicrous that at this late stage, we still do not know who these individuals will be, how they will be appointed, who they will serve and what policy they will implement?
Owen Thompson
Indeed. Hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that the Bill was being rushed through without a huge amount of thought behind it—not that I would ever suggest any such thing.
The premise of the internal market on which the Bill is based is false. It seems to regard differences in policy decisions taken across different parts of the countries and nations as somehow a bad thing or an irritating bump in the road that somehow has to be smoothed out. That is devolution. The point and principle of devolution is that decisions can be made in a devolved Administration. It was designed to respect localised democracy and better meet differing priorities in different parts of the United Kingdom. Instead, under the Bill, the centralising tendencies of this unequal Union are being put into overdrive.
The Scottish Government have always recognised the importance of free trade across the isles. We have a system in place to govern trading arrangements across the UK, consisting of reserved and devolved competences. Where work is at an intersection of EU law, the four Governments can and should work jointly through the common framework process, although that involves concepts that might be difficult for Government Members to grasp: mutual trust, respect and constructive dialogue, none of which are evident in this Bill. These processes are already there to ensure the continued frictionless trade across the UK that we all want to see, and the Scottish Government happily signed up to this process—it is the correct way to proceed.
The Bill is a political move to curb the power of the devolved Administration, and if this Government continue to seek to guarantee the controlled right of UK companies to trade unhindered in every part of the UK, they should get on with it and use the processes that are already there. The processes in this Bill mean that private health companies or private water companies operating in other parts of the country could soon have a guarantee to work in Scotland, where these things are run by public companies. This is a constitutional and legislative mess.
The Bill is a blatant political move to scupper those rebellious Scots, who just do not seem to fall for the Prime Minister’s charms. He is throwing his toys out of the pram, taking a huff and saying, “It’s ma baw and ye cannae have it.” The Prime Minister had the brass neck to pretend yesterday that each devolved Administration will be “fully and equally involved” in monitoring the internal market, despite sovereignty resting wholly with the Westminster Government. If he is speaking in good faith—it could happen—Conservative Members will back our amendments tonight. They would at least require the approval of devolved Administrations, bringing at least a degree of democracy and accountability to what is, in effect, an unelected body. Surely, that has to be a simple thing to support.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendment 21, new clause 1 and new clause 4. It will come as no surprise to this House that I have serious concerns about the Bill. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe passionately in devolution; the role of our regional governments in powering their communities is vital. If unamended, the Bill undermines that key function. Government must work for the whole UK. Food standards are a key example in that regard, and I am sure that most, if not all, Members of this House have been contacted by their constituents on maintaining our higher food standards. It is unacceptable that the Government should compromise on standards or harm British farmers by ramming through a damaging trade deal against the wishes of at least one of the nations of this United Kingdom—it is also unacceptable for all our constituents. The Government must co-operate with our devolved Administrations, and I urge Members from all parts of the House to support our amendments, which will strengthen our devolved Administrations.
This is my first speech on this Bill, so let me comment on its specific implication for Northern Ireland, an integral part of our family of nations. The Bill is intended to allow frictionless trade within our four nations, and of course it would not be acceptable to have a hard internal border between any of the component parts. On that point, I absolutely share the concerns of my colleagues on the Government Benches and of colleagues behind me, but the only reason there is any risk of a hard internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is the deal that the Prime Minister signed last year, which threw Northern Ireland under a bus—I never forget the anger from my Northern Irish colleagues behind me.
At the time, the Prime Minister called it a “fantastic” deal, so what happened to this oven-ready deal? He has now remembered that he has a responsibility to keep the Union together. The question is: what can he do, after his deal got us into this current mess? The Government have two options: they can renege on the withdrawal agreement, break international law and trash our reputation as a trusted trade partner, or they can uphold the withdrawal treaty, abide by international law and negotiate a deal with the EU that avoids the need for a significant internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
The principle of the rule of law—a principle founded in this country—will be gravely compromised if this legislation is passed as it currently stands. The UK has a proud history of upholding liberal democratic values and setting a global example to stand up for the rule of law. Without significant alterations, this legislation will undermine our commitment to the rule of law. What does that say to the rest of the world about our values? It sends the message that we are ready to rip up agreed rules at a moment’s notice for political gain, not just to our would-be trading partners, but to authoritarian regimes around the world that are themselves determined to undermine the rule of law and promote the politics of division. The rule of law is under attack across the world, from unrest in Beirut to the horrific accounts of what is happening to the Uyghur population in China. The impending economic consequences of covid-19 are causing authoritarian regimes to grab extra power. This is the worst possible time to send the message that it is acceptable in some instances to break the law and go back on our word.
Christine Jardine
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I rise to speak to amendment 21, and new clauses 1 and 4. Ironically, I do so on the International Day of Democracy—a day when the people of this country might expect their elected representatives to be pondering the importance of listening, consultation and the rule of law. To be fair, in a way we are, but not in any way that fills me with pride or a feeling of hope for our future and for the United Kingdom. No, we are standing here in the mother of Parliaments discussing a Bill that is undoubtedly necessary to smooth trade within the United Kingdom, and I find that we are faced with a Bill—and this part in particular—which shows scant regard to several vital pillars of our democracy.
Where is the respect both for elected representatives here and the devolved authorities across the UK? Where is the respect for the need to consult, listen and produce a coherent, consistent and consensual approach with the other elected authorities? Perhaps amendment 21 would deal with that. Most importantly, where is the respect for the rule of law—a principle without which it is difficult for any democracy to work effectively for its people?
We have heard much over the past few days about the potential impact of the Bill on this country’s international reputation, but today I am concerned about, and would like to concentrate on, its impact on the Government’s reputation and on the future of the country. There are reports that the Prime Minister and his team are confident that the general population will not be too bothered about the Bill. I have to tell the Government that they have political opponents all over the country and in this House who will spend every waking moment, every hour, making sure that the electorate are entirely aware of their perception that this Bill is damaging to the devolved nations and how they operate, and they will use it to promote their own separatist agenda to split up not the European Union, but the United Kingdom. I take great offence at the suggestion earlier that I might be a nationalist simply because I am concerned about the impact of that argument. It is precisely because I believe in the United Kingdom that I want us to pay attention to the dangers in what this Government are saying.
Alyn Smith
I commend the hon. Lady on her Unionism and respect it absolutely. Edinburgh West is a place I know well from my own background. Will she agree that there is not a single thing about independence in the amendments my party has tabled—they are about protecting the devolution settlement—and will she be supporting them as well as her own amendments?
Christine Jardine
Yes, I support the devolution amendment, and yes I believe, as I will come on to explain, that this is all about the devolution settlement, which is a very different thing from independence.
How often did right hon. and hon. Members listen to me and my colleagues warn the Government they were heading to exactly where we are now? As I said earlier, I fully accept we need a framework by which the powers that were vested in Brussels and are now returning to the UK will work for every part of this country. We need a Bill that does precisely that, but, Sir Graham, this ain’t it.
I cannot understand why the Government, in forming this Bill, did not stop for a minute and listen to the many voices urging them to be more conciliatory—to look, for example, at measures such as those that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have proposed: to appoint Ministers from the devolved nations to the CMA and be inclusive. But the Government did not listen to us, especially when we warned about the dangers of the withdrawal agreement to the Good Friday agreement, which everyone in the House should regret. Please listen to us now when we say that this approach—this Bill, these steps—do not respect the spirit of that agreement or the devolution settlement.
I appreciate, possibly more than many, that the devolution settlement is something that Conservative Members, particularly those from Scotland, were not comfortable with 20 years ago, but even they have surely learned to love the enthusiasm, commitment and benefits we have seen in Scotland, and I am sure in Wales, and the great changes brought about in Northern Ireland by devolution, and in London. We have come so far since the turn of this new century in devolving power in this country closer to the people most affected by it. It would be dreadful if this Bill—this attempt to allow us to trade more smoothly—were to undermine it, but I fear that that is exactly what it will do.
In supporting amendments tonight, I appeal to Government Members, many of whom have sat—and one or two of whom are aiming to sit once again—at Holyrood. I am confident that they cherish as much as I do what we have achieved for Scotland in Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, in Wales and, most importantly, in Northern Ireland, where we have peace for the first time in my lifetime. I disagree fundamentally with my colleagues on the SNP Benches about independence and where Scotland should be heading, but I cannot disagree with their anger at the lack of respect for ourselves, our Parliament and others across the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that that is what the Conservative and Unionist party truly believes or wants. I want to believe it was not what it intended when it opened this constitutional and legal can of worms, but we need more than words and platitudes about how it will be fine and it is all about trade. We need Conservative Members to stand with us and say to the Government: please respect our Parliaments, the will of the people across the country and the rule of law. If they will not abandon the Bill, I ask them please to accept the amendments, because that is the only way to respect and protect the United Kingdom.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).
The Bill claims to be about unity based on the pillars of mutual recognition and non-discrimination; in reality, unamended, the Bill is something quite different. It will enforce the lowest common denominator in goods and services across the United Kingdom. There is such a focus on the fear of letting in through the front door chlorinated chicken or whatever other emblem of lowered standards there might be from a trade deal with the US or anywhere else. This Bill unamended is the route through the back door to lowered standards, whether it be for farmers, in retail or in manufacturing.
What is the value in consistency if it leads to the lowest possible standards, and how do we ensure the integrity of the Union and the dignity and, indeed, sovereignty of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England as we consider how to regulate these deals? We have in front of us the proposal for the Office for the Internal Market, which looks to be utterly toothless, in effect. At the apex of its terrifying range of powers is the ability to launch investigations and to deliver written statements—and that is it. That is the entire arsenal for the devolved nations to protect their standards of goods and services, while those nations will not be around the table making the decisions in the first place.
If the Government think this is a Bill about creating a united front, they are completely and utterly deluded. Rather than finding unity and a common position between the nations of the UK, this set of proposals in reality drives a deeper wedge between them. Like my hon. Friends who spoke before me, that fills me not with joy in the anticipation of another bite at the cherry of independence, but with complete and utter dismay. It should fill Conservative and Unionist MPs with utter dismay, and I am bewildered that it does not.
The problem is that the Government voted for and the Prime Minister signed a withdrawal agreement that he knew—he must have known—was a trade-off between a border separating Northern Ireland and the Republic and a trade border in the Irish Sea. One threatens the Good Friday agreement and the other threatens the very existence of the United Kingdom. There was never a third option: there was no Malthouse compromise and nothing else was on the table. It was all guff, and I pity any Tory candidate who fell for it.
It was a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic or a border between Ireland and Great Britain, and the Prime Minister made a choice, but now he says he does not like his choice, or he did not understand his choice, or it is all the fault of the nasty foreigners. But we have discovered in the last few days, as have millions of people who voted in good faith for this Government last December, that Brexit is not done: it was never done. Either the Prime Minister did not understand what he was signing, or he said a thing, indeed a series of things, that was not so. On this also, there is no third option.
More than 20 years ago, as has been said, this country rightly moved towards devolution to empower Wales, Scotland and then Northern Ireland. To their great shame, the Labour Government at that time did not do go further in empowering the regions of England also. Of course, the devolution that did happen at the time was opposed by the Conservative party in opposition, but in time it grew to accept the new devolved nature of Government in these islands, because—guess what?—proportional representation gives it seats in Scotland.
If on issues where the devolved Administrations have competence this Government force them to submit to whatever standards they decide on in the guise of unity, all we are doing is enforcing the lowest common denominator. We will not be levelling up; we will be forcibly levelling down. The Government will be sticking up two fingers at devolution.
This is a significant threat to the Union. I am waiting and waiting for the moment when Conservative and Unionist party Members will grasp the second part of their name and their mission. The current Conservative leadership deems this Bill to be just another convenient trench in the culture war. I implore Conservative MPs to take back control of their party before it is too late and we lose our country, for then there will be no Union for us to be Unionist about.
In South Cumbria, I am 50 miles from the Scottish border. I have no desire to live 50 miles from a foreign border—not in my lifetime, nor in my children’s or grandchildren’s lifetimes.
There are both practical and emotional reasons why this Bill is the worst thing to come to this House in the 15 years that I have been a Member of Parliament. Cumbria does not have a more important internal market than our relationship with south-west Scotland. It is a porous border, not even recognised by many: people work on one side of the border and live on the other; they go to school on one side and visit their GP on the other. Sheep reared in Cumbria are sold in Scotland. Cattle reared in Scotland are sold in Cumbria. Farmers dependent on common standards on both sides are about to see those standards undermined. Our farmers, across all nations, are to be sold down the river. Every poor decision, every compromise will sow more seeds of discontent in the devolved nations, playing into the hands of those who are desperate to split us asunder.
Richard Fuller
If I may, I will pick up on something that the hon. Gentleman has said. Many speakers on the Opposition Benches have also said this. They talk about the race to the bottom with regard to regulations. Please will he indicate where he sees any of that deregulatory zeal in this Government? I would like to see some deregulatory zeal. The truth of the matter is that, historically and certainly in recent years, the pattern of regulation of markets, whether in Scotland or in the rest of the United Kingdom, is for more and higher regulation. That is the story. The Government want to continue to maintain high standards. Where can he point to, so that I can see all these things that he is waving around as something we should be fearful of?
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We should be aware that, on top of the desire politically for greater regulated markets, which I absolutely welcome, there is also a desire to maximise profit. What do we do when we are trying to maximise profit? We reduce costs. What are regulations? Well, sadly, they often involve more costs. One of the benefits of the European Union is that we lock ourselves in to an understanding that there are common rules. If, within the United Kingdom, we create an in-built incentive for one part of the United Kingdom to reduce its standards and therefore automatically drag down the standards of the other three parts of the UK at the same time, we have made this possible. Indeed, I argue that, thanks to the laws of free-market economics, we have made it more than likely—we have made it almost certain.
The Competition and Markets Authority should be representative of all the nation. There needs to be unity in the decisions and not just in the implementation of the conclusions. I am afraid for the future of our United Kingdom. Do this Government want to be the Administration responsible for the disintegration of our Union, whether by negligence or design? That is where they are taking us. This Bill, through its inherent relegation of the importance of devolution, is a colossal step—a witless step even—towards undermining the unity of the Union. This Government have taken us out of one Union. We will not let them wreck another, which is all the more precious even than the one that we have left.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Although I perhaps did not agree with everything that he said today, we do agree on many other things. Indeed, I think that it is perhaps the first time that I have followed three Liberal Democrat speakers. I am not sure whether that gives them a numerical advantage, but one DUP man is equal to three Liberal Democrats—I say that in jest; we are not in any way against each other.
I have listened very closely to the speeches both last night and this afternoon. I must say that the case presented by the Prime Minister outlines what our fears were with the withdrawal Bill, which is the same withdrawal Bill that we voted against on three occasions when it was brought forward by the former Prime Minister. In January this year, we also voted against the withdrawal agreement because we felt at that time that it put us at a disadvantage. What makes this different is the position we now find ourselves in. The Prime Minister has brought forward a Bill that gives protection to Northern Ireland in a way that we would like to see. With that thrust and protection in the Bill for Northern Ireland, there is something that we agree in our party we can support, and we look forward to that. The exception is clause 47, to which we are bringing forward an amendment tomorrow that we feel would strengthen our position again. Hopefully the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Government and others will feel that that is the right way to go.
I am without doubt a proud Brexiteer. That is not a secret—it is well known. As a Unionist, I love this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I love my Scottish colleagues and they know that. I love my Plaid Cymru friends and I try to work with most people in this Chamber. They might have a different political viewpoint about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I will tell the House one thing: they are genuine people and I respect their point of view, even though I, in many cases, do not agree with it. I am simply someone who has experienced, in my nation—in Northern Ireland—the difference between intent and reality. This Bill has been brought forward to give help to the devolved Administrations as they look at trade, and I am very pleased to see that.
I am reminded of a devolved Administration today that I was a Member of for some 12 years, as long as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was—the Northern Ireland Assembly. As a Unionist, I forewarned that the make-up of Stormont would lead to one party being able to bring the institution down. I listened as I was told that it would not happen as it was in the best interests of Northern Ireland to continue to work together. I sat in my office and watched the country being left adrift for almost three years, with this place reluctant to take over and upset the premise of devolution in everything other than the imposition of abortion against the will of the Assembly and the general public. But the Assembly is now up and running, and we want it to succeed. I want it understood in the internal market Bill that we can have an input, a contribution and a say from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
When my party and I warned that the good faith aspect of the withdrawal agreement was not enough security against what we were surrendering—the sovereignty of the UK over Northern Ireland—I did so not only as an anxious person, but as an experienced person, who has seen the process, and I understand why this Bill, without any changes, with the exception of clause 47, has been brought forward in a way that we can support: because it makes us stronger within the United Kingdom. I am pleased to see that.
Europe is doing what I knew it would always do, what it has historically done—ride roughshod over good intent to achieve its goal. There was an outcry when it was felt by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of the Scottish National party, that there would be a possible rise in food prices, with supermarket shelves lying empty, in the event of a no deal. And yet Europe has blatantly threatened that all goods may be considered at risk and that the rest of the United Kingdom may not be considered a third nation, meaning that the shelves in my constituency could be empty or that there could be price rises, whereas a trip over the Irish sea to my right hon. Friend’s constituency will see nothing of the same. Is that acceptable? In terms of the internal market Bill and the Trade Bill, as they have been put forward, are families in my constituency richer than those in the constituencies of others? No, they are not. Are their bellies less deserving of food?
I want to make a plea in respect of this Bill for the agri-food sector in my constituency—for Mash Direct, Rich Sauces and Lakeland Dairies, three companies that have some 2,500 jobs. I agree with the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). With this Bill, are we decreasing or minimising our standards? No; he is right to say that we are not. Companies will grow, and we will retain the standards that we have achieved. There is no way in the world that we will let it be otherwise, and I respectfully suggest that anyone who thinks that we will has got it wrong. Previous Ministers have sought and got agreements across the world, including for trade deals in China. We got those markets with our products, quality levels and standards. We are not going to surrender them; we are going to keep them with this Bill.
The fisheries sector is also important to me and my constituency. It is important that this Bill becomes law to ensure not only that we can produce the products that we do out of Portavogie, Ardglass, Kilkeel and elsewhere in Northern Ireland, but that we can increase our trade and potential to grow, and continue to feed the United Kingdom and Europe.
The UK’s chief negotiator has confirmed:
“I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland…if GB were not listed, it would be automatically illegal for NI to import food products from GB.”
That is why this Bill, as it was presented by Government, is the way for us to move forward. The European institutions are using Northern Ireland—as I knew they would—to exert control and undermine our sovereignty, and the House is considering a method of protection, which is what the Bill is about. Yes, there could be a breach, but it is one of acting in bad faith, and the blame lies with the Europeans. They are threatening my constituents, Northern Ireland and the whole United Kingdom. They are threatening my constituents with the possibility that our biggest supplier, GB, will have checks and perhaps tariffs on my food—on my constituents’ food. Tariffs on fish, tariffs on food—am I less British than those from Scotland, Wales and England? Do I deserve less consideration and support from this Government? I do not, and my nation does not. The opinion and wishes of the Northern Ireland Assembly are entitled to such consideration.
I have listened to those who trounce out the Belfast agreement as a talisman against the United Kingdom internal market. When I look back—I say this with great respect—at the treachery of both Blair and Major with on-the-runs letters and shady backroom deals, and when I look at their banner-waving of the Belfast agreement as the only consideration in this debate, it is difficult to understand their absolute abandonment of the principle of consent, which is being demolished by the Northern Ireland protocol. I understand why the amendments have been tabled, but I feel that the protection that the Government have put forward is worthy of consideration and support, and our party will be supporting the Government on their proposals.
We have heard legal opinions from other people, and I want to put this one on the record. Martin Howe QC has clearly said that
“the alteration of the constitutional status of NI (which across the board tariffs on GB to NI exports would entail) would breach the core principle of the Good Friday Agreement…International law does not justify a later treaty to which these community representatives are not parties being used to over-ride the rights they enjoy under the earlier treaty”.
That legal opinion tells us that the Good Friday agreement is not under any threat; indeed, I suggest that it enhances where we are and where we are going.
Let us grasp why the Bill exists. As my esteemed colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) outlined yesterday, we should consider who is threatening to destroy the peace process. The only such threats are coming from Europe. As is often the case, they are smoke and mirrors—they have no validity. Those who espouse the Belfast agreement and devolution, and who respect the will of the people that the Northern Ireland Assembly should have a say, need to think carefully about what will happen. We can see our fears coming to be reality. It is right and proper not just that the Government understand that but that, with this Bill, they are putting in place measures that can be enacted if Europe continues down the route of bad faith that tit has set out on.
It is equally right and proper that we as a House protect Northern Ireland as an intrinsic part of the United Kingdom and ensure that the devolved Administrations, and in particular the Northern Ireland Assembly, have a say. That is why the Bill, as put forward and without change—with the exception of clause 47—is the right way to do it.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We have had some good contributions from colleagues from all parties in today’s discussion of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—or, as the Prime Minister now calls it after his roasting yesterday, the infernal market Bill. Let us hope that when the Minister rises to speak he is better briefed than the Prime Minister, although I have no doubt that he will be because, unlike his boss, he very much is a details man.
Before I address the substance of the amendments, I want the House to be clear on a few points. Labour wants the Government to get Brexit done and we want a strong internal market that respects devolution and protects high regulatory standards, but we will not fall for the Prime Minister’s attempt to rerun the Brexit arguments, and neither should the public. The Brexit issue is settled and the Government now need to get on and get the deal that they promised the British people at the general election.
The Prime Minister’s attempts to boost his falling poll ratings have failed. Brexiteer after Brexiteer has denounced this Bill; they clearly did not get the memo that opposing it was some kind of remainer plot, which it is not. We have had a roll call of the great and good—some not so good, but I will let Members decide—including Lord Howard and Lord Lamont, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), to name but a few. They have spoken out with courage because this Bill, in its current form, is not in the national interest.
Let me turn to the amendments. The central challenge that faced those drafting the Bill was how to square an internal market where goods can be sold across the UK with the fact that regulatory standards are devolved in key areas such as animal welfare, the environment, food safety and many others. There was an obvious answer, because since 2017 there has been a process of agreeing common frameworks—a joint approach to standards in the different devolved areas. The Government could have chosen to legislate for those common frameworks to make them the default option for regulation, thereby granting a proper voice to the devolved nations on the regulatory standards to which we have to adhere.
To be clear, that approach would have imposed a duty on all Governments to seek to establish common high standards. There would have needed to be an ultimate last resort in case the way forward could not be agreed on, at which point the UK Parliament would have needed to step in. That would have been the way to square the circle of the internal market and respect for devolution but, unfortunately, it is not the route that the Government have chosen. Instead, they have chosen non-binding common frameworks, up against what is in essence a Westminster veto, potentially leading to lower standards, with no guarantee of a voice for the devolved nations.
The Government say that they will still negotiate for common frameworks; that is welcome but it is not enough. If we do not put the process for common frameworks on a statutory footing, we undermine the very process itself, making the nuclear option of imposition more and more likely. Common frameworks without legislation are toothless. As time for regulations to be implemented becomes more and more pressing, and with the looming prospect of other trade deals and their inevitable call on UK-wide standards, we can see how things will play out, with the imposition of regulations via statutory instruments becoming the norm.
In line with getting Brexit done, there is now a huge repatriation of powers from the EU to the UK. The Government have a choice to make: do they want to respect and strengthen the devolution settlement by pushing power closer to people in communities, as promised in the referendum? Or do they want to retain all those powers here in Westminster? At best, the Bill is a missed opportunity to strengthen our Union; at worst, it threatens the future of the UK itself, giving—as we have heard today—the First Minister and the SNP all the grievances they need to turbo-charge their independence campaign. One has only to listen to the voices across our four nations to realise that, yet the Prime Minister and the Government have a tin ear.
A Front-Bench Conservative Member of the Welsh Assembly resigned because of the Bill’s disregard of and disrespect towards the nations of the UK. It is worth listening to what he had to say, which was that
“the Internal Market Bill has done nothing to lessen my anxieties about the dangers facing our 313 year old Union. Indeed they have been gravely aggravated by the decisions made in the last few days by the Prime Minister…I will feel it necessary to speak out against what I consider to be a lack of statecraft at this crucial time for the UK’s very survival”
as a multi-state Union.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to those comments by a very honourable man, one of my constituents, David Melding, the shadow Counsel General, a lifelong and loyal Conservative with whom I disagree on many issues. However, he was pointing out the pattern of behaviour from the Government of disrespect for devolution. I have just been speaking to the First Minister of Wales, and he has been clear this is a pattern of behaviour in everything from covid testing to the situation regarding the Bill. Does she agree that the Government need to take a completely different approach if they want the UK internal market to work, as we do?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely do. My hon. Friend has made some powerful points today about the disrespectful way in which the Welsh Government were consulted over the Bill, and he is absolutely right to highlight those. I am afraid that, if that continues, that will not be good at all.
Labour firmly believes that the UK single market is the foundation stone of our Union and brings huge economic benefits to the entire UK. That is why we support the principle behind the Bill and why our amendments are so necessary to improve the Bill in Committee. The UK internal market will be essential in recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. We know that we need mutual recognition for our internal market to function coherently, and we believe that we should use this opportunity to drive standards up further.
Our amendments are about the way in which we arrive at those minimum standards, not whether minimum standards are required. The common frameworks programme has been in place since 2017 and has led to some extremely positive outcomes, even in policy areas as complex and contentious as food standards. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for speaking to me last night about how the common frameworks programme is progressing. The Government and the devolved Governments should be commended for having established this collaborative forum. It could have proceeded with perhaps a little more speed and zeal, but we recognise the competing demands on the Government.
However, the Bill as it stands has the potential to undermine those processes entirely. On food standards, for example, where a common framework has already been agreed, if the Prime Minister were to pursue a free trade deal with the US, we may see chlorinated chicken imported into the UK and making its way on to Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish supermarket shelves, irrespective of the standards that they have worked so hard to agree through the common framework.
However, it is not only about food. The Bill could have far-reaching implications for the country’s ability to reduce waste and meet our net zero targets. Wales, as we heard, has high ambitions to reduce single-use plastic items, but the UK Government have proposed a less ambitious target for England. It would be tragic if the UK Government imposed a lower standard on Wales, when we should all be working together to eradicate plastics and keep standards as high as possible and going ever higher. Instead, my fear is that the Government are firing a starting pistol on a race to the bottom for regulatory standards across the United Kingdom, which we do not want to happen.
New clause 2 sets out a process that would underpin the common frameworks approach in good faith and within reasonable time commitments and would put the common frameworks programme on a clear statutory footing. We propose that, where common frameworks are already in place, Ministers should not be able to unilaterally override them via secondary legislation to impose lower standards on devolved Administrations without their consent, as the Bill would currently allow. Where any frameworks are currently in development, or as any new common frameworks become necessary, Ministers would need to allow a consensus-based negotiation via the framework process within a reasonable timeframe before making any further intervention via Westminster. Only if an agreement could not be reached through this process would a Minister be able to intervene and protect the internal market.
Jonathan Edwards
I agree with the vast majority of new clause 2, but this is the one point that really worries me, because it indicates that Westminster will have supremacy over Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Am I right in interpreting the end of the new clause in that manner? Surely the hon. Lady’s colleagues in Wales will be very concerned about any proposal that means that the Westminster Parliament will have supremacy over the Welsh Parliament.
Lucy Powell
This might be where we differ, as I was going to come on to say, because we believe that the ultimate arbiter of the UK internal market would need to be the UK Parliament. Our amendments seek to ensure that negotiations through common frameworks are conducted in good faith and given proper time and that this would need to come back to the UK Parliament in primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation, as is proposed.
Labour supports the need for some kind of independent body to arbitrate the effectiveness of the internal market. However, we want to ensure that this body is fully accountable to the views of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and, crucially, has proper teeth to be able to do what it needs to do. New clause 3 would therefore place a legal obligation on the CMA to monitor, to report and, most importantly, to consult with the devolved Administrations when discharging its new and enhanced duties.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the Scottish national party. While I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, it appears from the amendments that the SNP does not want a functioning internal market; it wants to frustrate one. I am afraid that some of its amendments would, in essence, give a veto to the Scottish Parliament of the internal UK single market. We cannot support that. We believe that the UK Parliament has to be the final arbiter of a functioning internal market because we believe in the UK, and the SNP does not. Its amendments would clog up the process and effectively offer one Parliament a veto.
As MPs, we have a responsibility and a duty to protect the interests of this country. The rule of law and the safety and security of our nation should be paramount. For the Conservative and Unionist party—let us remind ourselves of that name—to propose legislation that breaks the law and threatens the Union by putting rocket boosters under those campaigning for independence is near unthinkable. We hope that Ministers will accept our amendments to strengthen the Bill and to respect devolution as it stands and that they will table amendments at the next stage to strengthen the Bill further, so that we can keep our Union intact, get Brexit done, get the deal that this country was offered and move on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I would like to thank all Members who have spoken today. Before I proceed to discuss part 4 in some detail and the amendments that have been tabled, I want to put the Bill into context, so that we can see where it sits. I would particularly like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for their support of the Bill. This is an economic Bill to ensure that UK companies can trade unhindered in every part of the UK, and their focus on the core issue of ensuring that free trade must be commended.
The United Kingdom’s internal market has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries. It has enabled businesses and individuals to thrive and has been the source of unhindered and open trade across the country. It has helped to demonstrate that, as a Union, our country is greater than the sum of its parts. The economies of our four nations within one United Kingdom are forged as one. Around 60% of Scottish and Welsh exports are to the rest of the UK, which is around three times as much as the exports to the rest of the EU. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to Great Britain. In some local authorities in Wales, over a quarter of workers commute across the border. So when we leave the transition period at the end of this year, and the laws made in Europe can now be made across the UK, hundreds of powers will flow from the EU to the devolved nations and the UK Government in an unprecedented transfer of powers. It is really important to remember that we are devolving powers down to those devolved nations.
The Bill will not limit the devolved Administrations from innovating, as some Members have suggested. If an Administration wanted to introduce minimum alcohol pricing laws in the future, as was mentioned earlier, our proposals in the Bill would have no effect on them as long as the rules did not have a discriminatory effect on goods from other parts of the UK. Nor would our proposals do anything to prevent any Administration from introducing rules and regulations on how and where products could be used, including bans on smoking in public places. As these powers return to the devolved Administrations and as we recover from covid, we must ensure that our economy is stronger than ever. That is why the Government have brought forward this legislation to guarantee the continued functioning of our internal market and to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK.
Our manifesto committed us to maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market, and eight weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy presented to Parliament a White Paper that set out plans to preserve our internal market after the transition period. Since then, we have spoken to hundreds of businesses and business representative organisations across the UK to gather views and feedback on our proposals. Overwhelmingly, businesses supported our approach. For example, the British Chambers of Commerce stressed that a fragmented system would create additional costs, bureaucracy and supply chain challenges that could disrupt operations for firms across the UK. As these proposals progress, business communities will want practical considerations, not politics, at the heart of the debates on shaping solutions. I want to thank those businesses, along with colleagues across the devolved Administrations, for their engagement on the White Paper.
Turning now to the independent body that will be created by the provisions in part 4, we consulted on how to ensure that an independent monitoring and advice function could uphold the internal market. In response, to oversee the functioning of the internal market, the Bill sets up the Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority. In some of the contributions today, Members have talked about who will serve in the Office for the Internal Market. I must remind people that the Competition and Markets Authority sits aside from Government and the directors of its board can be seen on its website. It is open to everyone to see their expertise in their fields. These are not people who are passed on through grace and favour; these are technical roles and it is really important that we have the greatest expertise in that body.
Tim Farron
I do not think that any of us doubt the integrity of the people on the board or on that body. We doubt their powers to be able to ensure that there is equity. Does the Minister not understand that there is a real difference?
Paul Scully
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but prior to his contribution, other Members did raise the point about how these people were being recruited and for what reasons.
This measure means that each devolved Administration will be fully and equally involved in the oversight of the UK internal market. It minimises the need to seek court action, thus ensuring the continued smooth operation of the UK internal market that businesses crave. The provisions set out in the Bill provide broad oversight on an equal basis for all Administrations. The new Office for the Internal Market will be able to provide non-binding, expert reporting, technical monitoring, regulations and proposals, which will provide robust evidence on the actual or potential impact of regulatory measures, thus ensuring enhanced transparency and accountability for decision making across all the Administrations, including the UK Government acting on behalf of England. It is important that by doing this, the Office for the Internal Market will add an extra economic impact assessment that could otherwise just boil down to a political debate, which would not provide the consistency and coherence that businesses are seeking at this time.
I turn now to the amendments, starting with amendment 28 to clause 28. The clause is important because it defines those regulatory provisions on which the CMA will report and advise. This will ensure certainty and transparency for Administrations, businesses and the general public. Regulatory provisions are in scope if they set requirements for the purposes of mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles in the Bill for the sale of goods and equivalent services, as well as recognition of professional qualifications, and if they apply to one or more nations but not the whole of the UK.
As we have heard, amendment 28 seeks to exclude Scotland from the benefits of the new Office for the Internal Market. It would carve out regulation that applies only in Scotland from the definition of regulatory provisions across this part of the Bill, which basically means that the Scottish Government could not proactively request advice and its regulatory measures could not be included in the regular monitoring of impacts and trends in the UK internal market. If the functions of the new Office for the Internal Market applied asymmetrically, as is suggested, its work would be severely undermined from the outset.
Full UK-wide coverage and relationships with all four Administrations will be vital in gaining and maintaining the confidence of stakeholders, so I strongly question how the office could effectively fulfil the functions given to it by the Bill if it cannot assess impacts across the UK internal market as a whole. Parity is a central principle in how the office for the internal market will conduct its affairs. It will be of service to all four nations of the UK, but in turn it will legitimately expect to consider the impacts of regulatory measures across all four Administrations. The clause empowers the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, as well as the devolved Administrations.
Equally, the amendment would deny Scottish Government policy makers an important support system for the development of regulation following the transition period. The expertise and analysis of the Office for the Internal Market, offered to all Administrations equally, should not be rejected in this way. Finally and most importantly, since this provision plays a key part in ensuring there are no trade barriers, businesses across the UK would suffer.
To ensure the ongoing smooth operation of the UK internal market, clause 29 will ensure that emerging trends and developments in the market are independently reviewed by the CMA. The CMA has a strong reputation for independence and impartiality, which the Government have striven to preserve in setting out the functions of the office for the internal market. The UK Government have no role in what I have described: the function of the office in reporting to this House, the other place and devolved legislatures, discussing such topics as intra-UK competition, free access to goods and services, and the impact of diverging regulatory conditions in different parts of the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) raised other areas that the office could look into. It is important to know that the list is not exclusive; there are other areas, and the CMA has a great track record in championing the consumer, so the consumer point he raised is covered.
I said that there was no role for the UK Government in what I have just described. Truly independent scrutiny is crucial if anyone is to have faith in the office’s pronouncements on the health of the UK internal market, especially our business community at a time when those same businesses find themselves stretched thin by the impact of the coronavirus.
Jonathan Edwards
If the office for the internal market writes a report that says, for instance, that a regulation passed by the Northern Irish Assembly—if it was functioning—was contrary to the principles of the Bill, would there be legal recourse if a company was affected by that policy?
Paul Scully
As I say, the office will put forward non-binding reports to each devolved Parliament, but then there are the existing provisions for working intergovernmentally. We also have the common frameworks arrangement, as has been described, which has already provided good collaboration and co-operation, which I will come back to in a second. Ultimately, yes, the courts are there as a last resort, but if we have the inter- governmental relationships and build on those, as trusted partners, we will not have to resort to that.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said that minimum alcohol pricing, procurement, health and tuition fees would be undermined or constrained by the OIM’s functions. That is just not true. None of the clauses set out in part 4 precludes the devolved Administrations from introducing policies in any of those areas. The OIM will not be empowered to bind Administrations or veto regulations. It will only be concerned with assessing the economic impact of regulation, never its merit.
When not acting at the request of an Administration for reporting or advice, the OIN would only ever be concerned with monitoring the health of the UK’s internal market, such as the flow of trade, the impact of regulations on intra-UK competition and investment, or the ready availability of goods and services for all our citizens. The CMA, which the OIM will be established within, already operates at a strict arm’s length from the Government and all devolved Administrations. It has built up a wealth of expertise and experience, and has a global reputation for promoting competition. That is why it is a natural fit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone mentioned, the Bill clearly sets out that the OIM would be required to provide access to its reports and advice to all four Administrations on an equal basis, enhancing transparency and accountability.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is doing his best job to front this up and to give some of the detail that the Prime Minister was not across yesterday, but does he not have the slightest bit of doubt when his own colleague, the legal representative on the Welsh Conservative Benches in the Senedd, David Melding, resigned saying that this Bill poses dangers to the Union and that those have been gravely aggravated by the decisions of the Prime Minister? When somebody of that standing has criticised the Bill in this way, does the Minister not have any qualms about what he is doing?
Paul Scully
That is why I am going through the clauses and amendments at Committee stage to keep the focus on what is so important—what businesses expect us to do. I will not go through all the clauses, for reasons of brevity, but I am happy to follow up with anybody who wants to do that as we go through the rest of the Bill’s stages.
Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of the devolved Administrations before the Secretary of State specifies the level of financial penalties in secondary legislation in cases of non-compliance with the information-gathering requirements of the CMA. I am happy to reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to not taking any steps to bring the financial penalties into effect by commencing the clause until there is clear and credible evidence that there is a need to do so to enable the CMA to fulfil its internal market functions under the Bill. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to consult with other relevant persons before making the necessary regulations. I want to confirm that the devolved Administrations would be consulted as other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate, so they do fit within that.
On new clause 2, we are committed to maintaining high standards across the UK. That is absolutely vital. There are effectively two strands of this debate: first, the devolved Administrations; and secondly, concern—understandable concern—about standards. We have said repeatedly that we are committed to maintaining high standards across the UK, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out how we are already working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that this will be done.
I thank the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for their passionate remarks in favour of common frameworks and the high standards that we have here in the UK. The new clause, though, seeks to fundamentally alter the nature of the common frameworks programme, the design of which was agreed by the UK Government and devolved Administrations in October 2017 at the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations. The principles agreed made it clear that the common frameworks are based on consensus and are designed to establish continuing dialogue between the UK Government and devolved Administrations. This dialogue facilitates policy development in a range of policy areas where powers returning from the EU intersect with devolved competence.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire rightly asked what underpins those common frameworks. Common frameworks provide an agreed approach to ensuring regulatory coherence across the UK in specific policy areas where powers are returning from the EU and intersect with devolved competence. The Bill, on the other hand, works alongside these common frameworks to provide a broader structural underpinning, and offers additional protections to the status quo of UK trade, ensuring certainty for businesses and investors in the form of a backstop—if I may say that—of regulatory coherence. The UK Government continue to work closely and constructively with the devolved Administrations. It would not be appropriate to create a legislative underpinning for UK common frameworks because this is about consultation, collaboration and working together with the Administrations rather than legislating to push them to do so.
In conclusion, in the debate we have had today, we started off with some misunderstandings about common frameworks—we have five frameworks coming before Christmas, including for food standards. We have talked about whether water and the national health service were at risk in Scotland, both of which are not within the scope of the Bill. This is really important: when one starts reading the Bill, one has to get to the last page, because that is where the schedule of exclusions is. It is important to do that, before we posture here in this House about something. As I say, businesses are crying out, “Do not do the politics. Let us trade across the UK.” That is what they are crying out for. That is what they want. So I hope that the amendments will be not be pressed and then we can get on with getting this Bill through the House.
Drew Hendry
Mr Evans, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I must admit I am still reeling somewhat from the irony of the Government opposing amendment 29 on the basis of political intrusion.
We have heard today from those who support independence and from those who are diehard Unionists in this Chamber. We have heard the concerns of the Welsh Government. Can I say that it is not a manufactured grievance to have these concerns from the Welsh Government, because they are genuine concerns? But that is true for Scotland, too. These are not manufactured problems; these are real-world problems.
I have to say that the Labour Front-Bench speech was warmly welcomed by those on the Conservative Benches today. The party that brought devolution in—the party of John Smith—undermining devolution in the way it did during that speech deserves some proper reflection.
In this debate, we have heard some warm words, but again, we have had absolutely no detail on how this is actually going to be protecting devolution. It is not. We have had no detail on the Office for the Internal Market. Who is going to be in that unelected body? How can we vouch for the integrity of anybody when we do not know who is going to be on that body and who is going to elect them—or who is going to appoint them, I should say?
The Minister talked about alcohol minimum pricing, which by definition is a discriminatory policy in Scotland. How can that possibly be protected under these measures? It cannot be. If we choose in Scotland and if the Scottish people vote for policies aimed at public health that cause the problem, the Bill still undermines the ability to do that.
The Government are determined to continue with their programme of overriding the Scottish Parliament and its elected representatives, and this underlines the fact that Scotland will never be seen as an equal member of the UK. We do not accept this. The people in Scotland are saying, and it is reported in poll after poll, that the only way to protect our Parliament is to be an independent nation.
Mr Evans, I press our amendment 28.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Will all non-Front Benchers leave the Chamber behind me, please, and then join the queue in Westminster Hall? Remember to socially distance please as you leave. Thank you very much.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you help Back Benchers, please? A number of Back Benchers who wanted to come into the Chamber for this part of tonight’s business were prevented from coming in, and we now have a scenario in which almost the only people in the Chamber are members of the Government and Whips. As I understand it, their plan is to try to distort the votes that may take place on some of the remaining orders, which were originally going to be the subject of deferred Divisions. It seems that, as the business has finished early, the Government are intent on preventing our having a physical Division on some of the remaining orders.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Perhaps I have a better view of the Chamber than he has because I have the advantage of being in the Chair, but it would appear to me that there are several spaces in which Members could sit on the Government Benches and a great many in which Members could sit on the Opposition Benches. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, that if there were too many members of the Government party on the Government Benches, I would not stop Government Members sitting on the Opposition Benches, given the unusual circumstances under which we are now operating.
I have to say that I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. No one can be prevented from coming into this Chamber and—I will say this quite loudly—if there is anyone who feels prevented from coming into the Chamber right now, they should come and see me. People can come into the Chamber right now.
Sir Christopher Chope
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am not sure that there can be anything further to that point of order, but out of courtesy and given the hon. Gentleman’s seniority in the House, I will take his point of order.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
First, there was an attempt physically to stop me coming into the Chamber. When I said that I wished to come into the Chamber to shout “Object”, I was allowed in.
You just said, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are spaces in the Chamber, and so there are, but that was not my point. My point is that while Back Benchers were discouraged or have been kept out of the Chamber, I can count the Government Whips—there are one, two, three on this Bench and four, five, six, seven, eight—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. How many people with particular duties in the House there are sitting in the Chamber is not a point of order. Any Member can sit in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman’s presence in the Chamber is itself evidence of the impracticality and impossibility of any Member—be they a Whip, a Minister or anything else—trying to prevent any Member, but especially a Member with the hon. Gentleman’s seniority, from entering the Chamber. I have just said it and will say it again: if there is any Member out there who feels prevented from coming into the Chamber and wishes to come in, let him or her come in now and I will protect them.
Let us proceed.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are thousands—in fact, tens of thousands—of people who will be observing these proceedings and will have noticed that the Government have contrived to prevent this House of Commons from being able to have a substantive vote on some of the most repressive legislation we have ever seen in our democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and I are but two among many Members who object to what is going on, and all I can say is that revenge is a dish best served cold.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
This really is a point of order for the Chair, because it is incumbent on the occupant of the Chair at any particular given time to decide whether there has to be a physical Division or whether the opinion of the House can be taken on the voices. I decided that the opinion of the House on motion 4 could be taken on the voices, because I could hear a great many more Ayes than Noes. That is my decision, and I will stand by it. If the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in this House had wished to make sure that a deferred Division took place, which would have happened had we reached this point in the proceedings after 7 o’clock, it was open to the hon. Gentleman—who, I know from many years of past experience, is quite capable of keeping the House from discussing a particular subject for many hours—and any other Member to make sure that the previous business did not finish before 7 o’clock.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as to how those of us who sought to record our opposition to this motion as a matter of public record—because of the large number of people who have made representations to us—might actually record the fact that we opposed this motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He has just solved his problem; let it be known that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) oppose motion 4. I note that there are two of them, and that there are a great many others who do not oppose it. I have just explained in my answer to the point of order from the hon. Member for Christchurch that there were very obvious ways in which he and the right hon. Member for New Forest West could have ensured that a vote on motion 4 was taken by way of a deferred Division.
Sir Christopher Chope
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not think there can be any more on this, but I will be fair to the hon. Gentleman and take his point of order.
Sir Christopher Chope
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are absolutely correct in saying that, in normal circumstances, there would have been ways in which we would have been able to ensure that business continued until 7 o’clock, but unfortunately that facility is not available in call list system unless one is on the call list.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am afraid that he is completely wrong. It would have been perfectly in order for Members not on the call list to participate in the proceedings that have just concluded by way of interventions and so on. There are ways in which that could have been done, and I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman, who is more expert than almost any other Member on the use of procedure in this House, could have used the procedure to his advantage had he decided to do so. However, I have taken the decision on the Division on motion 4, so we come to motion 5.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Police
That the draft Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Rehabilitation of Offenders
That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
The increase to the state pension age
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
This is Pension Awareness Week, and I rise this evening to present a petition on behalf of the women of Glasgow East born in the 1950s regarding the state pension inequality perpetuated against my female constituents by successive British Governments. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the state pension age.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Glasgow East Constituency,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences; and further that the coronavirus pandemic and concomitant economic downturn has caused additional hardship to many of the women who were previously affected by these changes to the State Pension Age.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002598]
Michelham Priory
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
This urgent debate is about the viability and future of Michelham Priory, a medieval, historic Sussex feature in my beautiful constituency of Wealden. First, I must place on the record my thanks to Helen Anson and Lindsay Lawrence, two superb women who manage and run Michelham Priory with their hands tied behind their backs by the Environment Agency, whose failure to maintain water flows means that the priory’s moat is now on the brink of being completely lost. The Environment Agency—yet another unaccountable, bureaucratic and faceless body that is both exploiting Michelham Priory and, as I will argue, breaching its obligations—must be held responsible not only for the environmental damage, but the financial damage to the priory, as its lack of action has the priory in absolutely dire straits.
Michelham Priory is situated on a more than nine-acre site. It is designated an ancient monument and contains a grade I listed building that became a country house in the 1930s, homing many young children as they were evacuated from war-torn Britain during the second world war. It is a unique local gem in an area of nature conservation importance and attracts visitors from all across the country. However, it is at imminent risk of being lost forever.
Michelham Priory boasts Britain’s longest continual medieval water-filled moat, which stretches a mile and encircles the site. It is fed by the River Cuckmere and is a crucial factor in determining the atmosphere and tranquillity of the priory, and it is a vital component for weddings and other functions taking place at the priory. However, due to gradual silt deposition and the increasing invasive growth of aquatic plants, the moat has been deteriorating and must be desilted imminently or it will be completely lost. The site is currently run by the Sussex Archaeological Society, which has spent eight long, painful years trying to work with the Environment Agency to address the issues of sluice gates and desilting. Sadly, the Environment Agency has put hurdles in front of the society at every opportunity for eight years.
The Environment Agency is failing in its duty to operate and maintain two water-controlled structures that should let water from the River Cuckmere in and out of the priory moat. It shut the gate on the moat some 20 years ago, and has not been providing silt and water management of the River Cuckmere. That has caused the silting and drying up of the moat, as there is no significant throughflow of water. Cutting the moat off from the water supply from the River Cuckmere means that there is a total loss of water during the summer and autumn months, and currently, the only opportunity for a water supply to the moat is from continuous heavy rainfall. Subsequently, the moat has had its aquatic life decimated, which has damaged a unique natural ecosystem and caused huge regrowth of invasive vegetation.
When the Sussex Archaeological Society approached funding bodies to raise funds to save the moat, and attempt to maintain its listed Historic England status, it found that potential funders needed there to be an effective plan of water management in place. Such a plan would mean that when the moat is fully desilted, people could be assured that silt deposition would not recur in the short term and undermine the charitable objectives of the grant. The Sussex Archaeological Society is more than happy to clear the silt out of the moat, but the fundamental difficulty is that unless the Environment Agency repairs its sluice gates on the moat, the problem will keep recurring. Unless the gates are repaired and fully functional, the desilter would be a waste of the £800,000 needed for silt removal. We are not asking for any funding from any agency; we want the Environment Agency to step up and do its work. Because of the reluctance of the Environment Agency to commit to repairing its sluice gates, the society cannot apply for any financial aid to clear the moat.
The priory also has a unique working water mill—indeed, there has been one on the site since 1255. It is listed with Historic England, which clearly states that it is fed by the River Cuckmere. However, the Environment Agency has refused to acknowledge the priory’s milling rights, choosing to describe a river bypass around the site as the real River Cuckmere. The priory’s researchers have examined historical documents relating to the water mill, and they believe that the priory is entitled to ancient milling rights that are traceable back to the 1400s. Those ancient milling rights state that the priory must be supplied with two feet and nine inches of water, which must be in the moat at all times—they have definitely done their research—but the moat does not receive that water.
Although the Environment Agency has allowed water to be pumped directly from the stream into the moat, calculations show that to replenish the moat in such a way would take more than one month of continuous pumping of water. The mill has been unable to produce flour for sale since 2017, and the society has been unable to fundraise for urgent conservation of the water mill, due to the key component: lack of water. In the unprecedented times in which we find ourselves due to covid, a facility such as the mill is vital. The shortage of flour during spring was noted all over, particularly on television and among our constituents, and I believe even by you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Getting hold of flour was so hard that it became far more expensive than gold, and although we have a functioning mill, it cannot operate because of the Environment Agency.
The gradual loss of the moat has resulted in a loss of nearly £0.5 million of income over three years, due to the decrease in wedding bookings, photoshoots, and filming opportunities. The reduction in income has put the 175-year-old Sussex Archaeological Society at risk of closure. On top of these challenges, it has also had to deal with the pandemic, which has led to a loss of revenue. I argue that the Environment Agency is also responsible for the half a million pound shortfall in income, which is down to its irresponsible behaviour with the priory. The silting up of the moat has also caused the island’s water table to change. The change in levels of soil moisture has led to a gradual drying up of the listed buildings that have stood on the site for centuries. Not only is this causing great damage to the site, it is also resulting in additional maintenance and conservation costs for the society. I say to the Minister that, once again, the Environment Agency is responsible for those costs as well.
To add to the absurdity of the situation, in 2017, the Environment Agency found legislation that it claims meant that the Michelham Priory moat should be classified as a reservoir. So after eight years of negotiation, this is the absurdity that the Environment Agency comes up with. It is preposterous and unacceptable that we now have an empty medieval moat that has had to be classified as a reservoir despite not containing any water. Britain’s longest medieval water-filled moat lies empty because the faceless organisation that is the Environment Agency is unable to fulfil its obligations.
Michelham Priory is a wonderful piece of history and I am proud that Wealden is home to the UK’s longest medieval water-milled moat. It is absolutely vital that the moat is restored and that the water mill is operational again. It is staffed by wonderful people and, of course, by volunteers. The head gardener, James Neil, is incredibly passionate about the work that he does to keep the heritage site thriving and, of course, also oversees all the other volunteers who are exhausted after eight years of negotiations that have led to no responsible action being taken by the Environment Agency.
What is interesting is that the priory and the volunteers are not asking for any funding. They actually have a plan to fix this, but they urgently need to know the Environment Agency’s plans to repair and maintain the two gates in order to obtain the funds needed to desilt the moat and manage it going forward. If the Environment Agency is unable to provide any concrete answers as to why it is unable to address this case, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to get to the bottom of the matter. Why has it taken eight years for no strategy to have been put in place? Why do random people from the Environment Agency turn up at the priory without any understanding of the situation and without any answers as to how they can solve the problem?
I urge the Minister to outline what steps she can take—I appreciate that it is an arm’s length agency—to hold the Environment Agency to account and to ensure that Michelham Priory receives the attention and support it deserves from the Environment Agency. I know that it can be incredibly difficult for a departmental Minister to bring an agency in hand, but this is a critical case for us in Wealden. I hope the Minister understands how important this priory is for us, not because of its social and historical impact, but because of its economic impact on the community that it serves and right across the country—especially in east Sussex. I hope that she can also appreciate the frustration that we feel in east Sussex at having to deal with an agency that has failed to deliver over eight whole years. I hope that she can respond in a positive way to my constituents at the priory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this Adjournment debate and on putting her case very strongly, and rightly so because it is such an important part of her constituency. Michelham Priory is, as she says, a grade I listed building. It is one of our foremost Augustinian priories, with a rich history, stretching back nearly 800 years. With its grade I listing, it boasts Britain’s longest continuous medieval water-filled moat, which is quite something actually, because only 2.5% of England’s 400,000-plus listed buildings are classed as grade I, so it is special.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential that we do what we can to protect the historic environment, including the priory. As she mentions, the Environment Agency over many years has held many meetings with the Sussex Archaeological Society, the owners of the priory, to discuss matters of water management relating to the priory. Those conversations started long before my hon. Friend came to this place. Nevertheless, I understand that a key concern of the Sussex Archaeological Society has been to avoid flooding the priory grounds in the winter and drying out the moat in the summer—something which obviously has deterred the holding of events at the priory, which provide important income for the society. It is the Environment Agency that has to manage the water control structures to reduce that flooding aspect—that is one of the key areas that comes under its hat. Unfortunately, because of the wide expanse of the moat, fed by high flows through channels in the winter, salty river deposits have built up naturally. I have been told that at the moment the moat is 80% filled with silt. That can result in its drying out in the summer months, and there is a risk that the moat will be lost to posterity if it is not looked after, as my hon. Friend says.
To prevent the moat from drying up, in the past, the Environment Agency operated the upstream controls to divert the Cuckmere river into the moat, but that approach created an impassable barrier to fish, so it had to cease. My hon. Friend has not mentioned that then there appeared in the moat a plant called floating pennywort, a non-native invasive species that grows incredibly rapidly and is responsible for swamping waterways, blocking water flow, clogging up water channels, crowding out native plants and taking oxygen from fish and insects. It is not found anywhere else on the Cuckmere river. The landowner, the Sussex Archaeological Society, has a duty to prevent the spread of the infestation, and diverting the river through the moat in the summer months would have increased the chances of the plant’s escaping into the wider river environment. To intentionally do so would be classed as a criminal act. That is one of the big dilemmas of the situation.
Ms Ghani
This is a medieval moat. I do not think the Environment Agency can come up with excuses of potential flooding when the moat has been in place longer than any person of expertise within the Environment Agency. The archaeological society, including the staff I mentioned within the priory, has procedures in place to make sure that no crime is committed. It just needs an understanding from the Environment Agency that it will open the sluice and let the water flow.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, but I think she is slightly missing the point that if one let the water flow, the pennywort would flow out. The pennywort is a real obstacle in the chain of sorting this out, and that is what needs to be addressed.
I have talked very closely with the Environment Agency about this and I do get this point, which needs to be addressed. I would say—and will reiterate as I go through— that I think more conversations need to be held about this, because it is one of the keys to unlocking what I believe my hon. Friend is aiming to achieve.
The Environment Agency is managing the floating pennywort in the moat on the society’s behalf at its own expense because, even confined within the moat, it needs to be reduced. The agency is trying to tackle it, as part of its commitment and duties to conserve the environment and protect the downstream Cuckmere river. I want to be clear that the Environment Agency has duties in respect of the river, but they are very much in terms of protecting the wider environment; that is the agency’s role.
If my hon. Friend would like to discuss these matters further, I have asked the Environment Agency to meet her in order to further that.
Ms Ghani
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. The frustration is that there have been meetings over eight years—eight whole years during which the priory has been and is absolutely committed to working with the Environment Agency, taking on board any of the financial implications of desilting, and managing the plants; but the Environment Agency has not come up with a plan. How many more meetings can I expect them to have, after eight years have delivered nothing from the agency?
Rebecca Pow
I am not surprised—this is the case that my hon. Friend has been making since the beginning. As she says, for the moat to be reinstated to a healthier and more resilient condition, the pennywort needs sorting out and the silt needs removing. Environment Agency staff have offered advice to the Sussex Archaeological Society about methods of silt removal and suggested efficient ways of dealing with the silt that could reduce the cost of the operation. They also offered to help with obtaining the permit to do the work, which obviously has to be achieved.
Rebecca Pow
The Environment Agency has suggested that the Sussex Archaeological Society can abstract 20,000 litres of water a day from the adjacent Cuckmere river channel without a permit, which would provide a source of water other than the rainfall that is naturally filling up the moat. That is another offer that the Environment Agency made.
I understand that the society was developing a plan for the priory site that was to include restoration of the moat, alongside other conservation repair work, and I know that it has been working hard on that. Understandably, the full project has not yet come through because of the difficulties of the current pandemic. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, funding of the Sussex Archaeological Society is not within my portfolio, but I understand that the society has recently received funding, including a business resilience grant from the national lottery to fund an operations manager post for 18 months and £250,000 through the heritage emergency fund. An application has also been made to the culture recovery fund for a grant of almost £500,000, which is being assessed, with the decision expected next month. That all comes under the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport rather than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but all that funding is potentially in the pipeline.
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns that any plan the Sussex Archaeological Society makes depends on the Environment Agency’s own plans for managing river flows and the environment, so I have asked the Environment Agency to keep working constructively with the society. I gather that many of the faces in the society have changed recently, so that might offer a chink of hope for future progress. I should note that the Environment Agency has its own duties that have to be considered when developing these plans, but I am confident that an acceptable solution can eventually be found.
The water environment is under pressure. It has been heavily affected by human activity, including abstraction, pollution and historical modifications. That pressure will only build as the climate changes and with the demands of the growing population, and we all have a role to play to try to limit the impact. Our 25-year environment plan sets out our commitment to protect our environment and how we will do that, to ensure that we have not only a resilient water environment but an environment which supports the activities that depend on it. The Environment Bill, which I hope will return to Parliament shortly, will build on that and help us to improve the environment.
Finally, I encourage the Sussex Archaeological Society to continue to work constructively. I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration, but she is clearly doing a good job in getting on the case, and I urge her to continue that. She spoke eloquently and, in fact, fairly starkly, but I expect nothing less. I have asked the Environment Agency to keep up these talks. They have been ongoing for eight years, but it is important that we highlight the issue of the floating pennywort, which clearly has to be addressed before anything else can be sorted out.
I am interested in the mill. My hon. Friend should pursue the issue of the gate repair and have some conversations about that, but she will find that there is a good response on that, as it is linked to the pennywort. I also encourage the society to work with other local interest groups and potential partners to find some imaginative solutions to the challenging issue of managing this moat in what is clearly a wonderful grade I listed historic property. On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave you with the image of the moat and the priory, and I thank my hon. Friend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Chris Elmore |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) | Chris Elmore |
Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) | Patrick Grady |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) | Chris Elmore |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) | Sammy Wilson |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
James Grundy (Leigh) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Judith Cummins |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Chris Elmore |
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) | Cat Smith |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Zarah Sultana |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) | Wendy Chamberlain |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Chris Elmore |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Chris Elmore |
Henry Smith (Crawley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
This draft statutory instrument is made under powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed at the end of the transition period. As hon. Members are aware, we have conducted intensive work to ensure that a well-functioning legislative and regulatory regime for transport continues. In this case, the regime covers the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail.
This instrument uses powers under the 2018 Act. It is subject to the affirmative procedure, because it transfers an European Union legislative function to a public authority in Great Britain in that it gives the Secretary of State power to derogate from the standards set in three international agreements concerning the carriage of dangerous goods by road, rail and, to a lesser extent, inland waterways through the issuing of domestic exceptions to those agreements. This instrument also ensures that bodies that inspect transportable pressure equipment in Great Britain continue to be able to perform inspection activities for such equipment on the non-EU market through the introduction of a new, optional, UK-only compliance mark.
The regime for the transport of dangerous goods in the UK derives from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe model regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods. For road transport, since 1968 that has been implemented in the UK through our being a signatory to the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road, known as ADR. Thus, the UK is committed to the ongoing implementation of the requirements of that agreement, which predates our EU membership. ADR does not automatically have legal force and is now implemented in the EU by the dangerous goods directive of 2008.
The EU also introduced the related directive on transportable pressure equipment in 2010, which mandates the requirement for such equipment to have access to and free movement within the European market. Those directives are applied domestically through the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009, as amended.
For the rail transport of dangerous goods, the UK is also a signatory to the convention concerning international carriage by rail—COTIF—and predecessor conventions since 1980. The convention falls under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail. The regulations concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail, or RID, form part of COTIF. As with ADR, the dangerous goods directive implements RID in the EU, and the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations, as amended, implement its requirements domestically.
A number of powers and requirements in the directives are predicated on the UK being a member state of the EU. This draft instrument will ensure that Great Britain continues to work to the same requirements and standards in the carriage of dangerous goods at the end of the transition period, providing legal certainty for the participants.
The carriage of dangerous goods is devolved to Northern Ireland, so this instrument will ensure that transportable pressure equipment assessed in Northern Ireland in accordance with the transportable pressure equipment directive continues to be recognised in Great Britain through acceptance of the UK’s NI mark. That implements the requirement of the Northern Ireland protocol relating to unfettered access of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s position on this important draft statutory instrument.
Clearly, safety must come first when goods such as petrol, chemicals and other dangerous materials are transported. Indeed, many tankers and other vehicles pass through densely populated areas. This happens in my constituency, in roads and rail links through Reading, Woodley and Caversham, and in many other parts of this country.
Drivers may also be at risk if there is an accident. Indeed, many drivers spend a great deal of time training how to transport goods such as petrol and chemicals and how to respond to an accident, should one occur. In addition, hazardous goods often pass through environmentally sensitive areas where any spillage could cause significant damage.
As a result, this is clearly an important regulation. As such, it deserves the full attention of parliamentarians, no matter how tempting it may be for the Government to rush through legislation to change laws in the face of the looming Brexit deadline, ongoing negotiation deadlines and political pressure. We must not, as parliamentarians, allow our standards to slip.
As the Government move to transpose EU regulations into UK law, I will use this opportunity to reiterate the importance of maintaining our high standards, and the need to keep workplaces, the environment and our roads and railways safe. On safety at work, we need the full translation of legislation in order to maintain standards and provide clarity for the sectors that urgently need it. I appreciate that that seems to be the intention today. Workers and industry bodies have called for this.
It is paramount that people at work should be safe, and there are some specific protections in this industry. The petroleum driver passport should be safeguarded. This critical standard, which was hard fought for, protects health and safety, and it ensures high quality in fuel delivery. I urge the Government to work with industry bodies and trade unions to identify similar crucial standards and to move to protect them in UK law. It is not clear from the draft of the SI whether that is the case in this instance.
A number of trade unions have raised concerns with me that regulations covering construction, testing and packaging of intermediate bulk containers, large packaging tanks and bulk containers, which are all currently linked to European standards, are potentially subject to change from 2021. I would ask the Minister, who is very diligent, to take this opportunity to reassure the Committee that future regulations will ensure safety on these matters.
It is also worth pointing out some of the background to this. Surveys of those working in the haulage industry shows that many drivers already work with high levels of tiredness and exhaustion. Given those existing conditions, I believe it is paramount that standards are not allowed to fall, especially when it comes to dangerous goods, which we are discussing today.
In the past, the Government have refused to rule out suspending regulations in order to overcome potential Brexit difficulties, rather like those mentioned in today’s press. Some Members may have seen the report in The Guardian today about the possibility of 7,000 lorries being held up at the border. Again, I ask the Minister to reassure the Committee that she is willing to continue these sensible regulations.
It is also worth mentioning that the industry does not want to see these important standards reduced either. For example, British Aerosol Manufacturers’ Association stresses that current legislation is complex and detailed precisely because this complexity allows for the regulation to guarantee public safety, and the Government should not take shortcuts when it comes to moving these regulations into UK law. Similarly, the Institute of Explosives Engineers also points out that there are currently specific considerations for the transfer of information between the UK and EU bodies. There is a range of similar areas, and I hope the Minister will reassure the Committee that her team and the Department are still considering these matters, and that we will have further reassurance.
More broadly, it is worth noting that EU regulations have played an important role in raising environmental standards in the UK. Friends of the Earth has concluded:
“Through laws, constant pressure and the threat of fines, the EU has been the main force driving the UK government to clean up its act.”
That is across a broad sweep of environmental measures, dealing with beaches, various forms of emissions and hazardous goods.
The Government must demonstrate their commitment to protecting the environment by guaranteeing existing rules in UK law, not merely by making promises. I hope the Minister will agree these issues are of great significance, and if we are to make progress on public work and environmental safety in years to come, we must first guarantee the progress we have already made.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Member for Reading East very much for his comments and will now respond to his points. He highlights the importance of safety in the carriage of dangerous goods in both his constituency and many others. I am sure that every hon. Member here agrees with that and will be glad to see this draft SI pass into law to ensure just that outcome.
It is important that the regulations are passed, because they will achieve the protection of our environment in relation to such matters. As I have laid out, this SI ensures that GB continues to work to the same standards and requirements. I have been very clear throughout that that is the case, and Members are supporting the SI.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns from some stakeholders, and I want to reassure him that we work closely with stakeholders, including the UK liquefied petroleum gas industry and the fuel tanker working group. In preparation for the SI, we issued a public consultation in 2018, and we received seven responses from industry. They did not raise any concerns about our approach, but they did influence the subsequent drafting. We continue to listen to industry on all matters on which the Government legislate. I hope that this explanation provides the assurance that the hon. Gentleman is looking for that we work with industry and we take its concerns seriously.
In conclusion, this statutory instrument is essential to ensure that we continue to have an effective regulatory framework for the carriage of dangerous goods following the transition period. I hope that the Committee has found this sitting informative and that it will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Professional Qualifications and Services (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Professional Qualifications and Services (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure, Ms Eagle, to serve under your chairmanship. I will give a brief overview of the rationale behind the regulations, which relate to the recognition of professional qualifications and the provision of services. They form part of the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period.
As members of the Committee know, the Government have signed agreements with the EU, the three European economic area and European Free Trade Association states, and Switzerland. They contain arrangements regarding the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The agreements include provisions that protect the rights of EEA and Swiss nationals living and frontier working in the UK, and vice versa. The regulations will give effect to certain provisions in the agreements relating to the recognition of professional qualifications—or RPQ, as I will now refer to them—that are held by EEA and Swiss nationals. By doing so, the regulations will ensure that the decisions made by UK regulators to recognise the professional qualifications of EEA and Swiss nationals before the end of the transition period will be grandfathered after the end of the transition period. Such individuals will be able to continue to practise their profession in the UK. The regulations also make various changes to the domestic framework for RPQ and services, including in respect of regulations made in anticipation of EU exit, which will ensure that they function effectively after the transition period.
I can tell the Committee that professionals from the EU make a significant contribution to the public and private sectors in the United Kingdom. Between 2007 and 2016, the UK gave 148,000 recognition decisions to EU professionals. I will also remind the Committee of the background to RPQ. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications system is derived from EU law. It allows UK professionals to get their qualifications recognised in the EEA and Switzerland, and vice versa, with minimal barriers. Across the whole of the EEA and Switzerland, there are approximately 570 different professions under the system.
After the transition period, the EU system will cease to apply to the United Kingdom. Last year, in preparation for the UK leaving the EU, the Government made various RPQ EU exit regulations to amend the domestic law that implements the current EU system for RPQ, in order to fix deficiencies caused by exit. The existing EU exit regulations include provisions that protect recognition decisions already made, allow applications for recognition submitted before exit day to be concluded after exit day, allow providers of temporary and occasional service one year from exit day to complete their service provision, and retain aspects of the recognition system to provide a route for certain EEA and Swiss qualification holders to apply for recognition of their qualifications after exit day.
I should say that the retention of part of the existing recognition system is not covered by the agreements with the EU, EEA or Switzerland, or by these new regulations, but it forms part of the Government’s plans to ensure that the UK is prepared to leave the single market. The Government have decided that the system should remain in place temporarily after the transition period in the event that there are no satisfactory arrangements from the EU free trade agreement negotiations.
I shall move on to explain how the regulations will implement the RPQ provisions of the agreements to which I referred earlier. The agreements contain similar but slightly different provisions from those contained in the existing RPQ provisions. These new regulations will make amendments to EU exit regulations introduced by my Department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to give full effect to the RPQ terms of the agreements.
That is because the agreements were finalised after the existing EU exit legislation was passed. The provisions in these regulations relating to the agreements will protect recognition decisions made before the end of the transition period, allow applications for recognition submitted before the end of the transition period to be concluded, ensure that UK regulators co-operate with their EEA and Swiss counterparts to facilitate the completion of applications ongoing at the end of the transition period, and ensure that professionals whose professional qualifications are recognised are treated on the same basis as UK nationals.
In respect only of Switzerland, these regulations give effect to provisions in the Swiss agreement that provide for a longer transition period for certain individuals. In particular, they will allow a further four-year period for certain Swiss nationals to apply for recognition under current EU rules, and allow certain Swiss service providers to continue to provide their services in accordance with their contract for up to five years after the end of the transition period.
The RPQ provisions of the agreements will be reciprocated by EU member states, the EEA/EFTA states and Switzerland respectively. I remind hon. Members that these regulations do not cover certain legal or health care provisions, which are being covered in separate statutory instruments.
To ensure the frameworks for RPQ and services function as intended after the transition period, these regulations will also make various other changes, which can be separated into four categories. First, retained treaty rights in respect of RPQ will be disapplied. These are overarching rights derived from the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and the EEA agreement in respect of free movement of workers, and retained treaty rights for RPQ derived from the Swiss free movement of persons agreement. After the transition period, the default position is that these rights will become retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. These regulations disapply these treaty rights insofar as they relate to RPQ, to ensure legal clarity about the post-transition period system for recognition of EEA and Swiss qualifications.
Secondly, a retained delegated regulation on ski instructors’ qualifications and two delegated decisions that update annexes to the EU directive on RPQ will have no practical effect in the UK after the transition period. These regulations will therefore revoke them to tidy up the statute book. Thirdly, these regulations will make minor corrections to RPQ EU exit regulations and technical amendments, with references to exit day changed to IP completion day in the existing RPQ and service EU exit regulations. This will be done so that the regulations will function effectively after the end of the transition period.
Lastly, consequential amendments and a minor correction to a transposition error will be made to the 2015 EU RPQ regulations. I should point out to colleagues at this stage that the UK regulators have been consulted on an informal basis throughout the process of developing RPQ EU exit legislation and these regulations.
To conclude, I reiterate that these regulations are vital to the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. It is imperative that they are made so that professionals and businesses are equipped to be ready for the end of the transition period. I commend these regulations to the Committee and look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive summary of the regulations. We recognise that the instrument before us is technical in nature and that its purpose is—somewhat refreshingly, I have to say, given the events of recent days—to ensure that specific provisions of the withdrawal agreement are given effect. As such, we will not seek to divide the Committee this afternoon, and I do not wish to detain Members any longer than I have to. However, I wish to put two brief points to the Minister. Hopefully he can provide his thoughts on both.
The first is a general point relating to certainty. As with so much of the secondary legislation that the Government have introduced of late, the instrument we are being asked to approve is presented in essence as a contingency piece of legislation. The Minister spoke about the temporary nature of many of the regulations and how they are given effect. However, with just 15 weeks remaining until the end of the transition period, it is becoming increasingly hard to view these regulations as such.
I know that I do not need to tell the Minister about the benefits that flow from professional qualifications, in terms of driving up standards of practice, giving confidence to UK employees and consumers, and improving contracts for workers. I know, too, that he is well aware of how many UK professionals depend on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications across the European economic area, the implications for their jobs and livelihoods should the Government not secure an adequate replacement framework by 31 December, and the impact of such an outcome on an area in which the UK enjoys a significant comparative advantage.
However, the UK, EU and Swiss professionals affected still await more information from the Government on their vision for a future recognition framework, and their frustration at its absence cannot be overstated. With just over 100 days remaining, all they have to go on at present is the commitments set out in the legally non-binding political declaration and in the withdrawal agreement, the permanence of which, as he knows, Ministers have called into question over recent days. I do not expect the Minister to comment on ongoing negotiations, but can he today provide those professionals affected with some comfort, and confirm that the Government are intent on securing a long-term agreement in this area that will provide for their future jobs and livelihoods?
The second point relates to the involvement of those professionals in a dialogue about the replacement framework that the Government are seeking to secure. The Minister’s Department launched its public consultation on the recognition of professional qualifications on 25 August, just 21 days ago. We obviously welcome the fact that consultation is taking place, but will he tell the Committee why it took so long for the Government to initiate it? That also begs the obvious question: if the Government are only now discovering what those who stand to be affected want to see negotiated to replace the current arrangements, what has shaped the Government’s negotiating position in this area to date? With the consultation due to close as late as October, it is difficult not to view the exercise as little more than window dressing. I hope he can reassure me on that point.
I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to reassure professionals and businesses here in the UK and in the EU not only that the Government remain committed to securing an efficient and robust mutual recognition system that will enable our talented professionals to operate in the EEA and Switzerland, as they have done for so many years, but that their views will continue to shape what is being fought for in the negotiations.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the shadow Minister for his support today and members of the Committee for listening so intently. Let me conclude by emphasising that the changes in these regulations are essential for precisely the reason that the hon. Member has just pointed out: the importance to the UK economy of professional services. We are committed to protecting citizens who benefit from rights under the agreements, many of whom make valuable contributions to the UK workforce, and we are absolutely committed to negotiating in good faith to ensure that we conclude a deal.
Although these regulations are mainly focused on protecting existing rights and not, obviously, future arrangements, it is important that the regulations make changes to ensure that the UK’s existing EU exit regulatory framework for RPQ and services function effectively at the end of the transition period. If the rights were not disapplied, they could be used to undermine the provisions of the RPQ EU exit legislation, potentially leading to legal challenges.
It is worth noting that the continuation of the recognition system after the end of the transition period is a temporary measure. Obviously, the future RPQ policy will depend on the outcome of the negotiations. I can give the hon. Gentleman one guarantee: we will negotiate in good faith and want this to work, and the outcomes in this area should be a win-win for both sides.
The call for evidence that the Department is currently conducting, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is quite important. I work with the sector all the time. I co-chair the professional business services council, and I know how valuable that engagement is from both sides. The call for evidence is helping us both to gain insight on what our approach should be for the future recognition of professional qualifications from other countries and to consider our approach to the regulation of professions more broadly. To close, I underline once more that these regulations are a vital part of the Government’s preparations for the end of transition period, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
draft Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) REGULATIONS 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I recognise that it is very hot in here, so Members are more than welcome to remove their jackets. Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing. Please make sure that you sit in the spaces that are clearly marked out. I also have a shout out for Hansard, who would be very grateful if you sent any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, for, I think, the very first time. I will do my best to observe social distancing, which is something the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ogmore, should not find too challenging, given the numbers on his side. This is a narrow, technical matter, so I will not detain the Committee for long.
The regulations do not create any new powers but simply clarify which courts and tribunals will hear matters that may arise as a consequence of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. SAMLA gives powers to the UK Government to designate certain people or organisations to be subject to sanctions, the consequences of which may include a travel ban on coming to the United Kingdom. It is conceivable that the people to whom that sanction is applied may already be in the United Kingdom, in which case they may wish to appeal against that decision on two grounds. They may wish to appeal against, first, the imposition of the sanction itself or, secondly, their removal from the territory of the United Kingdom.
The regulations simply clarify that, in challenging the sanction, the matter will be heard by either the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. However, the immigration aspect of such a removal from the territory, which they may say breaches their human rights under the European convention on human rights, will be heard by an immigration tribunal as is currently the case. The regulations therefore simply clarify which court the subject may go to and the jurisdiction used in such matters of appeal. If, on the one hand, they are appealing against the imposition of a sanction, it will be the High Court or the Court of Session. On the other hand, if they are appealing against their removal, they will go to the first-tier tribunal, as would happen with any normal immigration case.
We envisage fairly small numbers of cases because most people to whom international sanctions are applied tend to be outside the United Kingdom to start with, but the regulations provide helpful clarification as to which court or tribunal should handle each case. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, for the first time after your many distinguished years in the Opposition Whips Office. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations and for his understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax is unable to travel to Westminster to be here because a member of her household is awaiting covid test results. I say to the Minister that I might be lonely on the Opposition side of this Committee, but Labour Whips are never lonely, as Mrs Cummins knows.
The official Opposition welcome the regulations, which seek to ensure clarity when considering the human rights or protection claims of those subject to travel bans and sanctions under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We support the continued commitment of the UK to remain a resolute and robust actor against human rights abuses perpetrated by states and entities as legislated under the Act.
Given the seriousness of the alleged crimes of some of those subject to recent asset freezes and travel bans, including high-ranking Myanmar generals involved in the heinous crimes committed against the Rohingya population and Russian nationals involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, it is important that we can and do apply those sanctions.
However, as the Minister said, it is also crucial that domestic sanctions do not undermine fundamental rights or interfere with our obligations under the refugee convention. We recognise that such cases are likely to be limited in number, but it is vital that we delineate the process for legal challenge and clearly set out the boundaries, so that we can keep the immigration consequences of the sanction separate from the challenge of the sanction itself. We feel that the draft SI reflects that approach, and we support its aims. We note, however, that the clarity in the SI was asked for, and promised by Ministers, to coincide with the consideration in Committee, in the Lords, of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It is somewhat overdue.
I simply ask the Minister to confirm that where we have a legal process, as outlined in the regulations, with entirely appropriate and defined roles for legal representatives, those who undertake the work will not be deemed “activist lawyers”, as recently happened to those who simply sought to ensure that there was due diligence, and that legal obligations with respect to immigration cases were upheld by the Home Office. I hope that the Minister can reflect on that point, and I repeat that we will not oppose the regulations.
Chris Philp
I shall be brief and avoid detaining the Committee on the wider issues. I extend my good wishes to the hon. Member for Halifax and her family and hope that they are safe and well, and I wish her a safe return to the House with all speed.
I will comment briefly on legal proceedings in immigration matters, because they are not strictly relevant to the regulations. We find that repeated, last-minute, and essentially vexatious claims are submitted with the purpose in mind of frustrating the removal of people who should not be in the country, including dangerous foreign national offenders. Such claims are often wholly without merit, and they are often submitted, intentionally at the very last minute, before they can be given proper consideration by a court—often late at night or in the early hours of the morning—and a judge may feel that there is no option but to suspend a removal or deportation pending proper consideration of the claim, even though it is subsequently found to have no merit.
That, in my view, is an abuse of process. The Government in no way condone it, and, as I said on the Floor of the House in response to an urgent question on 2 September, we are exploring legislation in that area, to make sure that the legal system is not abused as I just described. That is not directly relevant to the regulations, which I continue to commend to the Committee. I thank the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Ogmore, for his support in this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 15th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 September 2020 - (15 Sep 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Order. I hate to break up the party, but we have work to do. I understand that we will try to get through the Bill today. It was not my decision; it was was yours. It will be about 110° in this room this afternoon, so there is plenty of incentive to crack on. Gentlemen colleagues, please remove your jackets if you wish, because it is very hot. I really encourage you to do so—if I sit with you in the Tea Room and you have not removed your jacket, it could be a rather unpleasant experience for all of us.
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance; I shall intervene, if necessary, to remind everyone. I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but please do consume water. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room; it shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.
Without further ado, I call the shadow Minister. [Interruption.] Sorry, I have done something wrong. Do you want to move amendment 81, which has already been debated?
The Chair
We shall move on to amendment 126. This is a strong start from your Chair.
Clause 35
Financial assistance: powers of Secretary of State
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 35, page 23, line 44, at end insert—
“(j) the gathering of scientific data relating to fishing, including but not limited to carrying out stock assessments, vessel monitoring and recording fishing catches.
(k) the promotion of fishery products to consumers;
(l) the commissioning of boats of less than 10 metres in length if such boats are allocated increased catch and effort quotas;
(m) the decommissioning of boats of less than 10 metres in length if such boats are allocated reduced catch and effort quotas.”
This amendment would enable financial assistance to be provided in England for scientific data collection, for the promotion of fishery products to consumers, and for the commissioning or decommissioning of boats whose catch and effort quotas are changed.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 127, in schedule 6, page 72, line 8, at end insert—
“(j) the gathering of scientific data relating to fishing, including but not limited to carrying out stock assessments, vessel monitoring and recording fishing catches.
(k) the promotion of fishery products to consumers;
(l) the commissioning of boats of less than 10 metres in length if such boats are allocated increased catch and effort quotas;
(m) the decommissioning of boats of less than 10 metres in length if such boats are allocated reduced catch and effort quotas.”
This amendment would enable financial assistance to be provided in Scotland for scientific data collection, for the promotion of fishery products to consumers, and for the commissioning or decommissioning of boats whose catch and effort quotas are changed.
Amendment 128, in schedule 6, page 73, line 8, at end insert—
“(j) the gathering of scientific data relating to fishing, including but not limited to carrying out stock assessments, vessel monitoring and recording fishing catches.
(k) the promotion of fishery products to consumers;
(l) the commissioning of boats of less than 10 metres in length if such boats are allocated increased catch and effort quotas;
(m) the decommissioning of boats of less than 10 metres in length if such boats are allocated reduced catch and effort quotas.”
This amendment would enable financial assistance to be provided in Wales for scientific data collection, for the promotion of fishery products to consumers, and for the commissioning or decommissioning of boats whose catch and effort quotas are changed.
Amendment 129, in schedule 6, page 74, line 8, at end insert—
“(j) the gathering of scientific data relating to fishing, including but not limited to carrying out stock assessments, vessel monitoring and recording fishing catches.
(k) the promotion of fishery products to consumers;
(l) the commissioning of boats of less than 10 metres in length if such boats are allocated increased catch and effort quotas;
(m) the decommissioning of boats of less than 10 metres in length if such boats are allocated reduced catch and effort quotas.”
This amendment would enable financial assistance to be provided in Northern Ireland for scientific data collection, for the promotion of fishery products to consumers, and for the commissioning or decommissioning of boats whose catch and effort quotas are changed.
Stephanie Peacock
Amendments 126 to 129 concern the provision of financial assistance for scientific data collection and the commissioning and decommissioning of boats if quota allocations change.
Clause 35 creates new powers for the Secretary of State to make grants or loans to the fishing and aquaculture industries. When the UK was part of the EU, funding was provided by the European maritime and fisheries fund. Labour welcomes the provisions in the Bill that allow for grant and loan schemes to be established for England following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, in order to replicate the breadth of what we can currently be funded for under the EMFF. The funding will go beyond what is currently allowed under the Fisheries Act 1981 to allow financial assistance for the protection and improvement of the marine and aquatic environment; the promotion, development or reorganisation of commercial fish activities; health and safety training; economic development or social improvement in areas where commercial fish or aquaculture activities are carried out; improving the arrangements for catch or effort quotas; and the promotion of recreational fishing.
However, we would like to include within the purposes listed under clause 35 the provision of financial assistance for the purpose of scientific data collection. The EMFF supported the common fisheries policy through the collection and management of data to improve scientific knowledge. We would ask that the new UK funding scheme supports sustainable fisheries management through the provision of financial assistance for scientific data collection. Our amendments put the gathering of scientific data on a par with the other purposes for which the Secretary of State can provide financial assistance.
The Opposition have made it clear that sustainability must be at the heart of the UK’s fisheries policy as we leave the CFP. The amendments make provision to provide the funding necessary to carry out stock assessments, vessel monitoring and recording of fish catches, among other things. That is important for protecting the future of our marine environment and for the fishing industry itself, and it can be achieved only if appropriate scientific data are gathered.
As has been mentioned throughout the debate on the Bill, we are making fisheries management decisions and policy with a data deficit. Right now, we do not know the status of three of the UK’s 15 main fish stocks, which has meant that we cannot market much of the fish caught in UK waters as sustainable. That has an impact not just on the Marine Stewardship Council’s certification, but on consumer confidence in fish from UK waters.
In addition to the collection of scientific data, the Opposition would like to include within the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State can provide financial assistance the commissioning and decommissioning of boats if quota allocations change. That would help fishers invest in new gear, boats and the hiring of more crew if their quotas increased. Funding for help for under-10 metre boats to be decommissioned in the event of reduced catch and effort quotas would be very welcome to coastal communities, which know all too well the sight of abandoned boats lying marooned on the shore. Has the Minister considered a new system to support new boats being put to sea or existing boats being taken out of service in response to movements in quota value? If an increase in quota is available in a specific area, we cannot simply magic boats out of the air from nearby ports to take advantage of it. Similarly, if a port’s fleet loses quota through negotiations, fishers and boat owners will need support to redeploy.
If the Government will not support the amendments, it calls into question their previous commitment to a sustainable marine environment and the future of the fishing industry. I therefore urge the Government to match their rhetoric with action and support the amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The amendments are not necessary, because the Bill sets out the purposes that can be funded, not specific activities related to those purposes, which provides the flexibility to fund a wide range of activities, even if they are not mentioned directly. A scheme providing for financial assistance will be set up via an affirmative statutory instrument, and it will be in that regulation that the details and activities of financial support will be set out. I look forward to discussing that SI and the specific activities when, in due course, it is laid.
Having given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 35, page 23, line 44, at end insert—
“(j) The provision and maintenance of terrestrial or marine infrastructure involved in commercial fishing or aquaculture activities.”
This amendment would allow for financial assistance to be used for the provision or maintenance of landside infrastructure, such as ports and market facilities, involved in supporting the operations of commercial fish or aquaculture activities in England.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 135, in schedule 6, page 72, line 8, at end insert—
“(j) The provision and maintenance of terrestrial or marine infrastructure involved in commercial fishing or aquaculture activities.”
This amendment would allow for financial assistance to be used for the provision or maintenance of landside infrastructure, such as ports and market facilities, involved in supporting the operations of commercial fishing or aquaculture activities in Scotland..
Amendment 136, in schedule 6, page 73, line 8, at end insert—
“(j) The provision and maintenance of terrestrial or marine infrastructure involved in commercial fishing or aquaculture activities.”
This amendment would allow for financial assistance to be used for the provision or maintenance of landside infrastructure, such as ports and market facilities, involved in supporting the operations of commercial fishing or aquaculture activities in Wales.
Amendment 137, in schedule 6, page 74, line 8, at end insert—
“(j) The provision and maintenance of terrestrial or marine infrastructure involved in commercial fishing or aquaculture activities.”
This amendment would allow for financial assistance to be used for the provision or maintenance of landside infrastructure, such as ports and market facilities, involved in supporting the operations of commercial fishing or aquaculture activities in Northern Ireland.
Stephanie Peacock
Amendments 134 to 137 also relate to the new powers the Bill gives the Secretary of State to make grants or loans to the fishing and aquaculture industry. They would allow fishing ports to bid for grants from any new domestic fisheries fund. The overwhelming majority of fishing ports are currently not eligible to apply to the domestic fisheries fund, which covers the transition period. If that is not fixed, it will be a significant problem for the industry.
We have spoken at length in this Committee about the importance of UK ports. Our ports are hubs of regional and national connectivity. They are the foundation of UK fisheries and wider marine management. Sadly, however, many are struggling to remain financially viable.
I again voice my opposition to the Government’s decision to remove the jobs and coastal communities clause from the Bill, which would have better supported UK ports. Because ports play an important part in supply chains, it is important that they receive the financial support they need to make long-term investment in infrastructure to support the UK fishing industry. With the support of the British Ports Association, we are calling on the Government to include landside infrastructure, such as ports and market facilities, within the purposes listed in clause 35, for which the Secretary of State may give financial assistance.
In 2017, research conducted by the BPA found that two thirds of fishing ports’ working quays needed maintenance or repair work, and 75% of markets and auctions needed modest or significant repairs or upgrades. The covid-19 pandemic has been particularly harmful for a number of ports and market facilities. Many small harbours, markets and auction sites have struggled to remain viable. Repair costs can run to millions of pounds, but at this point in time conducting vital maintenance or repair work is no longer an option. We need to better support the landside infrastructure on which our UK fishing industry relies.
It is important to note that under the European maritime and fisheries fund, 72% of UK ports have received funding to enable the expansion of new services or facilities. That funding has been crucial in driving and refreshing port capacity, including fuel and ice plants. The amendments would allow a domestic continuation scheme to support harbours and landside infrastructure under the proposed post-Brexit fisheries regime.
I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Victoria Prentis
The scope of clause 35 is already wide enough to include the activities suggested. Subsection (1) sets out priorities that can be funded, not specific activities, which provides sufficient flexibility to fund a wide range of activities, including the provision and maintenance of infrastructure related to the catching and aquaculture sectors, even if they are not directly mentioned.
I take issue with some of what the hon. Lady said about support for coastal communities. We have really expanded the funding powers in the Bill, which will enable financial support for port infrastructure work, such as work to improve catch processing and safety facilities.
Having given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I understand what the Minister has said. However, further to the points I have made, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 35, page 24, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) require the Secretary of State, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.
(4A) In subsection (4)(c) ‘specified’ means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—
(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;
(b) the amount of the financial assistance;
(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.
(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
This amendment allows financial assistance schemes to include requirements to publish information about financial assistance given under the scheme.
Victoria Prentis
The amendments provide that any future financial assistance schemes made under the Secretary of State’s funding power in clause 35 or the devolved Administrations’ funding powers in schedule 6 could include a requirement to publish data about the assistance given. The amendments also enable us to be more explicit about the potential design of a future scheme. This makes clear to future applicants the limited types of information that we could seek to publish as part of such a scheme.
The amendments should not be taken to imply that, in their absence, we could not do that anyway under the General Data Protection Regulation. The provision has also been drafted so that it cannot require publication of information that would be contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018. The power has been extended to the DAs at their request, and I commend it to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
As the Minister outlined, these are technical amendments, so the Opposition are happy to support them. I would just like to ask why the measures were not included in the original Bill and why they are now proposed as Government amendments. Obviously, when this happens, there is less time to consider the implications.
Victoria Prentis
The reason why the amendment was not in the original Bill is that we do not think these powers are necessary to comply with GDPR, but we think that the introduction of this provision ensures consistency. It is a mirroring provision to the Agriculture Bill. We thought that this belt-and-braces approach would be clearer and more transparent for people reading the Bills in the future to understand.
Amendment 54 agreed to.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 35, page 24, line 20, at end insert—
“(5A) The scheme shall be open to statutory harbour authorities.”
This amendment would ensure that all statutory harbour authorities are eligible for financial assistance under the scheme, regardless of ownership.
This amendment relates to the amendments I spoke about earlier. It would ensure that all statutory harbour authorities were eligible for financial assistance under the new domestic funding scheme that replaces the EMFF. As I outlined, we all acknowledge and have spoken at length about the importance of UK ports. Under the current arrangements, the majority of our ports would not be able to apply to the domestic fund. If we seriously want our fishing industry to thrive and grow in the long term, that will require investments in the infrastructure on which the industry relies. However, our smaller harbours, markets and auction sites have been unable even to consider the long-term investments that they will need while they have been worried about the day-to-day viability of their businesses during the pandemic. Never mind investments for the future; many vital maintenance and repair works for today have no longer been an option for many operators.
I know that the Government share our ambition for the sector to grow, but that rhetorical ambition needs to be matched by providing the structures and support to ensure that it can be achieved. That includes ensuring that all our statutory harbour authorities are eligible for financial assistance under the new domestic funding schemes that replace the EMFF. With the support of the British Ports Association, I ask the Government to support the amendment.
Victoria Prentis
There is a bit of history here, Sir Charles. I am aware that the strict eligibility rules under the domestic maritime and fisheries fund in England, which opened to applications in 2019, excluded harbour authorities. That scheme was delivered using Exchequer funding, and during the transition period we have had to comply with European state aid rules. In future, we will not be bound by the EU state aid regime, and we will take our own view on the need for funding for UK infrastructure, including that owned by harbour authorities. The clause provides flexibility for all legal entities, including harbour authorities, to be eligible for financial assistance. Details of future schemes will be contained in subsequent regulations, which, as I said earlier, will be voted on under the affirmative procedure. I therefore think the amendment is unnecessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I hear what the Minister says. I understood this to be a great opportunity to put it into law now, but I accept the point she has made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
During the UK’s membership of the EU, funding to the fish and aquaculture sectors has been provided under the EMFF. This clause allows the creation of domestic financial assistance schemes that would support the fish and aquaculture sector in England. The Government are committed to putting in place new domestic long-term arrangements to support the UK’s fishing industry from 2021. This will be through the creation of four new schemes to deliver funding for each nation. The devolved Administrations will lead on their own schemes. I hope Members will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Financial assistance: powers of devolved authorities
Amendments made: 56, in schedule 6, page 72, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) require the Scottish Ministers, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.
(4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) ‘specified’ means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—
(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;
(b) the amount of the financial assistance;
(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.
(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
This amendment allows financial assistance schemes made by the Scottish Ministers to include requirements to publish information about financial assistance given under the scheme.
Amendment 57, page 73, in schedule 6, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) require the Welsh Ministers, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.
(4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) ‘specified’ means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—
(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;
(b) the amount of the financial assistance;
(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.
(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
This amendment allows financial assistance schemes made by the Welsh Ministers to include requirements to publish information about financial assistance given under the scheme.
Amendment 58, page 74, in schedule 6, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) require the Northern Ireland department, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.
(4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) ‘specified’ means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—
(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;
(b) the amount of the financial assistance;
(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.
(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment allows financial assistance schemes made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to include requirements to publish information about financial assistance given under the scheme.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule has been placed in the Bill at the request of the devolved Administrations to establish schemes of financial assistance equivalent to those in clause 35. I hope that it will stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 36
Charges; Powers of Marine Management Organisation
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 36, page 25, line 21, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
This amendment would make the relevant regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport have spoken at length in the Committee about the need for more parliamentary scrutiny. The clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations regarding the Marine Management Organisation’s power to impose charges when carrying out certain marine functions. Such functions could include: fishing quota; ensuring commercial fishing activities are lawful; registration of buyers and sellers of first sale fish; and catch certificates for the import and export of fish.
The Bill expands the powers available to the MMO. Given the important role that organisation plays and will play in future fisheries management, further parliamentary scrutiny is needed when updating MMO charges and changes through secondary legislation. If the Government seek to oppose the amendment, I ask the Minister to outline how often she envisages changes being made to charges. What steps will her Department take to ensure that MMO charges are appropriate and value for money?
Labour seeks a standard to move from negative procedure instruments to affirmative ones to ensure that the Government can achieve their objectives by having improved legislation, rather than rushed legislation that they then seek to change. Good scrutiny is good governance. It would help the Government to deliver on objectives outlined in clause 1 and make for better policy making as more people would be involved in the policy-making process. That is why we seek to make such regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
Victoria Prentis
The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing for the MMO to impose charges when exercising a relevant marine function. It is Government policy to set charges to recover costs for services provided to the industry where possible. When drafting the Bill, we carefully considered the delegated powers and procedures that should apply to regulations. We think we struck the right balance between the need for scrutiny and the need to be able to update MMO charges through secondary legislation.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place twice reviewed our suggested procedures and its view both times was that we had struck the right balance with all the delegated powers. The clause requires the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons before implementing any charging scheme. Given that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Imposition of Charges: Powers of Devolved Authorities
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Again, this schedule, at the request of the devolved Administrations, provides those Administrations with powers to make regulations enabling them to impose charges for carrying out relevant marine functions.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 37
Sea Fish Industry Authority: fees for services provided for industry in EU
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause ensures that in the future Seafish can charge equally for services provided to EU member states and non-EU member states. As many hon. Members will know, Seafish is a levy-funded public body set up to promote the consumption of seafood in the UK, to protect the reputation of the industry, and to carry out research and provide information, evidence and advice for decision making in the supply chain.
Seafish may provide services for persons involved in the seafood industry both inside and outside the UK. It is required to charge for such services, but section 3(5) of the Fisheries Act 1981 prevents Seafish from charging customers from EU member states more than those in the UK, reflecting our previous obligations, when we were an EU member state, not to discriminate. The clause will remove that provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to a rich seam of amendments.
Clause 38
Power to make provision about fisheries, aquaculture etc
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 38, page 26, line 6, at end insert—
‘(d) the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks.’.
This amendment would add scientific data collection to the conservation purposes for which Clause 38 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 131, in schedule 8, page 79, line 16, at end insert—
‘(d) the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks.’.
This amendment would add scientific data collection to the conservation purposes for which Schedule 8 enables the Scottish Ministers to make regulations.
Amendment 132, in schedule 8, page 83, line 4, at end insert—
‘(d) the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks.’.
This amendment would add scientific data collection to the conservation purposes for which Schedule 8 enables the Welsh Ministers to make regulations.
Amendment 133, in schedule 8, page 86, line 34, at end insert—
‘(d) the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks.’.
This amendment would add scientific data collection to the conservation purposes for which Schedule 8 enables the Northern Ireland department to make regulations.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to allow the UK to meet its international obligations, conserve the marine environment and adapt fisheries legislation. As I am sure Members will be aware, the are able to make the regulations on scientific data collection that they deem to be necessary.
As we have discussed at length, there are deficiencies in our data that we need to address if we are to ensure the sustainability of the fishing industry and our marine environment. The amendments would place scientific data prominently in the Bill and in the remit of the Secretary of State, to ensure that appropriate regulations are in place as we become an independent coastal state once again.
Like many of the amendments we have proposed, amendment 130 would not tie the hands of the Secretary of State or affect the direction of the objectives; indeed, it is wholly in line with them. It does not even involve additional scrutiny. Under the amendments, scientific data would simply be given the prominence in the Bill that it merits, and the Secretary of State and the relevant Ministers would have the power to address deficiencies in data as they saw fit. I hope that we can come to agreement and that the Government will find the amendments acceptable.
Victoria Prentis
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I feel that the Bill’s existing provisions are sufficient. They enable the UK to introduce regulation if our international obligations require us to gather and share scientific data. The scientific objective in clause 1 commits us to collect and share data to deliver efficient fisheries management. The regulations that enable us to collect data—the EU data collection framework regulation 2017/1004—will become retained EU law after the end of the transition period. We feel that clause 38 is wide enough to enable us to keep the regulation up to date and relevant. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 38, page 26, line 37, at end insert—
‘(pa) fishing-related activities in the vicinity of a feature of archaeological or historic interest.’
This amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about fishing-related activities in the vicinity of a feature of archaeological or historic interest in England.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 140, in schedule 8, page 80, line 2, at end insert—
‘(pa) fishing-related activities in the vicinity of a feature of archaeological or historic interest.’
This amendment would give the Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations about fishing-related activities in the vicinity of a feature of archaeological or historic interest in Scotland.
Amendment 141, in schedule 8, page 83, line 34, at end insert—
‘(pa) fishing-related activities in the vicinity of a feature of archaeological or historic interest.’
This amendment would give the Welsh Ministers the power to make regulations about fishing-related activities in the vicinity of a feature of archaeological or historic interest in Wales.
Amendment 142, in schedule 8, page 87, line 22, at end insert—
‘(pa) fishing-related activities in the vicinity of a feature of archaeological or historic interest.’
This amendment would give the Northern Ireland department the power to make regulations about fishing-related activities in the vicinity of a feature of archaeological or historic interest in Northern Ireland.
Stephanie Peacock
I, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, are pleased to see that features of archaeological or historic interest are included in the definition of the marine and aquatic environment in the Bill. Amendments 139 to 142 would give the Secretary of State and relevant Ministers the explicit authority to regulate in that regard in the areas surrounding archaeological and historic features to ensure that they are preserved.
I am sure that we agree on the importance of protecting our historic marine environment, including our heritage assets on the seabed. They are part of our history, and many are monuments to lives lost in treacherous circumstances. As we create a new legal framework for our future as an independent coastal nation, it is important that we are clear about our commitment to the protection of those important parts of our history and archaeology.
The intention of the amendment is not to limit or harm the fishing industry, but to ensure that our maritime heritage is preserved, not harmed, by fishing or aquaculture activities, by giving the Secretary of State the power to make regulations in that regard. I understand that the Government receive advice from Historic England about the historic environment in English waters, so they must be aware of the importance of protecting and preserving our marine archaeology. The amendments would be a step in the right direction, to ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to regulate effectively to protect features of archaeological and historical interest. I hope that the Government will support them.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for listening, and agreeing to the amendments that were tabled, effectively, by Labour, in the previous iteration of the Bill, for protection of marine archaeology. Today, through these amendments, we are making the case for additional powers for the Government to ensure that marine archaeology is protected. I uage the Minister to adopt them in the good spirit in which they have been tabled.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Members for Barnsley East and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. The issue is an important one, but we do not feel that the additional powers in the amendment are needed. I want to reassure Members that, while it is not explicit in clause 38 or schedule 8, the provisions are already wide enough to include making regulations to protect these features.
Regulations can be made under clause 38 and schedule 8 for a conservation purpose, including
“the purpose of protecting the marine and aquatic environment from the effects of fishing or aquaculture, or of related activities”.
The marine and aquatic environment in the context of the Bill is defined in clause 51 as including
“features of archaeological or historic interest”,
which means that clause 38 may be used to amend or introduce legislation to protect those sites individually or collectively. With those assurances I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause will provide the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to manage our fisheries when the UK becomes an independent coastal state once again. It will enable the Government to comply with the UK’s international obligations, to manage our fisheries and to keep pace with changes to rules we have to comply with as members of regional fisheries management organisations.
The powers in the clause are broad in scope; in recognition of that, we have introduced a number of constraints to limit them as far as possible. They must be exercised for a purpose listed in subsection (4), they can be exercised only for matters listed for specific purposes, and they cannot create criminal offences punishable by imprisonment. However, the list of matters in subsection (4) does not apply in relation to implementing RFMO regulations, which can cover any matter within the scope of RFMO rules. The clause is integral in providing a legal framework for the UK to meet our international obligations under various conventions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Scope of regulations under section 38 or 40
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 144, in clause 41, page 28, line 24, after “Senedd Cymru” insert
“(ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006)”.
This amendment has the effect that the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations under clause 38 without the consent of the Welsh Ministers does not to include power to make provision that would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru with the consent of a Minister of the Crown.
Victoria Prentis
The amendments clarify the extent of the powers of the Secretary of State and the Welsh Minister to make regulations in relation to Wales. They ensure that references to the Senedd competence reflect that approach, which has been agreed with the Welsh Government. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 144 agreed to.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 41, page 28, line 31, after “of” insert “sea fishing by”.
This amendment clarifies the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations under clause 38 or 40 in relation to matters that are also within the scope of the corresponding powers conferred on the devolved authorities under Schedule 8.
Victoria Prentis
These are technical amendments. The revised wording more closely mirrors the devolution legislation, which is narrower in Wales than in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause defines and limits the scope of the regulation-making powers in clauses 36 and 38 by ensuring that the devolved status of fisheries is respected.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Scope of regulations under section 38 or 40 where consent obtained
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause requires the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make provisions in areas of devolved competence for regulations under clauses 38 and 40. Where there is consent, the power will allow cross-UK regulations to be made in areas of devolved competence, which could ensure a coherent management regime for our fishers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Procedural requirements for regulations under section 38 or 40
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 43, page 29, line 32, leave out from “if” to the end of line 42.
This amendment would make the relevant regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
I will not repeat the arguments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport have made about the need for more parliamentary scrutiny. Clauses 38 and 40 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations for technical matters currently regulated by the EU under the common fisheries policy. That includes powers to allow the UK to meet its international obligations, conserve the marine environment, adapt fisheries regulations, and make provisions for the purpose of monitoring, controlling, preventing or eradicating diseases of fish or other aquatic animals. With amendment 97, we seek to make the relevant regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to enable better scrutiny of the Government, and help the Government achieve their objectives listed under clause 1.
Victoria Prentis
We feel that we have got the balance of scrutiny right. Clause 43 was carefully drafted to ensure that the affirmative procedure was used in appropriate cases, with the negative procedure used to introduce what are likely to be highly technical amending regulations. As I said earlier, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place has twice considered the procedures proposed and told the Government that we have the right parliamentary procedure for all the regulation-making powers in the Bill. The Committee commented in its first report that
“of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so.”
I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out the procedural requirements for making regulations under clauses 38 and 40. These ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary and public scrutiny of provisions made using these powers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
powers to make further provision: devolved authorities
Amendments made: 50, in schedule 8, page 85, line 26, after “of” insert “sea fishing by”.
This amendment clarifies the scope of the Welsh Ministers’ power to make regulations under paragraph 6 or 8 of Schedule 8 in relation to matters that are not within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.
Amendment 146, in schedule 8, page 85, line 26, at end insert—
‘(3A) Provision which does not fall within sub-paragraph (3)(a), but which would do so but for a requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006, may be included in regulations under paragraph 6 or 8 with the consent of the Secretary of State.’—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment enables the Welsh Ministers, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to include in regulations under paragraph 6 or 8 provision that is only within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if consent has been given by a Minister of the Crown.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule provides each of the devolved Administrations with powers to make regulations to modify any enactment, including primary legislation and retained EU law relating to fisheries, aquaculture and aquatic animal health. The powers are equivalent to those of the Secretary of State under clauses 36 and 38.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 45
powers of scottish ministers, welsh ministers and ni department
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Unlike the devolution settlements of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Senedd Cymru does not have legislative competence in relation to fisheries in the offshore area beyond 12 nautical miles. I am pleased to say that the clause fixes that discrepancy—it is great news for Wales—by amending the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
amendments of the marine and coastal access act 2009
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Part 1 of schedule 9 allows the MMO to operate outside our waters, ensuring that the MMO can support the Government’s international efforts to protect and sustainably manage the world’s oceans, support the UK overseas territories, and use its expertise to help build the capacity of other countries to protect their marine environments. Previously, the EU was responsible for implementing conservation measures within offshore UK marine protected areas as part of the CFP. Without new powers, the UK would be unable to deliver effective management of fishing activities to protect offshore marine protected areas and the wider UK marine environment. Part 2 of the schedule is therefore designed to fill that gap.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
Amendments of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 51, in schedule 9, page 93, line 12, leave out “2010 (S.I. 2010/940)” and insert “2017 (S.I. 2017/1012)”
This technical amendment updates a cross reference to a set of regulations so that it refers to the current version.
Victoria Prentis
These are technical amendments, which I commend to the Committee.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 98, in schedule 9, page 95, line 16, leave out “and” and insert “or”.
This amendment would enable the Marine Management Organisation to make byelaws to protect marine features in circumstances where the need for protection is not urgent.
The amendment is designed to strengthen provisions already in the Bill. It ensures more protections for sea features by changing an “and” to an “or”, so that a feature can be exempted from the MMO byelaws if there is an urgent need or if the Secretary of State sees fit to do so. It also removes Whitehall red tape by allowing the MMO to designate a protected sea feature if there is an urgent need to do so. I hope the Minister will accept this friendly amendment.
Victoria Prentis
However friendly it is, I feel that the amendment would duplicate powers elsewhere in the Bill. Paragraph 11 of schedule 9 to the Bill adds new section 129B to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, giving the MMO the power to make byelaws to conserve marine features in the English offshore region where the need for protection is not urgent. For any urgent need to protect a marine feature, the Bill provides the power to make emergency byelaws through paragraph 13 of schedule 9. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 52, in schedule 9, page 96, line 37, leave out “2010 (S.I. 2010/940)” and insert “2017 (S.I. 2017/1012)”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This technical amendment updates a cross reference to a set of regulations so that it refers to the current version.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule, which is introduced by clause 46, will ensure that the MMO is able to operate outside UK waters. It defines the scope of procedure for creating byelaws or orders within UK waters, either by the MMO in England or by Ministers in Scotland and Wales, for the purposes of protecting, conserving, enhancing and restoring the UK’s marine environment.
The Chair
The question is that schedule 9, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Luke Pollard
It is lucky that you did not get too carried away, Sir Charles, because there are some important points I want to raise regarding schedule 9. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister a number of questions about the MMO’s powers introduced by schedule 9, particularly in relation to the activity of pulse and beam trawlers and marine protected areas. As the Minister will know, we have touched on this issue a number of times. However, as the schedule directly relates to the powers of the MMO on licensing, which the Minister has touched on as the solution to a number of problems that have been highlighted, I want to take the opportunity to make some further inquiries.
We have already discussed in Committee that pulse trawling is devastating for the environment and not fit to be used in any part of the ocean, and the issue is incredibly timely. I hope the Minister is aware of the recent investigation that found Dutch electric pulse trawlers and beam trawlers fishing in Haisborough and North Norfolk marine protected areas, plus a couple of UK and German-flagged vessels that have been using pulse-trawling techniques.
I am no fan of the common fisheries policy; one of the reasons for that is that it has allowed the industry to bicker over environmental protections rather than implementing them in the way that we had originally hoped. For the past two years, a complaint has been progressing against the British Government and others, pursued by the European Commission’s environment directorate-general, for allowing the law to be ignored. I am keen to understand how the powers in schedule 9 will address that issue.
The regulations mean that from 1 January, the regulatory environment will be different from how it is currently. Are the Government proposing to allow foreign or domestic vessels to go on trashing some of our offshore marine protected areas after 1 January 2021? I believe the Minister said last Thursday in our discussion that a speedier and more efficient way to enforce the regulations on these very large protected areas in UK waters is via vessel licensing, not necessarily through byelaws. I am keen to understand how that environmental regulation will be enforced, in particular in relation to the powers in schedule 9. If the Government will now enforce offshore MPAs through vessel licensing, would it not be better to announce a full and transparent consultation now, rather than consulting only after 1 January on a process that is likely to allow damaging gears to be used by UK and foreign vessels in the MPAs for several years?
Clause 46 and schedule 9 give the MMO extended powers to create byelaws for the management of offshore marine protected areas from fisheries, but there is a problem with the byelaws: it is difficult to see how they meet the needs of a nation exiting from the EU and the common fisheries policy on a specific date. It is the activation date, rather than the powers themselves, that is the issue.
We all know that sometimes the application of byelaws can be extraordinarily slow and the results derisory in terms of protection. Returning to an example I mentioned earlier, the Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton special area of conservation off the East Anglian coast—some of which is from six to 12 miles offshore, and so is already managed by the same byelaw-making powers proposed in the Bill for MPAs—was designated a protected area under the habitats directive in 2010. Despite legal obligations for protections arising from that date, it took three years for the consultation process to begin. That took place between September and October 2013.
An impact assessment was carried out and submitted on 10 December and the byelaws signed off the next day, which is commendable speed for the last stage. If we look closely at the results, however, the SAC is meant to protect shallow sand banks and reefs, which comprise the vast majority of the SAC—around 1,500 sq km —but we would have to look very hard on the chart to find the two tiny isolated dots that have meaningful protection. The MMO byelaw process managed to protect less than 4 sq km from the harmful bottom-trawling towed fishing gears. That is 0.6% of the whole area that was originally designated for protection.
That is my concern about schedule 9. We have to make sure that the powers in the schedule will actually be used to deliver against the original purpose in the Bill. I am certain that the MMO understands the habitats directive and the habitats regulations, and so it is worth looking at why that delay took place and why such a small group of stakeholders were included in the discussions, when inshore fishermen were excluded.
The Minister will know that there has been real concern among inshore fishermen about the devastation caused to fisheries from certain gears. The regulations in schedule 9 must be used effectively, and I welcome the Minister’s reassurance that there will be faster use of those regulations than we have seen in the past.
It is shame that the Government Whips chose not to select the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for the Committee. He made a sound contribution the first time. If he had been here, I am sure he would have mentioned the importance of the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries group, which he mentioned on Second Reading. I must say, with the exception of its love of effort-based regimes, which is something I am still a bit sceptical of, it is a very good initiative with a lot of potential. However, its concerns around wanting an end to pulse beam trawling in the whole offshore area around the southern North sea, in particular the offshore marine protected areas, is something that I believe the measures take note of.
Victoria Prentis
As I say repeatedly, this wonderful Fisheries Bill prohibits any commercial fishing vessel, including a foreign-registered vessel, from fishing in UK waters without a licence. It provides powers, as the hon. Gentleman said, to attach conditions to those fishing vessels, such as the areas that can be fished, the species that can be caught and the type of fishing gear that can be used. Foreign vessels operating in our waters will have to follow UK rules, including any conditions attached to their commercial fishing licence.
To briefly answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, the MMO will be responsible for enforcement as we go forward with the powers in the Bill. Schedule 9 byelaws will apply to both UK and foreign boats. More than 90 marine protected areas in English inshore waters already have byelaws in place to protect them from damaging fishing activity.
On the hon. Gentleman’s main point, which was about speed, we aim to make rapid progress in protecting more sites from damaging fishing once the transition period ends. We cannot do it before the end of the transition period, but I assure him that we wish to move speedily afterwards, and we will then have the new byelaw powers proposed in the Fisheries Bill.
Luke Pollard
I think there is agreement across the House that we want to see further environmental protection from 1 January. Will the Minister deal specifically with the issue of consultation? There is nothing that prevents her Department or the MMO from starting consultations on those proper protections before the end of the Brexit transition period. It could save time and preserve many of those marine environments if those consultations were to start this side of the Brexit transition period, not the other side.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman is very impatient. We have, I think, 108 days left until the end of the transition period and we have a great deal to do, including passing this piece of legislation. He makes an important point, though, so I will reassure him that the new procedures will be much quicker than those under the common fisheries policy, where member state agreement had to be obtained for management measures; that took a considerable period of time.
I have no doubt that the byelaw process will be much quicker, but, as has often been said on the Opposition side of the House, there is a balance to be struck between rigour and speed in all things. I can definitely reassure the hon. Gentleman that leaving the CFP gives us the opportunity to introduce a sustainable and responsible fisheries policy, which will enable us to put proper byelaws in place.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 47
Retained direct EU legislation: minor and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause refers to schedule 10, which makes changes to retained EU law that are consequential on the policy changes that are implemented in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
Retained direct EU legislation: minor and consequential amendments
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 59, page 105, line 39, in schedule 10, at end insert—
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1393/2014
3A (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1393/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain pelagic fisheries in north-western waters is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 1 (subject matter)—
(a) the existing text becomes paragraph 1;
(b) in that paragraph, for the words from “in the north-western” to “that Regulation” substitute “and applies to waters within ICES subarea 5B that are within United Kingdom waters and to waters within ICES subareas 6 and 7 that are not within Union waters”;
(c) after that paragraph insert—
2 In paragraph 1, “United Kingdom waters” and “Union waters” have the meaning they have in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.”
(3) In Article 2 (survivability exemption), in paragraph 6 for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.
(4) In Article 3a (de minimis exemptions in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020)—
(a) in the heading, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”;
(b) in points (a), (b) and (c), for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.
(5) For Article 5 (entry into force) substitute—
“Article 5
Expiry
This regulation ceases to have effect at the end of 31 December 2021.”
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014
3B (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain small pelagic fisheries and fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 1 (subject matter)—
(a) the existing text becomes paragraph 1;
(b) in that paragraph, for the words from “in the North” to “that Regulation” substitute “and applies to waters within ICES division 2a and subarea 4 that are within United Kingdom waters”;
(c) after that paragraph insert—
2 In paragraph 1, “United Kingdom waters” has the meaning it has in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.”
(3) In Article 3a (de minimis exemption in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020)—
(a) in the heading, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”;
(b) in the body, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.
(4) Article 4a (Danish North Sea coast) is revoked.
(5) For Article 5 (application) substitute—
“Article 5
Expiry
This regulation ceases to have effect at the end of 31 December 2021.”
This amendment makes minor changes to retained EU legislation in connection with the application of the landing obligation.
Victoria Prentis
As I have said repeatedly, the Government are committed to ensuring that our stocks are fished sustainably. We are working towards ending the wasteful practice of discarding. The EU’s landing obligation requires all stocks subject to catch limits to be landed and counted against quota. There are a number of limited exemptions to that blanket ban that permit a limited level of discarding for certain stocks under strict conditions and with scientific evidence to show that they will not have a detrimental impact on the stock as a whole. The flexibility provided by those scientifically justified exemptions is an important tool in addressing the risk of choke, especially in our very mixed fisheries.
These discard plans will form part of retained EU law. A number of exemptions are due to expire at the end of this year and needed further evidence to ensure that they are still justified. We now have the evidence, so we have decided to use this Bill to extend those exemptions from January. That was—I will be completely honest about this—to reduce pressure on an already tight secondary legislation timetable between now and the end of the year. I am conscious that, even in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have a large number of statutory instruments that we need in place in the next 108 days. This is merely to assist with the passage of legislation. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
The Opposition have no problems with amendments 59, 60 or even 53, which we will discuss shortly. The Minister talked about crowbarring statutory instrument content into primary legislation to speed up the process, but I ask her to be very careful with that approach. There are real democratic issues of scrutiny and oversight relating to that, because of the lack of scrutiny of this Government amendment, which was tabled after the publication of the Bill. We do not necessarily have any problems with that, but a stand-alone statutory instrument would go through a clear process and further stakeholder scrutiny.
It is important that Ministers do not get too attached to this method. Although I do not see too many problems with the content of the amendments, there is a risk that, if this method is used more frequently, the lack of oversight will produce a polluted statute book. As the Minister knows, that is something that I feel very strongly about. We have already removed statutory instruments that I cautioned about in Committee with this legislation. There is a democratic issue that needs to be addressed. I am not opposing the Government amendments, but I am keen that the approach that has been taken is not used subsequently.
Victoria Prentis
I have absolutely no intention of making this normal practice; I felt it necessary to explain to the Committee honestly and openly what is being done. These provisions will exist for only a year after the end of the transition period. I am extremely keen on legislative purity—I was a proud member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for many years—and I feel that what we have done is acceptable in this context. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 53, in schedule 10, page 106, line 4, at end insert
“Regulation (EU) 2017/2403
4A Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets is revoked.”
This amendment revokes an EU Regulation that is not needed after IP completion day.
This amendment could be enjoyed only by someone who enjoys legislation as much as I do. The amendment revokes regulation EU 2017/2403 on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets, known as SMEFF. I thank Scottish officials who picked up the need for the change.
The EU’s SMEFF regulation sets out the EU regime for non-EU vessels fishing in EU waters and for EU vessels fishing in non-EU waters. The UK’s framework for licensing is broadly similar to the way that SMEFF operates but has been tailored to ensure the fisheries administrations can regulate all foreign vessels appropriately after the end of the transition period. It is appropriate, therefore, as suggested by Scottish colleagues, to revoke SMEFF and rely on the new Bill regime instead.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
Amendment made: 60, page 111, line 31, at end insert—
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2238
8A (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2238 specifying details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2020-2021 is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 3 (exemptions for Norway lobster)—
(a) in paragraph 1, omit point (b);
(b) omit paragraph 3.
(3) In Article 6 (exemption for plaice)—
(a) in paragraph 1, omit point (c);
(b) in paragraph 2, in point (b), for “80-99” substitute “80”;
(c) omit paragraph 4.
(4) In Article 8 (exemption for turbot), omit paragraph 2.
(5) In Article 10 (de minimis exemptions)—
(a) in point (f) after “6% in 2020” insert “and 2021”;
(b) in each of points (f), (h) and (k) to (n), omit the words from “the de minimis” to the end;
(c) after point (n) insert—
“(o) in fisheries by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, OTT, TB, TBN) of mesh size 80-99mm in the United Kingdom waters of ICES subarea 4 and ICES Division 2a:
(nonenone) a quantity of Norway lobster below the minimum conservation reference size, which shall not exceed 2% of the total annual catches of that species.”
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2239
8B (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2239 specifying details of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in North-Western waters for the period 2020-2021 is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 6 (exemption for plaice), omit paragraph (2).
(3) In Article 8 (de minimis exemptions)—
(a) in paragraph 1, in each of points (d) to (k), omit “in 2020”;
(b) omit paragraph 2.”
This amendment makes minor changes to retained EU legislation in connection with the application of the landing obligation.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule makes various changes to a number of articles in the common fisheries policy regulations. Amendments to these regulations have already been made by statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, under that Act we were unable to make changes to policy; we can make those changes only now under this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 48
Regulatory enforcement and data collection scheme
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 48, page 31, line 21, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “fisheries policy authorities”.
This amendment is to ensure respect for devolved competence on this issue by giving regulation making powers to appropriate fisheries policy authorities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 93, in clause 48, page 32, line 2, after “made” insert “by the Secretary of State”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 92.
Amendment 94, in clause 48, page 32, line 3, at end insert—
“(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This amendment enables appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals by each respective Parliamentary Body and is consequential on Amendment 92.
Brendan O'Hara
As we have throughout the Committee, I am moving amendments in an attempt to make the Bill respect the devolution settlement, and recognise that fishing regulations and management are not the preserve of this place.
It is frustrating that, once again, I have to rise to make the point, particularly to those in the other place, that fishing is wholly devolved. It is not for a UK Secretary of State to ensure, in this instance, that all vessels over 10 metres in length, regardless of nationality, be fitted with remote electronic monitoring systems, such as cameras, while fishing the UK’s exclusive economic zone. As much as we, on these Benches, might agree with the good intentions of clause 48 and support them, it is important to recognise that it is the job of the relevant fishing authorities, whether they be in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, to put the changes into place. It is not the job of the UK Secretary of State and therefore, in the spirit of devolution, I move amendments 92, 93 and 94.
Victoria Prentis
Concerns were raised on Second Reading and in the other place about a lack of progress on remote electronic monitoring, and I agree that we need to take that forward. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be launching a call for evidence on REM for English-registered boats and for boats fishing in the English fishing zone within the next few weeks.
It is important that we continue to work with the devolved Administrations to build a robust policy that works for all parts of the UK and respects devolution settlements. I recognise that these amendments attempt to address some of the devolution issues with the clause that came from the other place, but they still tie us into a prescribed and rigid approach, where we would have no choice but to end up with a system that is not unlike the inflexible system that we used to suffer from under the common fisheries policy.
I remind the Committee that we already have the powers to mandate a roll-out of REM under clause 38(4)(h) and (q), and so do the devolved Administrations, under schedule 8. The roll-out of REM was in the SNP manifesto, so I am sure that it can happen if it is considered politically expedient. The amendment does not give us any more powers beyond those that we have already. It simply gives us less scope for innovation. We have been clear from the start that we support the principle of the clause, but we must do so in conjunction with the four nations, and bring the fishing industry along with us. I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.
Brendan O'Hara
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 48, page 31, line 23, leave out
“the UK Exclusive Economic Zone”
and insert
“England or the English zone”.
This amendment turns the UK-wide requirements around remote electronic monitoring systems into England-only requirements.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 143, in clause 48, page 31, line 29, at end insert—
“(iii) monitoring compliance with personal flotation device regulations;”.
For boats over 10 metres in length, this amendment would require the on-board cameras to be used additionally to monitor compliance with regulations about lifejackets.
Amendment 109, in clause 48, page 31, line 30, leave out
“British vessels fishing outside the UK Exclusive Economic Zone”
and insert
“English vessels fishing outside England and the English zone”.
This amendment turns the UK-wide requirements around remote electronic monitoring systems into England-only requirements.
Amendment 110, in clause 48, page 31, line 43, leave out
“the UK Exclusive Economic Zone”
and insert
“England or the English zone”.
This amendment turns the UK-wide requirements around remote electronic monitoring systems into England-only requirements.
Luke Pollard
The amendments are in my name and that of the shadow fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East. Although the amendments are grouped, there are a number of issues here that I wish to deal with in turn. They have partly come from conversations with our Welsh colleagues to ensure a clear devolution angle on the Bill. I do not always agree with everything the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, says, but on the matters before us, it is important that the Bill respects devolution. I think the Minister shares that view. I commend the Welsh Government’s leadership and clarity on fishing.
The amendments would adjust the well-meaning and positive additions made to the Bill in the other place to reflect the devolution agreement. They would make a number of those additions England-only, while affording the devolved Administrations the ability to make their own powers. In the areas we are dealing with, I think we are able to flex those powers, and afford the devolved Administrations different powers.
Amendment 143 makes provision for personal flotation devices to be monitored to ensure they comply with regulations. The Minister knows my passion for safety. The fact that six fishers died last year, and that Seafish gave out incorrect advice on how to refit some personal flotation devices over the summer, proves that the measure is needed more than ever.
Amendment 109 makes a distinction between British fishing vessels and English fishing vessels. The Bill has an English problem, as do a number of Bills in the post-devolution world, where “England” and “Britain” are frequently used interchangeably, although they are different and represent a very different approach. We are seeking to clarify in the wording the Minister’s dual role as the English fishing Minister and the British fishing Minister.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is it not the case that many English boats fish in Scottish waters? Many of the boats based in Whitby fish in Scottish waters, landing in Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Would having different rules for different devolved areas not cause confusion for those vessels?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the former fisheries Minister for raising that. Those boats would have difficulty only if they did not read the equal access objective in clause 1 of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that deals with the ability of any English boat to fish in any other waters, and of Scottish boats to fish in any other British waters, and so on. I do not share his concern, but it is important to place that on the record.
Mr Goodwill
So if an English boat was fishing in Scottish waters, would it need to comply with the English regulation or the Scottish regulation?
Luke Pollard
I think there is different regulation for enforcement; this is on access. Amendment 109 seeks to clarify the difference between a British fishing vessel and an English fishing vessel. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the devolution agreements enable the fisheries authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a slightly different view from the one we hold in England—and I mean England, rather than Britain, because Britain and England are different things. As an English MP, I find it frustrating that “England” and “Britain” are used interchangeably. They represent different geographies and identifies, and we should be unafraid of speaking about England more frequently. The Bill has an English problem, because it makes a distinction between Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British and UK fishing boats, but it does not deal with English fishing boats. That is an issue of identity that we need to come to.
Amendment 109 seeks to set out clearly that clause 48 applies to English fishing boats. It would thus deal with the devolution concern expressed by our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, which the Minister will no doubt address. These amendments teach us all the lesson that devolution-compliant amendments are much more complicated to draft, but it is important that we take time to draft them in such a way that they respect the devolution agenda. That is not just about making sure that our friends in Cardiff, Belfast and Holyrood are comfortable; provisions must work for the English as well, which is what the amendment seeks to ensure.
Victoria Prentis
“English fishing boat” and “British fishing boat” are already defined in clause 51, so we feel that the amendments are unnecessary. The Bill already contains powers to take necessary action, such as introducing the mandatory roll-out of REM, for English vessels and in English waters.
I will answer a few others points raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the introduction of regulations for monitoring compliance of personal flotation devices, as we discussed last week, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has fully implemented the legislation relating to the International Labour Organisation’s work on fishing conventions. Among other things, that makes the use of personal flotation devices necessary.
I am aware of the Seafish issue, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that Seafish has worked collaboratively with the MCA on this matter, and the MCA is satisfied that Seafish has taken all necessary steps and did not promote unsafe or incorrect practices. There are other opportunities for checking whether flotation devices are being worn, and worn correctly: the MCA uses aircraft that can now identify vessels on which the crew are not wearing personal flotation devices, and take appropriate enforcement action.
We must all be open to innovation as times move, and we should take steps to find better ways of doing things. The upcoming call for evidence on REM is a first step in opening that dialogue. It is right that we wait for the results of our call for evidence and consultation before we commit to one approach. That will ensure that we have an approach that suits the fishing industry as well as our marine environment. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
On the basis that we will revisit this matter when the consultation concludes, as well as in later amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
We feel that we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. The CFP imposed very inflexible measures that quickly went out of date, and we now have the opportunity to change that. It is important that we do not prescribe one specific action in the Bill, when we very much hope that science and technology will move on and enable us to deal with the problem in a variety of ways. I urge the Committee to agree that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Remote electronic monitoring and cameras on boats are a practical and cost-effective fisheries management tool that brings many benefits. The Lords’ addition of the clause improves the Bill considerably, and I will explain why. Robust and verifiable data helps to inform scientific modelling. Many times, fishers have told me that they know that there are more fish out there than the science says, and we need to ensure that the data deficiency, gap and lag between collection and utilisation is reduced as much as possible. Providing assurances to seafood supply chains that seafood is being supplied and sustainably and legally sourced is an important part of that, which the clause seeks to address. It has the potential to transform UK fishing by providing the data needed to unlock the economic, environmental and social benefits of well-managed and sustainable fisheries, which will in turn help our fisheries and coastal communities to thrive.
The Secretary of State commented on Second Reading that the Government would be able to
“increase the use of remote electronic monitoring, which we will be able to do once we have a greater understanding of how it would be deployed.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 69.]
Trials of REM have been under way in the UK for some time, including voluntary schemes run by the MMO since 2011. It has been successfully implemented in other countries, particularly Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Scottish Government have indicated support for REM, and said that they would support the REM amendment if it were devolution-compliant, as we spoke about when debating the previous set of amendments. The Government need to show leadership and commit to introduce REM via the Bill. It will set a clear direction of travel and a level playing field for all fishing vessels fishing in UK waters. It is important that it be for all fishing vessels, so that British boats are not, as I mentioned, held to a higher and therefore more expensive standard than foreign boats that are allowed to fish in our waters.
REM will also make our regulatory obligations as a coastal state, under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, much easier. We have an enforcement problem and an enforcement gap. The Minister might not use those words, but she is aware that we have a problem enforcing our fisheries rules in the UK. There are insufficient resources focused on enforcement at present, let alone to deal with territorial disputes or access difficulties that might arise after 1 January next year. Remote electronic monitoring could help reduce the problem for Ministers.
I am concerned that the resources provided to the Royal Navy—for example, for English enforcement in English waters—will be insufficient. I support what the Minister has said about additional aerial methods. Indeed, one of the counterintuitive aspects of increased enforcement is that we might not need more boats, but we will definitely need more aerial assets. The combination of those assets is what makes the enforcement a key part of this endeavour.
It is recognised by all involved that REM provides an important and powerful tool in supporting fisheries enforcement. The question is how that is implemented and included in the Bill. Indeed, the UK is leading in the use of satellite technology to support fisheries enforcement through the satellite applications catapult project. Given that we are aware of problems and gaps in enforcement capacity, and that we have a solution, there is a strong argument for requiring such measures to form a part of the enforcement framework under fisheries law in the UK, and to be part of the framework setting. That is why it is important that that be in the Fisheries Bill. The UK could demonstrate leadership in fisheries regulation and be world leading in this area.
I am in favour of strong data protection regulations to stop remote electronic monitoring being exploited, as I know the Minister is, and the concerns of fishers are understandable. One of the concerns that I hear is about how REM sits with automatic identification systems and some monitoring systems, especially those that show a fishing boat going back and forth on its track, which shows that it has found fish. That encourages other fishers to try to locate the fish found by the boat. We are aware that some of our fishers sometimes turn their systems off to prevent their location being tracked. In the previous iteration of the Fisheries Bill, and certainly in subsequent Delegated Legislation debates, the Minister gave commitments that although the new vessel monitoring systems would prevent fishers having their position shared, authorities could still pick up on the sharing of those positions to ensure that enforcement action took place.
Other important aspects of remote electronic monitoring is cameras on boats and the wearing of lifejackets. Remote electronic monitoring is not just about positioning; it is about cameras on boats. A safety aspect can be included here. If a camera, regardless of whether it is live-monitored or has its footage held in the cloud, is pointing at someone, they are much more likely to obey the regulations, wear a lifejacket and behave in a legal manner. Lifejackets are still not worn properly right across United Kingdom fisheries waters, but they need to be.
It is curious to look at what Ministers have said about closed circuit television in slaughterhouses, which is a parallel issue. Speaking in debate on the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
“Access to CCTV recordings for monitoring, verification and enforcement purposes is essential, and will be especially useful where the official veterinarian undertakes other duties in the slaughterhouse and does not directly witness all incidents.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30 April 2018; c. 4.]
Although that is in the slaughterhouse context, the fishing boat context is parallel, as is well supported.
If the Minister will not support the clause, which was added by our friends in the other place, will she set out how she intends to bring forward greater provision for remote electronic monitoring, and cameras on boats in particular? This is about not just discard prevention but safety, and enforcement of rules about wearing lifejackets.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I rise to speak against the Government’s ambition to remove the clause. Like many clauses that the Government have sought to remove, this clause would go a long way towards ensuring the health of our marine ecosystem. As Greener UK says, rolling out remote electronic monitoring on all vessels in UK waters, particularly larger vessels, would
“ensure full and verifiable documentation of catches and robust monitoring and enforcement”.
That is imperative, as it will prevent overfishing and ensure that, as I said last week, all fishers will fish responsibly and sustainably in a way that upholds the marine ecosystem.
The clause was added through an amendment in the House of Lords, where the Minister said that the Government supported fully the principle behind the amendment. The best way to support it is to support the clause, by letting it remain unaltered. By taking out the clause, the Government are indicating that they do not care about the health of the marine ecosystem. If we improve the data we receive from vessels, we will get greater insight into fish stocks, and will be able to set sustainable fishing quotas that are in harmony with scientific advice.
The clause presents us with a great opportunity to monitor all marine wildlife. By putting cameras on board all vessels, we can capture recordings of seabirds, dolphins and other marine wildlife. That is important, as it means we can be proactive in eliminating the accidental capture and dumping of different species, particularly those that are endangered. The clause has the health and protection of our marine ecosystem at its heart. In seeking to remove the clause, the Government are giving the green light to overfishing and irresponsible fishing. Implementing remote electronic monitoring would go some way to ensuring that all fishers complied with the landing obligation.
Removing the clause will weaken key gains made through the landing obligation in the common fisheries policy. If each vessel was fitted with remote electronic monitoring, we could better monitor discarding practices. As we know, discarding is a wasteful practice that specifically endangers at-risk species. The landing obligation means that catches are to be landed and counted against the fishing quota. The quotas obligation makes it clear that the discarding of prohibited species will be recorded. With remote electronic monitoring technology in place, we can better examine adherence to the rules by all fishers while supporting marine wildlife experts and agencies in their work.
The information gathered through the technology forms an important part of the science base for the monitoring of protected marine species. Will the Government not join the Opposition in our desire to keep the clause exactly where it needs to be—in the Bill?
Victoria Prentis
I agree that REM can be an effective tool for monitoring and enforcing both the landing obligation and the safety issues raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. The Government believe it is important to look at new ways of innovating in the fisheries space at the end of the transition period. We see the value in REM, and indeed plan to increase its use, but it is important that we use the opportunity to work with industry and those interested in REM and other tech solutions, rather than coming up with mandatory requirements.
We are pleased to be launching a call for evidence for industry within the next few weeks to gather the widest possible range of views on REM. While I feel that is the correct approach if we are to work with the industry on roll-out, there is no doubt that REM will be a tool in our toolkit. I therefore ask that the clause be rejected.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 51, page 35, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
““minimum conservation reference size”, in relation to an aquatic organism, means the size of a member of the species of which the organism is a member, at the level of maturity of that organism, below which capture or retention is prohibited or restricted;”
This amendment clarifies the definition of “minimum conservation reference size”.
This technical amendment replaces the definition of “minimum conservation reference size” in clause 51. The previous definition might have implied that the reference size related to the size of the marine stock. The amendment makes it clear that it means the size of an individual fish or other relevant aquatic organism in terms of its maturity. I commend the amendment to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
Labour is happy to support the amendment.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment made: 145, in clause 51, page 35, line 28, at end insert—
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act);”
This amendment inserts into the Bill a definition of “Minister of the Crown”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Extent
Amendment made: 10, in clause 52, page 37, line 3, leave out “revocation made by paragraph 5” and insert “repeals and revocations made by paragraphs 3 to 5”
This amendment ensures that the repeal in Schedule 4 of the current regime governing access of foreign fishing boats to British waters extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Commencement
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 53, page 37, line 30, at end insert—
‘(4A) Section (conservation of seals) and Schedule (conservation of seals) come into force on 1 March 2021.”
This amendment provides that the proposed new clause and Schedule on the conservation of seals come into force on 1 March 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “Seal Pinniped” “Seal Pinniped” “Seal Pinniped””
New clause 1—Conservation of Seals—
This new clause introduces the proposed new Schedule on the conservation of seals.—(Victoria Prentis.)
New schedule 1—Conservation of seals
Part 1
Amendment of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970
1 The Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 10 to 20.
2 For section 1 (prohibited methods of killing seals) substitute—
“1 Prohibition of the killing, injuring or taking of seals
3 Omit section 2 (close seasons for seals).
4 Omit section 3 (orders prohibiting killing seals).
5 In section 4 (apprehension of offenders and powers of search and seizure), in subsection (1), in paragraph (c) for “seal, seal skin, firearm, ammunition or poisonous” substitute “seal, item or”.
6 In section 6 (forfeitures), for the words from “any seal or seal” to the end substitute—
“(a) any seal or seal skin in respect of which the offence was committed;
(b) any item (but not a vehicle or boat) or substance used in connection with the commission of the offence;
(c) any seal, seal skin, poisonous or explosive substance, explosive article, firearm or ammunition, in the person’s possession at the time of the offence.”
7 In section 8 (attempt to commit offence), in subsection (2)—
(a) after “poisonous” insert “or explosive”;
(b) after “substance” insert “, any explosive article”;
(c) omit “the use of which is prohibited by section 1(1)(b) of this Act”.
8 In section 9 (general exceptions)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) for “2 or 3” substitute “1”;
(ii) in paragraph (a), omit “otherwise than by his act”;
(iii) omit paragraphs (b) and (c);
(b) in subsection (2)—
(i) omit “, 2 or 3”;
(ii) omit “otherwise than by his act”.
9 In section 10 (power to grant licences)—
(a) in subsection (1), in paragraph (c)—
(i) omit sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) (but not the “or” after paragraph (iii));
(ii) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be read as authorising the grant of a licence for the purpose of the protection, promotion or development of commercial fish or aquaculture activities within the meaning of the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act).”
10 In section 11 (entry upon land)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (b);
(b) in subsection (2), omit paragraph (d);
(c) in subsection (4)—
(i) omit the words from “, or in the” to “28 days’ notice,”;
(ii) omit the words from “; and in the case” to the end;
(d) omit subsection (5).
11 Omit section 14 (orders).
12 In section 15 (interpretation), at the appropriate places insert—
““explosive article” means an article (for example, a bomb or a firework) containing one or more explosive substances;”;
““explosive substance” means a substance or preparation, not including a substance or preparation in a solely gaseous form or in the form of vapour, which is —
(a) capable by chemical reaction in itself of producing gas at such a temperature and pressure and at such a speed as could cause damage to surroundings; or
(b) designed to produce an effect by heat, light, sound, gas or smoke, or a combination of these as a result of a non-detonative, self-sustaining, exothermic chemical reaction;”;
““9preparation” means a mixture of two or more substances or a solution of any substance or substances;”.
Part 2
Amendment of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
13 The Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (1985/171 (N.I. 2)) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 22 to 27.
14 In Article 10 (protection of certain wild animals), in paragraph (4A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
“(a) a seal (pinniped), or”.
15 In Article 11 (exceptions to Article 10)—
(a) after paragraph (1) insert—
(1A) Article 5(5) (as it applies to Article 10 by virtue of paragraph (1)) applies in relation to seals (pinnipedia) as if—
(a) in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “otherwise than by his unlawful act” were omitted, and
(b) sub-paragraph (c) were omitted.”;
(b) after paragraph (3) insert—
(3A) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to seals (pinnipedia) as if “or to fisheries” were omitted.”
16 In Article 18 (power to grant licences), after paragraph (3) insert—
(3ZA) But a licence may not be granted under paragraph (3) that permits the killing, injuring or taking of seals (pinnipedia) for the purpose of preventing damage to fisheries.”
17 In Schedule 5 (animals which are protected at all times), in the table, for the entries for “Seal, common” and “Seal, grey” substitute—
18 In Schedule 6 (animals which may not be killed or taken by certain methods), in the table, for the entries for “Seal, common” and “Seal, grey” substitute—
19 In Schedule 7 (animals which may not be sold alive or dead at any time), in the table, for the entries for “Seal, common” and “Seal, grey” substitute—
This new Schedule makes amendments to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. The amendments would generally prohibit the killing, injuring or taking of seals, and limit the circumstances in which that can be permitted.
Victoria Prentis
The proposed amendments to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 will provide new protections for wild seal populations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from intentional or reckless injury, killing or taking. It will greatly restrict the circumstances in which any intentional killing of a wild seal is lawfully permitted—for example, animal welfare exemptions to euthanise a wild seal if found to suffer from irrecoverable injury, pain or disease. The amendments are highly beneficial from an animal welfare perspective, as seals are often intentionally killed during interaction with commercial fisheries. The amendments are necessary for the UK to comply with new import regulations being implemented in the USA. From January 2022, the USA will allow imports of fisheries products only from countries that do not allow the killing, injuring or taking of marine mammals as part of commercial fisheries.
In England and Wales, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 permits commercial fisheries to kill seals under licence granted by the MMO, or without a licence in very special circumstances known as the netsman’s defence. Similarly, in Northern Ireland there is a provision that also allows for the killing of seals in the course of commercial fishing.
Exports from UK wild capture fisheries could be prevented from entering the USA, and UK businesses currently exporting wild capture fish, such as cod, mackerel or shellfish would no longer be able to do so. That would result in a significant loss of export revenue, because last year wild capture exports to the USA were worth well over £13 million. It could also preclude fishery businesses from taking advantage of a future free trade agreement.
The Scottish Government have separate legislation regarding seal conservation— the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010—which they have amended to comply with current requirements, as we intend to do by means of this amendment. These amendments have been developed in conjunction with colleagues in Northern Ireland to facilitate a whole-UK approach, and I commend them to the House.
Luke Pollard
Labour supports these amendments and we will not vote against them.
Every seal matters and the discussions that we have had with stakeholders show strong support for the measures outlined by the Minister. Indeed, the changes to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 prohibit the killing, injuring or taking of seals, as well as limiting the circumstances in which those activities can be permitted. Previously, these activities were prohibited only if particular weapons or poisonous substances were used. These changes provide a broader set of protections for seals.
Seals form an important part of the UK’s marine ecosystem, but face an increasing threat from climate change and hunting. Indeed, seals eat a lot of fish and there is sometimes a sense that killing seals protects fish stocks. In fact, such killing damages the fragile ecosystem that supports all life in our oceans, which is why we need to protect seals.
These amendments will help to protect an iconic and much-loved species, and we welcome them. However, when the Minister responds, I would be grateful if she set out why this amendment and the new schedule have been introduced so late in the Bill’s progress and were not originally included in the Bill when it was published, because they seem to be changes that would carry strong support and are worthy of good scrutiny by stakeholders.
It is unusual in this place that we are adjusting our legislation to amend something that Donald Trump may want for trade with the US, and doing so with full enthusiasm from both sides of the House. However, there is popular support for these changes.
Mr Goodwill
I rise briefly to draw attention to the fact that we are often accused by the Labour party of trying to do a trade deal with the United States that would produce lower environmental standards and lower animal welfare standards than those we have. Actually, this amendment is an example of how, to comply with the US, which has higher standards of protection for marine cetaceans and seals, we have to change our law to bring it up to the American standard. In this case we can demonstrate that by having agreements for freer trade around the world, we are actually tightening up our standards to match those that some countries already have.
Victoria Prentis
In response to the question, “Why now?”, I will simply say that we did not include this amendment when the Bill was introduced last week because we could not ascertain at that stage whether a change to primary legislation was absolutely necessary. We also had to consult properly with the devolved Administrations and make the necessary changes to their legislation, working in conjunction with them. It was important that this UK-wide joined-up approach became real before we were able to table this amendment. We recognise, of course, that seal depredation of fish is perceived as being a major problem for some sections of the fishing industry, and we are working with the MMO to facilitate further research and development into non-lethal methods for—
Mr Goodwill
The Minister says that seals are perceived as being a problem. There are some serious problems, particularly with gill nets, where seals will go down with salmon or sea trout and rip out the livers of all those fish. The seals not only cause damage in that way but render those fish unmarketable.
Victoria Prentis
I accept that there are some real difficulties with seals getting close to commercial fisheries on occasion. Nevertheless, we feel that this is the right step to take at this time and we are very grateful for support from Labour.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for her support. Noting what the former Minister said, may I challenge the Minister about where the measure will apply to imports? She mentioned that it was being introduced to facilitate the export of British fish to American markets, but to take the example of the hoki fishery in New Zealand, where we know there is licensed and widespread killing of seals in the fishery, we may still import fish from that fishery. Will the Minister set out her intention for fish imports? The principle is a good one, but I want to understand how far it will go.
Victoria Prentis
As we have discussed many times on the Agriculture Bill, it is difficult for countries to legislate for the standards of other countries. This is an interesting example. We are all falling over ourselves to be willing to legislate, because we feel that is the right thing to do for the seals in and around the UK, but whether we should legislate for other countries’ standards is a much broader question, and one that we have rehearsed extensively with the Agriculture Bill. In future, given our views across the House on the killing of seals, we might well want to consider it further.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out the commencement date for each of the provisions in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Short title
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 54, page 37, line 37, after “the” insert “Sustainable”.
I will beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment in due course, because the Bill comes nowhere near deserving “Sustainable” in its title. I have concerns that the Bill is not sustainable, and the Government voted down the Labour amendments to make it more sustainable, such as making sustainability the prime objective of fisheries management, including a net zero plan for how fishing will decarbonise. The Government also refused to ban supertrawlers fishing in marine protected areas. The Bill will therefore not be the world-beating one that it needs to be, and it does not deserve to be called the “Sustainable Fisheries Bill”. I will keep that title in my back pocket for Labour’s first fisheries Bill after 2024.
Victoria Prentis
The naming of the Bill is a matter for parliamentary counsel, for whom I have enormous respect. In fact, I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to them for their excellent drafting of the Bill. After careful consideration, parliamentary counsel determined that the Bill should be named the “Fisheries Act 2020” once it becomes an Act, which we hope it will.
Sustainability is one of the eight fisheries objectives set out in clause 1. It is an important part of the Bill but, as I have said repeatedly, a careful balance must be struck between the objectives. Including one of them in the short title will have no practical effect and will, none the less, make the function of the Act less clear.
Adding “Sustainability” might imply that the Bill has only one objective, and that the careful balancing of objectives to deliver a thriving fishing industry, rejuvenated coastal communities and healthy seas is unnecessary. That is not the case, so we do not feel that amendment of the short title—with or without legal impact—is useful. We care deeply about sustainability, but I prefer to reserve the word for actions with substance. Given that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
Fearing that I would fall foul of the Trade Descriptions Act were I to seek amend the short title of the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 84, in clause 54, page 37, line 38, leave out subsection (2).—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause is a standard provision that simply provides for the short title.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Conservation of Seals
‘Schedule (conservation of seals) contains amendments of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (1985/171 (N.I. 2)) in connection with prohibiting the killing, injuring or taking of seals.’—(Victoria Prentis.)
This new clause introduces the proposed new Schedule on the conservation of seals.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Recreational fishing
‘(1) When any provision of this Act, including provisions inserted into other Acts by this Act, requires or permits the Secretary of State to consult with any person considered appropriate, the Secretary of State must consult with persons representing the practice of recreational fishing, including those who charter boats for the purpose of recreational fishing.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report providing an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of this Act have—
(a) promoted recreational fishing, and
(b) had economic benefits attributable to the promotion of recreational fishing.
(3) The first report under subsection (2) shall be published no more than 12 months after this section comes into force.’—(Victoria Prentis.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing, and to include representatives of recreational fishing when conducting a consultation under any other provisions of the Bill.
Brought up, and read the First and Second time
The Chair
The Question is that the new clause be added to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye.
The Chair
To the contrary, no. I think the Ayes have it—[Interruption.]
Sorry, we have an issue, because new clause 2 is an Opposition new clause and the Government do not agree to it. We will seek advice on how to reverse that decision. We will adjourn and resume this afternoon.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 15th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 September 2020 - (15 Sep 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Members will be aware that the Committee was adjourned a little early this morning, because a mistake had been made on how we dealt with new clause 2. The Minister was invited to move the new clause when in fact the shadow Minister should have been invited to do so. That led to understandable confusion. I therefore propose to rerun the decision on new clause 2.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I seek clarity on why the vote is being rerun? Will the Chair confirm that it was orderly to put the question on new clause 2, for the Minister to move new clause 2 and for the Conservative MPs in the room to vote for new clause 2? The disorderly part was that the Conservatives did not spot that the new clause was a Labour amendment that they had moved and voted on. The confusion arose, therefore, because they were not following the amendment paper sufficiently. Is that correct?
The Chair
It would be easy for me to deflect blame on to colleagues, but I should accept a large amount of it myself. I apologise. I, primarily, should have spotted it, and for that I apologise to the Committee. I also apologise for having to let you go 20 minutes early, which probably means that we will have to stay 20 minutes later this afternoon. The key point is that I did not invite Labour to move the new clause, and for that I apologise. I hope that that is acceptable to the shadow Minister and to colleagues.
We will try to get it right this time. Does the shadow Minister wish to move new clause 2 formally?
The Chair
We have now seen the back of new clause 2.
New Clause 3
Sea Fish Industry Authority: powers in relation to parts of UK
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1) (duties of the Authority)—
(a) after the third “of”, insert “(amongst other things)”,
(b) delete the words “as a whole”.
(3) After section 3 (powers of the Authority), insert—
“(none) The Authority may exercise its functions separately and differently in relation to—
(a) the sea fish industry in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(b) sea fish and sea fish products landed in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(c) sea fish and sea fish products trans-shipped in different parts of the sea within British fishery limits adjacent to different parts of the United Kingdom.”.’—(Brendan O'Hara.)
The primary purpose of this new clause is to give the Sea Fish Industry Authority greater flexibility to exercise its functions separately and differently in different parts of the UK. It inserts a new clause into subsection 3, which will enable the Authority to do this.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Sea Fish Industry Authority: delegation of functions—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3A (exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.), insert—
“3B Delegation of functions
(1) The Authority may authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf such of its functions and to such extent as it may determine.
(2) The Authority may give to any person authorised under this section to exercise any of its functions—
(a) financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or guarantee),
(b) other assistance including assistance by way of the provision of property, staff or services, for the purposes of those functions.”
(3) The giving of authority under this section to exercise a function does not—
(a) affect the Authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function, or
(b) prevent the Authority from exercising the function itself.”.’
This new clause inserts a new clause which will allow the Authority to authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf any of its functions to the extent determined by the Authority. It will also allow the Authority to give any such person financial and other assistance to do so.
New clause 5—Sea Fish Industry Authority: accounts and reports—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (accounts and reports)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The statement of accounts must specify the total amount of income received in the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone.”,
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—
(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,
(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.’
This new clause is intended to ensure that the Authority reports how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.
New clause 6—Sea Fish Industry Authority: plan relating to allocation of Scottish levies—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 11 (accounts and reports), insert—
“11A Plan relating to allocation of Scottish levies
(1) Before the start of each financial year, the Authority must—
(a) prepare a plan setting out—
(i) an estimate of the total amount of income that the Authority expects to receive during the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone (‘Scottish levies’), and
(ii) a description of how the Authority proposes to apply that income in the course of exercising its functions, and
(b) refer the plan to the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1 (‘the Scottish committee’) for approval of the Authority’s proposal mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii).
(2) If, as a result of relevant regulations, the Authority estimates that the total amount of income that it expects to receive from Scottish levies during a financial year is greater than the total amount of income that it received from Scottish levies during the previous financial year, the Authority’s plan prepared under subsection (1) for the financial year must include a statement describing how the Authority proposes in particular to apply the additional income from Scottish levies in the course of exercising its functions.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) ‘relevant regulations’, in relation to a financial year, means—
(i) regulations made by the Authority under section 4(2) during the previous financial year, and
(ii) regulations which the Authority expects to make, and to be confirmed by the Scottish Ministers, under section 4(2) during the financial year,
(b) the total amount of income received by the Authority from Scottish levies during a previous financial year is the total amount of such income as recorded in the Authority’s accounts kept under section 11(1) in respect of that year.
(4) The Authority—
(a) must publish a plan prepared under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the Scottish committee’s approval as mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and
(b) may publish the plan in such manner as it considers appropriate.
(5) The Authority must, as soon as reasonably practicable after publishing a plan under subsection (4)—
(a) send a copy of the plan to the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) lay the plan before the Scottish Parliament.
(6) The Authority must have regard to each relevant plan—
(a) in the exercise of its functions, and
(b) in particular, in authorising any other person under section 3B to exercise any of its functions on its behalf.
(7) A person who is authorised by the Authority under section 3B to exercise any of the Authority’s functions must have regard to each relevant plan in the exercise of those functions.
(8) In subsections (6) and (7), ‘relevant plan’, in relation to the exercise of a function, means—
(a) the latest plan published under subsection (4), and
(b) any earlier plan published under that subsection in so far as it contains a proposal mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(ii) (or, as the case may be, in subsection (2)) to apply income during the financial year in which the function is being exercised.”.’
The primary purpose of this new clause is to ensure the Authority sets out an annual plan that outlines how it intends to apply the levy income it expects to receive. This plan must make comparison to the levy income of the previous year and where the levy income is expected to be higher detail how the Authority proposes to apply the additional income from Scottish levies.
New clause 7—Sea Fish Industry Authority: committee for Scotland—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In schedule 1 (the Sea Fish Industry Authority), in paragraph 16—
(a) before sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(A1) The Authority must appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.
(A2) The committee is to consist of or include persons who are not members of the Authority.
(A3) The Authority must consult the committee on the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (1), before “committees” insert “other”,
(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “such committees” substitute “committees appointed under this paragraph”.’
This new clause’s new provisions require the Authority to appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland. They additionally require the consultation of this committee on the exercise of the Authority’s functions in relations to Scotland.
New clause 8—Sea Fish Industry Levies: powers in relation to Scotland and the Scottish Zone—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (levies)—
(a) in subsection (2), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(b) in subsection (7), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(c) after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) In this section, ‘appropriate Ministerial authority’ means—
(a) in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone, the Scottish Ministers,
(b) in any other case, the Ministers.”,
(d) in subsection (9), after “order” in both places where it occurs insert “of the Ministers”,
(e) after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) Any order of the Scottish Ministers—
(a) under subsection (2) is subject to the negative procedure,
(b) under subsection (7) is subject to the affirmative procedure.
(9B) Before laying a draft Scottish statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (7) before the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Ministers must consult—
(a) the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1, and
(b) such other persons as they consider appropriate.”.
(3) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of “the Ministers”, in paragraph (c), after “with” insert “(except in the case of an order under section 4(2) or (7))”.
(4) In schedule 2 (Sea Fish Industry Levies)—
(a) for “Ministers” in each place where it occurs substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(b) after paragraph 3 insert—
“4 The Scottish Ministers must, before making an order confirming any regulations, consult—
(a) the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1, and
(b) such other persons as they consider appropriate.
5 In this schedule, ‘appropriate Ministerial authority’ has the same meaning as in section 4 of this Act.”.’
The primary purpose of this new clause is to devolve, to the Scottish Ministers, the control of the Scottish aspects of levies imposed by the Authority. Currently, levies imposed by the Authority require confirmation by the relevant Ministers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers. The new clause intends to ensure that levies imposed in relation to Scotland require confirmation by Scottish Ministers.
New clause 9—Sea Fish Industry Levies: definitions relating to Scotland and the Scottish Zone—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1), after the definition of “the Ministers” insert—
“‘Scotland’ and ‘the Scottish zone’ have the same meanings as in the Scotland Act 1998 (see section 126(1) and (2) of that Act);”.’
This new clause inserts a new clause which makes consequential new clause to section 14 (interpretation of Part 1) of the 1981 Act by inserting definitions of “Scotland” and “the Scottish zone”.
Brendan O'Hara
I cannot hope to compete with the excitement of new clause 2 with new clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).
The main purpose of the new clauses is to give the Sea Fish Industry Authority far greater flexibility when exercising its functions separately and differently in different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The long-held view of the Scottish Government and of many in the sector is that Seafish, because of how it is constituted, is not sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the entire sector. It therefore requires radical reform.
I believe that Seafish has an intrinsic flaw in attempting to represent the entirety of the United Kingdom while operating in a policy area that is wholly devolved. In trying to represent the whole UK fishing industry, Seafish is viewed by many as providing insufficient support for the sector in Scotland, which all too often results in poorer and unsatisfactory marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood.
The main objective of this group of new clauses is to devolve control over both the funding and the executive powers of Seafish to Scottish Ministers. The new clauses would also devolve control over the Scottish aspects of the fishing levy, giving Scotland a key role in deciding how that share of the money is spent. We believe that that new model would provide much greater flexibility to Seafish and enable it to exercise functions separately and differently in different parts of the UK. The new clauses would also increase transparency in requiring Seafish to report the income of receipts from the levies it imposes and how those are applied in each part of the UK.
As I have often said, not only is fishing devolved, but there is no standardised version of fishing across the UK. With an aggregated coastline of 20,000-plus miles, the UK contains a whole host of different fishing interests and practices. From England’s south coast to the most northerly point of Shetland, the industry is multi-layered, complex, nuanced and often localised. Given that there is no single fishing industry pursuing a common, clear set of shared objectives, and no fewer than four separate and distinct national Governments looking after the industry in their respective jurisdictions, it seems absurd that we have a one-size-fits-all fishing authority charged with securing a sustainable, profitable future for all parts of the industry. How can Seafish practically offer regulatory guidance and service to the industry for catching, aquaculture, processing, importers, exporters and distributers of seafood, as well as looking after restaurants and retailers in such a complicated, differentiated and entirely devolved industry?
This Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to reform the current system and ensure that the levy is better used to promote the range and quality of Scottish seafood, both at home and abroad. If Scotland were able to take investment decisions, we would be able to support the industry properly by promoting the quality and excellence of Scottish seafood products. It would also allow us to maximise the benefits of Scottish provenance, which is vital when marketing abroad. Whether it is our salmon, oysters, scallops, langoustines, crab or whatever else, the promotion of the product as Scottish gives it added value, and its provenance is a guarantee of quality, which is exactly what our producers need.
With these new clauses, we are not seeking to undermine Seafish—far from it. We are seeking only to improve how it works and ensure it works better in the future for the huge variety of Scottish fishing industries. By supporting this change, the Government would allow Seafish to promote all of Scottish fishing, from the east to the west and the north coasts and the northern islands. We believe it would work. Right now, Seafish does not work well for Scotland, and it should. With your permission, Sir Charles, I will seek to push the new clause to a vote.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Seafish is a UK body, and Ministers in each Administration have a shared and equal responsibility for it. These new clauses affect the interests of three other fisheries administrations, so I have corresponded with my colleagues across the devolved Administrations about them.
My colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland and I agree that Seafish is undertaking valuable work, and do not agree with the new clauses. The current model works well, in that it has the ability to deliver or fund bespoke services in each Administration, but in many cases it delivers UK-wide work. That is partly because of efficiencies of scale, but also because the supply chains across the UK are similar and have similar challenges and opportunities. A particular concern is that the new clauses do not consider the impact that the changes would have in each region on the viability of Seafish, given the additional and costly burdens they would add. I am not convinced of the need to legislate on all these matters.
It is open to all the fisheries administrations to consider how Seafish serves us across the UK and across the UK industries, but I feel that the new clauses pre-empt the findings of the reviews that we are about to undertake. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw them.
Brendan O'Hara
Not specifically, but I seek to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Pollard
On a point of order, Sir Charles, which I raised with the Minister prior to the sitting, I believe that she may have inadvertently misled the Committee in one of her earlier remarks. She was responding after I had raised the issue of Seafish issuing faulty and unsafe guidance on personal locator beacons and lifejackets. When replying to me, the Minister said that those difficulties did not exist, but Seafish officials have subsequently confirmed that the video in question, which advised faulty lifejacket practice, should not have been produced or issued, and has now been removed.
As that is a safety issue, I would be grateful if the Minister, who I believe was given incorrect guidance through no fault of her own, could correct the record and, in particular, work with colleagues in the Department for Transport to issue a maritime information note, to ensure that any fishers who heard that faulty guidance will know that it has been corrected.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman raised part of his point of order with me earlier, and I said that I would write to him when I have got to the bottom of the situation. As I said earlier, I was aware of the issue and that Seafish has worked collaboratively with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on it. I was told that the MCA is satisfied that Seafish has taken all necessary steps. I am also aware, however, that the MCA is issuing a safety bulletin to alert all marine users to the importance of following manufacturers’ guidelines, particularly when retrospectively fitting a personal locator beacon into a personal flotation device. I will write to the hon. Gentleman further, but I would like to make clear that that is the current position as I understand it.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister.
New Clause 10
Duty to co-operate
‘(1) A fisheries policy authority must co-operate with other fisheries policy authorities in the preparation and application of the JFS and any SSFS, the licensing of fishing boats, enforcement against illegal fishing activity, the determination and distribution of fishing opportunities and the prevention of discards.
(2) A fisheries policy authority may share information with another fisheries policy authority for the purpose of discharging its duty under subsection (1).’—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would place a duty to co-operate on all fisheries policy authorities in carrying out their functions under this Bill; and would provide for the sharing of information between fisheries policy authorities.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 10 would establish a duty to co-operate among all fisheries policy authorities in carrying out their functions under the Bill, and would allow them to share information to ensure that they are working efficiently and co-operatively. The Government have already opposed the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism, which would have been used to ensure that disagreements between fishing authorities did not reach an impasse. The new clause would provide for a duty of co-operation in the absence of a dispute resolution mechanism.
The Government have consistently described the Fisheries Bill as a framework Bill to establish the parameters under which the industry will operate. As the Committee will be aware, that function has been fulfilled for a number of decades by the common fisheries policy. Whatever concerns hon. Members may have had about the CFP—I am aware that concerns have been raised on all sides of the House—there is no doubt that it provided a settled framework for fisheries. When the structures of the CFP are removed, it is important that the framework that replaces it is robust and consistent.
The new clause therefore seeks to place an obligation on fisheries policy authorities to co-operate with other fisheries policy authorities in preparation for and the application of the joint fisheries statement, any Secretary of State fisheries statement, the licensing of fishing boats, enforcement against illegal fishing activity, the determination and distribution of fishing opportunities, and the prevention of discards. Those are all crucial points that must be settled collaboratively as the UK seeks to forge a new future for its fishing industry outside the EU.
Without a duty to co-operate between among the different sectors of our fishing industry and the different parts of the UK, we could face a scenario after 31 December whereby different fisheries authorities, the Marine Management Organisation and different devolved Governments each set different regulations or pursue different priorities in relation to the fishing industry and the marine environment. That would lead to a fracturing not just of the industry but of the broader framework that the Bill is designed to establish for UK fisheries.
Opposition Members welcome the Bill and the aim of establishing a framework and clear objectives for the future of the industry. However, without co-operation across the industry and the different parts of the UK, any framework would be fractured, making it all but redundant, and making it infinitely more difficult to achieve the Bill’s objectives. Therefore, if the Government oppose the new clause, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how they intend to ensure that different stakeholders and constituent parts of the UK’s fishing industry work collaboratively to meet the objectives in the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The new clause is unnecessary because, in addition to existing processes, the Bill already contains provisions for lots of co-operation among the authorities. The four fisheries policy authorities have a strong track record of working collaboratively to develop fisheries management policy. That will be further strengthened through a new memorandum of understanding developed as part of the UK fisheries common framework, which will set out how the authorities will continue to work closely together in the future. The Bill includes the shared fisheries objectives, and clause 2 and schedule 1 require the authorities jointly to prepare and produce a joint fisheries statement. Clause 10 requires fisheries authorities to exercise their functions in accordance with the policies in a JFS, Secretary of State fisheries statement or fisheries management plan. As many of the stocks are mobile, that will of course require a great deal of co-operation among the authorities.
Let me turn to the sharing of information. Again, a lot of that happens currently, and principles around data sharing will be incorporated in the MOU. Within the Bill, the scientific evidence objective also includes a requirement for fisheries policy authorities to work together on the collection and sharing of scientific data. The JFS will include policies to support the achievement of that objective.
I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Highly Protected Marine Areas for England
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a plan to designate Highly Protected Marine Areas for England.
(2) Before publishing a plan under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation.
(3) The plan in subsection (1) must be published by 31 December 2021.’—(Luke Pollard.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation and publish a plan to designate Highly Protected Marine Areas for England.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 11 relates to highly protected marine areas for England. This picks up on a running theme of contributions from the Labour Benches throughout these proceedings in relation to what happens next with the Benyon review of highly protected marine areas and what the next steps are.
The oceans treaty, which I have mentioned a number of times during the Committee’s discussions and which the Government have signed up to, seeks to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and the UK Government have signed up to protect 30% of the UK’s waters by 2030 as well. The oceans treaty signs us up for full protection, which is in effect no-take zones for our fisheries’ waters, and it seems that the Government’s intention is to move marine protected areas into highly protected marine areas, thus creating no-take zones in what are largely MPAs as they currently stand.
The Benyon review, published over the summer, made a really important contribution to the start of the debate by setting out the value of highly protected marine areas and what the purpose was. Importantly for the Bill, Benyon also set out very clearly that fishers must be involved with the discussions around the designation of highly protected marine areas—and indeed, with you sitting in the Chair, Sir Charles, that should involve commercial fishing and also recreational fishing at the same time. It is important that we understand what Richard Benyon has proposed in his report, but also that it was only a first step in how highly protected marine areas can be created.
The new clause seeks to require that the Secretary of State publish a plan to designate highly protected marine areas, and before that plan is published, the Secretary of State should carry out a public consultation. Taken together, that should all be published by 31 December 2021, which is a realistic timeline for that work to be done. Indeed, at the conclusion of that, as the Committee will note, we have only eight years left for 30% of the UK’s waters to be highly protected marine areas, if the Government are to hit the commitment that they have signed up to in the UN’s oceans treaty. I am sure that Conservative Members would not want to breach a treaty in relation to this and would want to maintain the rule of law. This is a plan for how to do that.
It is important that we include input from fishers in how we designate highly protected marine areas. The Government have so far not responded to the Benyon review in a way that sets out a timetable for what follows next. They have said that the findings are interesting and they will take time to consider them, as I expect the Minister will say when she gets to her feet, but they have not set out a timetable.
The Government chose earlier in the Committee to whip their MPs against Labour’s sensible amendment to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres from fishing in marine protected areas. We know that a Greenpeace investigation has revealed that in the first six months of 2020, supertrawlers spent more than 5,500 hours fishing in these protected areas. If we mean to safeguard these vulnerable habitats, it is important that steps are taken to exclude not only supertrawlers, but trawlers with gear that is especially damaging to our oceans, which include electric pulse trawlers and trawlers that drag nets along the sea bed in particular.
I have, in a number of remarks, encouraged the Minister to start an honest conversation with fishers about how highly protected marine areas will be designated, what their input will be in that and how they will be compensated, encouraged or recompensed for the exclusion of fishers and certain types of fishing from those marine areas. When the Minister gets to her feet, I suspect she will say that this is not necessary because she has a cunning plan for highly protected marine areas that she will shortly be publishing, but I would be grateful if she could answer a few questions.
Which marine protected areas does the Minister feel that fishers will be able to fish in in 10 years’ time and which ones does she not? Will it be an assumption that all MPAs will be no-take zones, as the policy signed up by the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), suggested? Will there be a phased approach to introducing no-take zones in marine protected areas?
For instance, will the Minister seek to restrict bottom trawling in those areas, or will she be taking the advice of the former fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who, when speaking about supertrawlers in the debates last week, spoke about fishing only in the water column? Will there be a stepped process to bring that about? Can she set out what the journey is between now and 2030?
There is a strong rationale for being clear with the fishing industry, coastal communities and those who seek to protect our marine environment about how these highly protected marine areas will be established in England in particular, although I appreciate that the commitment the Government have given is on the protection of UK waters.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentions supertrawlers, because I have been thinking about this quite a lot over the weekend. I recall when I was in Portavogie I saw a ship—not a supertrawler—having a couple of feet lopped off its prow in order to meet the recommendations. Does he not think that just banning boats over 100 metres would result in a proliferation of boats of 99.9 metres and that we need to be more intelligent in the way we manage fisheries in that regard?
Luke Pollard
I agree with the key point the right hon. Gentleman makes because, as a west country MP, I see an awful lot of dumpy boats around the west country that have been adjusted to be as broad as they possibly can while still coming under the designated length, be that 10, 12 or 14 metres or whatever. I share his concern about retrofits to fishing boats; in particular, he will know of my concern about retrofits to boats that do not come with the latest stability features, so that the retrofitting not only avoids certain fisheries regulations, which is the point he is making, but also potentially poses a greater safety risk to the lives of the crew, if they were to go over, and of those volunteers tasked with saving them in such an event.
I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. However, when it comes to banning supertrawlers, although I know that the amendment that Labour tabled mentioned supertrawlers over 100 metres, he will be aware that there is a debate about whether a supertrawler at 90 metres is also sufficiently sized. To a certain extent, that is a moot point, because as he will know the oceans treaty that his Government have signed up to effectively seeks to ban all extractive activity in marine protected areas by 2030, working on the assumption that marine protected areas will be the ones that would become highly protected marine areas. I hope there is a strong case for that status being given to Wembury bay, around the coast from Plymouth. The Minister will know it. It has a beautiful diverse marine environment, and would be an effective highly protected marine area; it does not necessarily enjoy all the protections of other classifications at the moment. There is some wiggle room there.
The key point of the new clause is to seek clarity from the Minister and the Government on the journey ahead. My fear is that we will not see a clear plan produced, or a part two of the Benyon review. I would like Richard Benyon recommissioned to start a part two, because the questions of how an area is designated, and how commercial and recreational fishers are included in the process, are essential. The UK Government must not renege on their 2030 treaty obligations because they did not put in the advance work, and we must not have a rush to designate in the lead-up to 2030 that does not adequately take into account the livelihoods of fishers, who otherwise could have been supported for a period through re-zoning of fishing activity. That is the purpose of the new clause. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.
Victoria Prentis
The Government are pushing internationally for a global target of protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030. We were pleased to read the report on highly protected marine areas from the independent review panel, chaired by Richard Benyon. I have also enjoyed some fairly lively meetings with stakeholders, to listen to their views about the recommendations of the review. As we have said, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closely with other Government Departments and is considering its response to the report’s recommendations. We will publish that response in due course. I am unable to give a better timetable than that, I am afraid, but work is ongoing. The Government are interested in the proposals for highly protected marine areas. In the Secretary of State’s recent speech on environmental recovery, he announced his intention to pilot highly protected marine areas.
To answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, all extractive activities are not compatible with the aims for the areas. The review panel did not make specific recommendations on pilot sites. The review recommended that the Government consider social and economic factors when identifying sites, in order to minimise any negative effects for stakeholders, and it also recommended transparency, as well as early, continuous and, of course, honest engagement with a range of stakeholders when considering highly protected marine area sites. If the Government do decide to introduce HPMAs, we will work with our arm’s length bodies and stakeholders to identify where the pilots should be, and will consult honestly and frankly with those affected as soon as we can before designation. If we decide to go down the HPMA route, we will certainly carry out a full public consultation before putting any pilots in place. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I am afraid I did not get the answers that I was looking for from the Minister with regard to a commitment and a timetable. I am grateful for the commitment she has given on consultation, but I will push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
New clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to control the creation and disposal of plastic waste during fishing activities in all areas of the UK’s exclusive economic zone, except for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish zones. The new clause, as with others we have proposed, has sustainability at its heart.
According to estimates from Greenpeace, 12.7 million tonnes of plastic go into our oceans every year. That is the same as a truckload of rubbish every minute. Of course, that cannot be solely attributed to the fishing industry, and clearly wider societal and environmental action is needed to tackle it in addition to the measures set out in the new clause, but plastic waste generated by fishing is a contributory factor. For example, an estimated 20% of fishing gear is lost at sea in the EU. Another example is the great Pacific garbage patch, which the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, mentioned when the Fisheries Bill was before the House in the last Parliament.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that a huge amount of the plastic in the oceans is coming from the land and running into rivers? The new clause is well intentioned, and I completely share the hon. Lady’s aim to reduce plastic in the environment, but it may create a bigger burden on an industry whose contribution is de minimis to the plastic that is floating around in the ocean.
Stephanie Peacock
If the hon. Lady had been listening to my speech, she would have noted that I just said that of course the fishing industry cannot be fully responsible, but it can play its part. Statistics highlighted by The Ocean Cleanup conservation group show an area of floating rubbish totalling 79,000 tonnes, most of which is abandoned fishing gear and other plastic waste. Clearly the UK is not responsible for all fishing gear lost at sea in the EU, or for plastic waste in the Pacific, but there is no reason why we should not set the standard and be world leaders in tackling plastic waste in our own waters.
We have an opportunity with the Bill and with the new clause to tackle this problem and to make an important contribution to broader efforts to protect our environment. The new clause is not radical, nor would it damage the industry or constrain or tie the Government into any particular course of action. I urge the Government to accept the new clause.
Victoria Prentis
Tackling the scourge of plastic pollution in the ocean is a priority for the Government and for me personally. While the proposed new clause rightly recognises the importance of tackling plastic pollution, it is not necessary in the Bill because it replicates existing legislation.
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1998 prohibits the disposal of plastic items at sea, including fishing gear. Adequate disposal facilities are already required under the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003. Under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) Regulations 2020, larger vessels are required to complete a garbage record book to record waste and complete a garbage management plan to minimise, collect, store, process and dispose of garbage.
Clause 38(4) already provides a power to make regulations for a conservation purpose, which can cover the design and use of sea fishing equipment and the retrieval of lost or discarded sea fishing equipment. There is already a very full legislative framework that regulates the disposal of plastic waste, including fishing gear, from fishing vessels, without the need for this new clause. I recognise why it might have been thought that the new clause was necessary, but given the plethora of legislation in the area, we need to work on enforcement, not legislation. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
Stephanie Peacock
As the Minister points out, we need to work on enforcement, which is clearly not working. I am disappointed that she will not accept the new clause, but I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Enforcement of licences
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and annually by the 30 November every year thereafter, lay before Parliament a statement containing the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to the—
(a) routine patrolling of waters within British fishery limits, and
(b) enforcement of the requirements under sections 14(1) and 16(1).
(2) Before making a statement under subsection (1), the Minister must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, and
(c) the Northern Ireland department.
(3) The statement under subsection (1) must include a declaration of whether, in the Minister’s opinion, the United Kingdom has sufficient resources to undertake the actions mentioned in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b).
(4) If, in the Minister’s opinion, the United Kingdom does not have sufficient resources to undertake the actions mentioned in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), the Minister shall, within 30 days of making the statement, publish a strategy for acquiring such resources.
(5) A strategy published under subsection (3) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(6) For the purpose of this section “sufficient resources” includes—
(a) an appropriate number of vessels,
(b) an appropriate number of personnel, and
(c) any other resource that a Minister of the Crown deems appropriate.”.—(Luke Pollard.)
This new clause requires a Minister of the Crown to outline the Government’s policy in relation to the patrolling of British waters and enforcement of fisheries licences, and, in the event of the UK not having sufficient resources, requires publication of a strategy for them.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
New clause 13 would do exactly what it says on the tin: licence enforcement. Enforcement matters. Fishers need to know that everyone will be playing by the rules, because that is not always the case at the moment. That is an important part of the grumbles and gripes that I have heard from fishers over the past few years. Although they are playing by the rules, they can see others who are not and who are getting away with it, be they other British fishers or foreign fishers operating in UK waters. That legitimate concern is why enforcement matters.
As we discussed earlier, we know there are gaps in enforcement and other problems. We do not have enough ships or aerial assets to enforce what we currently have, let alone deal with territorial disputes in the future. Enforcement is important because it acts as a deterrent as well as an opportunity for prosecution and investigation. I am sure the Minister was using a fishing boat tracking app on her phone last weekend—if she does not have one, it is well worth getting, because it is great fun—and saw a French trawler being intercepted by enforcement active in the English Channel and escorted into Plymouth to face questions about whether it was properly licensed or responsible for overfishing. I want to see more such examples of the enforcement of regulations—not necessarily the escorting into port—to ensure that the same standards are applied to foreign and UK boats, that there is a high degree of probability that enforcement action will happen while boats are at sea, and that prosecution will follow if they are found in breach of any of our rules.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his predecessor, Elliot Morley, who came to Whitby and announced that, in his view, every single British fisherman was breaking the rules? Subsequently, it was only Mr Morley himself who was convicted of an offence.
Luke Pollard
I take the point, although it is brave of any Conservative MP to talk about rule breaking at the moment.
Returning to the issue at hand, rather than the game playing, it is important that we look at this issue. That is why in proposed new clause 13(6) we say that there must be “sufficient resources” available for proper enforcement, including
“an appropriate number of vessels…an appropriate number of personnel, and…any of other resource”
that is needed, such as new aerial assets and drones, as we have discussed. Joining together our Royal Navy assets, coastguard assets, the enforcement activities of the devolved nations, electronic monitoring systems, automatic identification systems and other electronic tracking systems gives us the ability to track vessels as well as giving us a better understanding of the reality at sea. That is important.
Frequently, in regulatory terms, there has been an idea that when a fishing boat leaves port some of the rules will not be enforced, even if it undertakes activities incorrectly. As we have seen, there is an appetite among fishers, coastal communities and the people we represent to ensure that fishing activities at sea are legal, sustainable and fair when distributed between British and foreign boats in our waters. At the moment, that is not the view of many fishers in the west country. There seems to be a bias towards prosecuting British boats rather than foreign boats that are potentially in breach. I encourage the Minister to look at the enforcement priorities of the authorities when she has a moment.
All of those who feed into enforcement need to ensure that people are playing by the rules; I do not think people are doing that at the moment. There needs to be sufficient enforcement of the standard that we want. As we become a newly independent coastal state, the message about our values and enforcement that we send now will be one that we are judged against in the future. I want the Government to use the powers that they already have and have had for many years—not new powers that may be afforded to them by any negotiations—to ensure sufficient enforcement of our marine laws, to make sure there is no bias in favour of prosecuting British boats at the expense of rule-breaking foreign boats in our waters, and that we have a higher standard regime for safety enforcement.
Many non-departmental bodies that the Minister has in her remit have an important role in sending messages about stability tests, proper training and wearing lifejackets, as well as the issues that she spoke about relating to discards and other matters. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say.
Victoria Prentis
In England, enforcement of fisheries legislation is a statutory function of the MMO. A copy of the MMO’s annual report must be laid before Parliament and there is scrutiny of what enforcement is being carried out. Although it is good to have encouragement from the hon. Gentleman in this area, I would like to reassure him that there is no need for that encouragement, as this is an issue we take very seriously. Parliamentary questions about enforcement are regularly asked in both Houses, and senior leaders of the MMO have given evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There is a great deal of scrutiny of their activities.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU and become an independent coastal state, the Government have taken significant steps to ensure the UK can enforce the new fishing rights. Those include—with respect to England via the MMO—doubling the number of warranted enforcement officers to over 100, chartering two offshore commercial vessels in addition to the Royal Navy Overseas Patrol Squadron, and procuring 140 aerial surveillance flights for the period of January to March 2021. Those increases in resources are the result of the latest requirement assessment, based on the MMO’s compliance and enforcement strategy, which has been published on gov.uk.
Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, enforcement of fisheries legislation is devolved. It is and will continue to be for each devolved Administration to decide how best to control its waters. DEFRA and the MMO work with fisheries administrations from the devolved Administrations to utilise available resources, in partnership with the Ministry of Defence, Department for Transport and other agencies. This ensures that UK Government Departments are increasingly joined up in maximising our maritime capability, including fisheries protection. Given that we feel this new clause duplicates policy and procedure, I ask that it be withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out. I agree that there has been a great deal of scrutiny, but that scrutiny has found enforcement gaps, enforcement problems and a lower number of interventions and hours at sea. There is more work to be done there, but on the basis that we have discussed this and the Minister can be in no doubt that there is a better job to be done than is done already, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Expert advisory council on fisheries
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body called the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries for the purpose of exercising the functions in subsections (4) to (6).
(2) The Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries shall consist of as many people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Before appointing any person to the Expert Advisory Council, the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) the other fisheries policy authorities;
(b) inshore fisheries and conservation authorities;
(c) fishing industry representatives;
(d) representatives of the 10m and under fishing sector;
(e) recreational fishing representatives;
(f) environmental organisations;
(g) fish processors;
(h) port representatives;
(i) local government representatives; and
(j) any other such organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice of the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries before—
(a) publishing or amending a Secretary of State fisheries statement,
(b) making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under Section 24, and
(c) making any regulations under this Act.
(5) The Secretary of State shall publish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries’ assessment, for a calendar year, of the state of UK fisheries, including—
(a) current stocks and their sustainability,
(b) species distribution within the Exclusive Economic Zone,
(c) the status of employment and skills in the fishing industry,
(d) the take-up of fishing industry job opportunities by school and college leavers,
(e) present total catches and future projected total catches, by both volume and monetary value, and
(f) the economic and social value and impact of the fishing industry on coastal communities.
(6) The first annual assessment under subsection (5) shall be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent assessment must be published within 12 months of the previous such assessment.
(7) For a calendar year, no determination may be made under section 24 until the annual assessment under subsection (5) has been published for that year.” —(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish an Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries, and would provide for the Council’s membership and functions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
As we have said on a number of occasions throughout our discussion of the Bill, it is important that Government policy is led by science and expert opinion, and that the industry and coastal communities have the opportunity to have their voices heard. The new clause will place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish an expert advisory council on fisheries, on which the industry and coastal communities will have a strong voice. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has said it supports the establishment of a consultative group comprised of appropriately qualified authoritative fisheries experts to inform policy decisions and ensure proper accountability. It has also said:
“The inclusion on the Advisory Council of fisheries experts would guarantee that sustainability issues are fully considered.”
An advisory council would be an invaluable source of knowledge of our UK fishing industry and marine environment, helping to guide policy and promote collaboration between central Government, fisheries authorities, industry, scientists, conservationists and other key stakeholders. As has been mentioned multiple times during the Committee, the fishing industry is a naturally variable industry. It is important that fishing policy and authorities are informed by expert opinion and scientific data, and that the industry is involved in decisions on its future at every step of the policy-making process. The aim of this simple Opposition amendment is to bring all expert stakeholders together, and I hope it can carry the support of Members from across the House. I know that Conservative Members have voiced their support, so I hope the Government will give the new clause serious consideration.
Victoria Prentis
In keeping with the commitments in the 25-year environment plan and the fisheries White Paper, I assure the Committee that we already work closely and collaboratively with our fishing industry, scientists and environmental stakeholders to make sure our fisheries are managed in a sustainable way. The White Paper noted our intention to work in greater partnership with the industry. Our commitment to listening and working collaboratively with the industry and stakeholders feeds into policy development in a flexible and proportionate way. A national one-size-fits-all engagement structure would not, we feel, be in keeping with the needs of different fishing communities. Committing to a prescriptive advisory structure at this stage could limit the development of fisheries management. I believe the new clause is unnecessary and ask that it be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Fishing co-operatives
‘(1) The Secretary of State must promote co-operatives within the fishing industry, in England, and such promotion may include—
(a) offering financial assistance for the creation or development of fishing co-operatives within the following aspects—
(i) landing;
(ii) catching; and
(iii) processing;
(b) establishing bodies to provide practical support and guidance for the development of new co-operatives; issue guidance on the practical steps which can be taken pursuant to establishing a new co-operative.
(2) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may be given by way of grant, loan or guarantee, or in any other form.
(3) An organisation shall be recognised as a fishing co-operative if—
(a) it is either—
(i) registered with the Financial Conduct Authority as a co-operative; or
(ii) constituted under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, and
(b) it operates in a sector of the fishing industry described in subsection (1)(a).’—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance, establish support and issue guidance in order to promote co-operatives in the fishing industry in England by—for example —offering financial assistance, establishing support bodies or issuing guidance.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
New clause 15 speaks to the long history of co-operatives and co-operation in our fishing industry. It would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance, establish support and issue guidance to promote co-operatives in the fishing industry in England. This could include, for example, offering funds, establishing support bodies or issuing guidance to co-operative businesses.
As has been said repeatedly in this Committee, the obstacles faced by small-scale operators in the last 10 years require urgent redress. The new clause gives us a chance to do just that. Existing co-operative structures in the industry allow fishers to pool risk and access bigger markets; at the same time, they enable those in the sector to work closely together to protect the long-term financial and environmental sustainability of our seas. Fishing co-operatives can play a vital role in minimising competition for already depleted and diminishing stocks where they allow structures of management and control to be agreed between fishers. That helps to secure the future of our industry. Co-operatives simply offer a greater degree of control to the smaller operators, who need it.
Labour’s new clause would require the Government to boost the growth of co-operative businesses in the sector by supporting existing co-operatives to grow and by helping new co-operatives to start up. I hope that the Government will support the new duties that the new clause would place on the Secretary of State. In doing so, they will show that they recognise the good done by co-operatives across this country and the faith they have in smaller operators, who represent the future of our UK fishing industry.
Victoria Prentis
This clause is not necessary because funding and guidance are and will continue to be available for a variety of fishing activities in England, as we discussed this morning. The Government made a manifesto commitment to maintain funding for the sector, and we will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund with new domestic scheme from 2021.
We are not sure that it is helpful to focus on co-operatives. Not all fishermen want to be members of broad collective groups or organisations, and in our view it would not be appropriate to single out one form of organisation over others. In addition, it is unclear what relationship this proposed co-operative model would have to the producer organisations and fishermen’s associations that already work throughout England. I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
“Fishing industry skills strategy
‘(1) Within 1 year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for skills, employment and economic regeneration for the fishing industry.
(2) Before publishing a strategy under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) the Scottish Ministers;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) the Northern Ireland department;
(d) representatives of the fishing industry;
(e) any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a fishing industry skills strategy.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
During the Committee stage of the previous version of the Bill, the matter of skills was discussed on a number of occasions. I fear that without this new clause the Bill will have nothing to say about skills for our coastal communities, and too little to say about the economic regeneration of those communities and the fishing industry.
We live in a rapidly changing world where new technologies and systems are transforming industries and changing the world of work. The Government intend that the Bill will establish a framework for fisheries for decades to come, but it also presents an opportunity to future-proof the industry and equip it with the means to adapt to an ever-changing world. Producing a skills strategy would present the industry and our coastal communities with a real opportunity for to do just that.
The new clause has the potential to create opportunities in parts of our country that have long been held back. It would encourage new entrants into the sector, people with innovative ideas that could help to rejuvenate the industry, make it adaptable to market changes and bring prosperity back to coastal towns and villages. It could help to end the brain drain from coastal areas and create exciting new opportunities, growing our fishing industry and creating a new greener economy.
Over the last few months, I have spoken with representatives of the fishing industry. Many of them have expressed the fear that the industry is failing to attract younger generations, so I hope that the Government support this new clause in recognition of the fact that action needs to be taken to address the skills shortage and the people shortage in fishing, which have a real impact on the local economies of seaside towns and villages.
We should take every opportunity to fundamentally change the prospects of our coastal communities. I believe that new clause 16 would be an important part of that approach.
Luke Pollard
I rise in support of what my colleague, the shadow Fisheries Minister, has just said. There is a glaring gap in the skills and workforce strategy when it comes to fishing. That was highlighted in the discussion of the previous Fisheries Bill, when a Minister said that fishing is an unskilled profession. Technically, for immigration purposes, that may be the classification that fishing has been placed in by the Home Office, but I would challenge any Fisheries Minister or former Fisheries Minister, or any Tory Back Bencher who has been unfairly put on a Bill, to try fishing at sea and then say it is unskilled.
We do need a workforce strategy for fishing. That means that we need to look at how we can encourage new entrants into the area, and encourage fishing to be a career of choice for our young people in coastal communities. At the moment, those people going into fishing for the very first time—I have spoken about this issue before—tend to be related to someone who is already in the sector, particularly a father or an uncle. That means we have very strong fishing families and fishing communities, but we are missing an opportunity to provide new employment for young people in our coastal communities that makes fishing a career of choice.
That is why this fishing industry skills strategy is an opportunity that I would encourage the Minister to take up. Even if she does not accept the new clause, we need to take this opportunity; if not, the promises made by those advocating Brexit in our coastal communities may not be delivered, and we may continue to see the decline of our industry and smaller and smaller workforces. This is an opportunity to grow the workforce, and to provide fishing as a career of choice and opportunity for our young people.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Whitby town bid includes a marine academy, which will encompass Whitby Fishing School and also teach other skills? That is just the type of innovation we need to bring people into the industry.
Luke Pollard
I agree entirely. Plymouth’s plan for fish has a similar focus on marine skills, and again, if the hon. Member for Waveney were here, he would no doubt be talking about the skills in the Renaissance of the East Anglian Fisheries project. What is happening here, though—this is a good example—is that the responsibility for workforce is being shifted to local authorities and local initiatives, and is not part of a national strategy. If it is happening in certain communities, we can presume that it is not happening in others, and sharing best practice, though important, is no substitute for a national lead that would create such a strategy and make skills workforce development easier for people to undertake.
Victoria Prentis
We can all agree that attracting skills and talent is crucial to realising our ambitions for a thriving modern fisheries sector. Seafish undertakes a great deal of work promoting careers, as well as safety training, in the seafood sector, which includes providing a range of training courses and materials for new and more established members of the industry. It also established the Young Seafood Leaders Network in October 2018 to share best practice and innovation and develop leadership skills.
However, bringing new entrants into the industry remains a challenge. A Seafish study from July 2019 showed that many young people see jobs in seafood as low-skilled, unexciting and focused on handling fish. In response to this, Seafish has developed a range of materials to help improve understanding of the range of employment opportunities that exist, including case studies of women in the industry.
In England, we are closely engaged with the recommendations made in the Seafood 2040 strategic framework. That initiative includes the delivery of a single, cross-sector seafood training and skills plan, aiming to support businesses in the seafood supply chain and recruit and retain workers with suitable skills. Helping safeguard the industry’s future by encouraging new entrants is very important, and we will be looking at how we can best encourage that as part of our work to reform the fisheries management regime.
The funding powers in the Bill, contained in clause 35 and schedule 6, will allow the Government to support the reorganisation, development and promotion of fishing. That will really benefit commercial communities, and will also support training for those who fish. Given all that, I ask that the hon. Lady withdraw the motion.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Procurement of sustainable fishery products
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, within 12 months of this Act being passed, a strategy for increasing sustainable fish procurement in the public sector.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Labour’s new clause 17 requires the Secretary of State, 12 months after this Bill has been passed, to lay before the House a strategy for increasing sustainable fish procurement in the public sector. The clause would support both fishers and our marine environment.
Some £2.4 billion is spent each year on food and catering services for the public sector. As has been mentioned multiple times during the debate on this Bill, in the UK we export most of what we catch and import most of what we eat. The new clause would help grow a home market for sustainable UK-landed fish.
Our British fish, 80% of which is exported, is currently subject to the uncertainties of the global market. During the covid-19 pandemic, our fishers were left struggling to make a living as export markets were shut and prices for UK products fell through the floor. A strategy for increasing sustainable fish procurement in the public sector would hopefully increase domestic demand for sustainably caught UK fish such as hake, haddock, coley, mackerel and crab. That would give a much-needed boost to the UK fishing industry.
The UK public sector could showcase the public benefit by buying sustainably caught fish. That, in turn, would support the recovery of UK fish populations that are depleted. As I have already stated, recovering all UK fish stocks would allow 30% more fish to be landed by UK fleets, creating 10,000 more jobs in fishing and associated industries such as localised processing and transport. Those jobs would be in some of the areas that have suffered declining wages and have had fewer job opportunities over the past 10 years, including Cornwall, the east coast of England, west Wales and northern Scotland. Our new clause would directly link public buying with the aims of the Fisheries Bill—in particular, sustainability and the national benefit objectives—ensuring that Government policy is joined up.
Public sector caterers are required to serve fish with certain standards of sustainability, set out in the Government buying standards. However, compliance with those standards is poor. A Department of Health and Social Care report published in 2017 showed that only half of hospitals were meeting the basic food standards, and that was confirmed by sustained research in 2018. What steps are the Minister’s Department taking to increase compliance with the Government’s buying standards so that basic food standards are met?
New clause 17 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for increasing sustainable fish procurement in the public sector, to ensure not only that the current sustainable buying standards are met but that public bodies promote world-leading sustainable British fish.
Luke Pollard
This is a really important new clause, and I hope the Minister thinks strongly about adopting it. We do not eat enough local fish, and it was universally agreed on Second Reading that we need to eat more. As part of that, we need to buy more local fish. The public sector—the UK’s largest fish buyer—has the potential, as the national caterer, to buy more local fish.
Marine Stewardship Council certification of UK stocks is not as high as we would like it to be, and the opportunity to have more sustainable fish stocks should also mean the opportunity for more Government procurement. It seems odd that, at the moment, the fish eaten in our prisons, Government offices, schools and hospitals is frequently foreign fish because our own fish do not adhere to the sustainability standards. I am sure the Minister wants to change that.
If the UK Government were to lead by example and set an objective as part of the procurement report that the shadow fisheries Minister set out, they would also encourage more private sector buyers to buy more British fish, because that would support domestic infrastructure for processing and the onward distribution of fish in the UK.
On Second Reading, I challenged UK supermarkets to buy more British fish, and asked them to write to me to set out how they planned to do so. I fear that the supermarkets’ monitoring of parliamentary debates may be a little faulty, because not a single one has yet put pen to paper to set out how that might happen. Hopefully, the Minister will set out how the Government intend to buy more British fish, and at the same time will encourage UK supermarkets, which could, after the lead of the UK Government, provide the biggest boost for our domestic fishers.
At a time when international markets are disrupted—they could be disrupted further, given what may follow the no-deal Brexit that we seem to be heading towards—the ability for UK supermarkets and the UK public sector to buy more British fish would be enormously helpful.
Victoria Prentis
We are in no doubt, on both sides of the House, that we want everybody to buy more British fish. The Government have a manifesto commitment on that:
“When we leave the EU, we will be able to encourage the public sector to ‘Buy British’ to support our farmers and reduce environmental costs.”
Our future policy will undoubtedly reflect that commitment.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East referred to the existing guidance—the Government buying standards for food and catering services. That is mandatory, and if she has examples of non-compliance, I encourage her to let me know very shortly. The Government are determined to create an environment where our farmers and food producers are supported in accessing public sector contracts and providing outstanding home-grown produce to high environmental standards. That helps to meet wider Government policy objectives, such as supporting local communities, encouraging healthier diets and improving sustainability.
Stephanie Peacock
The Government should put their money where their mouth is, but the clause does not even ask them to do that. It simply asks for a report on how we should buy more fish and use the Government’s significant buying power to procure British fish. On that basis, I will press the clause to a vote on whether we should support British fish and buy more.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This brief new clause would require the Government to publish a report into the distant water fleet. On a recent visit to Hull, I spoke to a number of fishers from UK Fisheries who are part of that fleet.
It may be useful for new Committee members to understand what a distant water fleet is. Historically, the UK fished in distant waters, especially around Iceland, Norway, Greenland and other places. It was in those waters that we developed a taste for the white fish that still makes up the vast majority of our imports, and from which the white fish for fish and chips largely still comes. As those nations took back control of their own waters and pushed our boats out of them—as part of the cod wars that I am sure all hon. Members are familiar with—distant water fishing opportunities declined, and with them, sadly, many of our fishing ports that relied on the distant water fleet, especially along the east coast in places such as Hull and Grimsby.
A small distant water fleet remains. The Minister knows that I want more fishers to land their fish in UK waters. Whether they are UK boats or UK flagged boats, if they are using any quota that has been given to the UK, I want that fish to be landed in UK ports. Notwithstanding that, the new clause seeks to encourage the Minister to ensure that in the negotiations taking place with our EU friends, the quota available for the distant water fleet that is currently UK flagged still has the opportunity to continue fishing in those waters.
In the Norway-EU agreement, for instance, the UK has approximately 50% of the available quota. Norway has said: “Brexit is your problem to sort out. We’ve allocated our quota to you guys. You sort it out between you.” That is perhaps fair-minded of it and not unreasonable, but in making the case for a distant water fleet to preserve that quota, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed, first, that that is part of the fisheries negotiations; secondly, that conversations are taking place with the distant water fleet; and thirdly, that the Minister and her Department have had opportunities to encourage the distant water fleet to genuinely build an economic link with UK ports, particularly on the east coast, and ensure that it is not just flying a UK flag for convenience and that it is landing more fish.
Victoria Prentis
The Government are holding formal negotiations with Norway and the Faroe Islands and engaging in discussions with other relevant countries, such as Iceland and Greenland. The UK is close—very close—to agreeing a fisheries framework of agreements with Norway and the Faroe Islands. Those agreements will provide a framework for the annual negotiations on fishing opportunities and access.
The Marine Management Organisation already reports on a large amount of the information sought by the new clause, including data on catches, quota uptake and value. I note the desire of hon. Members to be further informed about negotiations, and although I understand that, I should say that the negotiations are fluid at the moment. We will, of course, inform the House as soon as we can.
A report as specific as that sought by the new clause would be unlikely to deliver much gain at the moment, in the context of those extremely fluid, live negotiations. Reporting would be required on a likely minimum of 200 UK vessels of more than 24 metres in length that fish in non-UK waters. There is also ambiguity in the new clause about assessing commercial health and economic sustainability, which I think would be very difficult to action in practice. I therefore ask that the motion be withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 19
Report on fish caught in UK waters but landed abroad
‘(1) Within 12 months of this Act being passed and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report stating—
(a) what fish have been caught within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone but landed at ports outside the United Kingdom, Isle of Man, Guernsey or Jersey; and
(b) why such fish were not landed at a port in the United Kingdom, Isle of Man, Guernsey or Jersey.’—(Luke Pollard.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause, which is consistent with the case made by Labour Members in Committee, would create an evidence base for the missing fish that our coastal ports are denied when it is landed in foreign ports. We know that Conservative MPs have voted down Labour’s jobs in coastal communities amendments, favouring the landing of fish in foreign ports rather than British ports. That does not create jobs in Grimsby, Hull, Plymouth, Newlyn, Portavogie and elsewhere.
The new clause seeks to understand how much fish caught under a UK quota is being landed in foreign ports. As set out by the shadow fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East, for every job at sea, there are 10 jobs on the shore. Landing more fish in our coastal communities creates more jobs in them, and creates the opportunity for more fish to be sold in the UK, supporting our domestic industry. The report proposed by the new clause, which would only create the evidence base for missing fish, would hopefully inform that debate.
When the Government voted against the jobs in coastal communities amendment that would have required two thirds of fish caught under a UK quota to be landed in British ports, I told the Minister that that would not be the end of the matter. Indeed, she should expect Labour to continue campaigning for the creation of jobs in coastal communities, especially given the jobs crisis that they face in particular. The new clause would create an evidence base, and it is hard to disagree with the merit of that. The promise of more jobs that was made to our coastal communities—with Brexit and with more fish being landed—can be realised only if more fish is actually landed.
Although the Minister and I are perhaps not on exactly the same page on the negotiations, she has a wee advantage over me as she knows what is going on— I hope so, anyway. But whether or not we get more fish, we still need to focus on creating support for our domestic industry. The new clause would require Ministers to produce a report setting out how much fish caught in our exclusive economic zone is landed in ports outside the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, and to investigate why that fish was not landed in ports in the United Kingdom. To realise the benefits of landing more fish in the United Kingdom, we need to strengthen that economic link. It is important that Parliament has a voice on the public asset test.
I am grateful for the evidence that has been submitted even though we did not have an evidence session, and I note that the Clerk has been busy forwarding it to the Committee. Some of the evidence arrived after the objectives were debated by the Committee, so we have not had a chance to integrate it all fully, but one particular point is worth highlighting. Professor Richard Barnes, of Lincoln University, correctly points out in his submission that assuming that fish are already a public asset is incorrect, and that there is nothing about that in the Magna Carta, as many people think there is. There is nothing about it in international law necessarily —not that that is relevant here. He states:
“FQAs do not establish…stewardship responsibilities”,
and that fish are in effect private property through quota. He goes on:
“Establishing that fish are a public asset would be a critical first step in establishing a stewardship framework for fishing in the UK. It would create an opportunity for engagement in ongoing debates and decisions about how best to manage a valuable public good.”
It is a shame to miss out on that evidence. Are fish to be a public asset? The Minister voted down that amendment, but in effect she said that fish should be one and should be managed in that way. If so, an important part of the evidence base is to have an understanding of how much of that public asset derives an economic benefit to the UK and how much of it is deriving a considerable economic benefit to our European friends. We have no such understanding simply because Ministers have not yet chosen to use the powers they already have, whether in primary legislation or through licensing.
Should the Minister be thinking about adjusting the requirement to land more fish in British ports through the licence, having taken note of Labour’s amendment that was defeated—seeking to introduce the policy without giving the Opposition a win, so to speak—an evidence base would be important. That is what the report seeks to achieve.
Victoria Prentis
Far from being missing, those fish are included in the statistics published by the Marine Management Organisation on the landings of fish by UK vessels as part of its annual report. The statistics include the ports and countries into which a catch is landed. Conservative Members are determined to support the UK fishing industry to get the best price for what it catches. The Government are clear that UK-registered vessels that fish against UK quota must demonstrate a link to the economy of the UK.
As I said last week, we will soon consult on proposals to strengthen the economic link to England, but those proposals will not mean that all catch must be landed into the UK, because we recognise that for some vessels it is more practical, sustainable or financially beneficial to land abroad. Our proposals do not mean that the Government will seek justification from vessel owners for their private and undoubtedly well-reasoned business decisions, which might be market sensitive and to do with the price that they can get for their catch.
The reasons why fish will be landed elsewhere relate primarily to price and market. Sometimes landing outside the UK will be necessary for safety reasons—for example, in a storm or because of mechanical issues. The new clause is not necessary, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I will take up that opportunity, Sir Charles.
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the MMO publishes those statistics. As a recent response of hers to a parliamentary question showed, however, 50% of cod catches do not have a sales note registered, so how convinced is she that the MMO has the ability to track accurately what of the UK total allowable catch is caught and landed? That is why an evidence base is important.
I do not think the Minister has given an adequate reason for why there should not be a report into fish caught abroad. We are missing fish still from our economy. We do not have a strong enough economic link. UK ports are missing out on fish that could be landed in our ports. I encourage the Minister to borrow as much Labour policy as she possibly can from our jobs and coastal communities amendment, as I suspect she will. [Interruption.] A set of Conservative MPs are huffing and hawing about the idea, but I suspect that, in the weeks and months ahead, we will see the Minister in effect cutting and pasting large parts of our amendments.
Victoria Prentis
I can find no other mechanism to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We discussed this measure fully last week. He knows that we will consult on proposals for landing requirements. I look forward to working across the House with all those who have proposals in this area, but I will not accept that 100% of UK vessels’ catch will have to be landed in the UK. Conservative Members wish to support the fishing industry, and we do that best by letting them land where they can get the best price, where that is appropriate.
Luke Pollard
I did not detect a question in that intervention, so I am not sure I can reply. However, I would not want the Minister to be under a misapprehension about Labour policy. I believe she was attempting to paint a picture that Labour were suggesting that 100% of fish should be landed under a UK quota. She will know, because I am sure she has read the new clause and no doubt seen the considerable amount of media coverage in coastal communities on it, that we have suggested that two thirds of fish caught under a UK quota should be landed in a UK port.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 20 addresses the impact of covid-19 on the fishing industry. The coronavirus pandemic has clearly caused immense disruption across different sectors of our economy, but the fishing industry has been affected by a particular set of challenges. They include a significant hit to demand for fish in key domestic and overseas markets, with the closure of the restaurant sector and many supermarket fresh fish counters during lockdown; the challenge of getting fish to market; a collapse in prices, with falls of as much as 85%; and disruption to supply chains.
Alongside those challenges, many fishers have faced labour shortages caused in part by overseas workers leaving the UK. Many small fishers were unable to adapt to these challenges, as throughout the lockdown period their quota allocation and the fish they catch remained unchanged. All of that has been exacerbated by what happened earlier this year, when many boats were grounded by storms and high winds.
The difficulties are well known to the Government. On 24 April, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs heard from experts in the fishing industry, who highlighted some of the challenges. We have broadly welcomed the Government’s economic support measures during the pandemic. However, in many cases, the measures have not addressed the particular challenges faced by the fishing industry, where smaller businesses often have very tight profit margins, continually reinvesting in their businesses and vessels. As Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, said, “broad brush” Government support left many smaller fishing businesses struggling.
The Government’s £10 million fund for England’s fishing and aquaculture sectors came too late, while the bounce back loan scheme, capped at £50,000, did not cover fixed costs, from maintaining boats to funding berths for charter boats in marinas and ports, which were necessary to ensure the long-term viability of businesses when they were not operating during lockdown. Cash-flow problems and ongoing costs have impacted not only fishers, but fish processing businesses and ports, with the British Ports Association finding that only 36% of UK ports are confident about their business outlook over the next 12 months.
The Government have made support for the fishing industry one of the key elements of their programme, and that has taken on even greater importance in the context of coronavirus. The new clause presents an opportunity to provide greater certainty for an important industry in uncertain times. It would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House a review of the impact of coronavirus and the coronavirus disease on the fishing industry within six months of Royal Assent.
Brendan O'Hara
Once again, I rise to speak about devolution, of which the new clause betrays a lack of understanding. There are four Governments, four Parliaments and four countries of the UK who are taking what steps they think best to tackle the coronavirus and to mitigate the economic damage from it, including in the fishing industry. Again, we have a new clause that thinks it appropriate to ask the person in charge of English fishing to make a report on the economic wellbeing or otherwise of the fishing industries in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I just make the helpful suggestion to the hon. Lady that the Labour party should consider the impact on the devolved Administrations when it puts amendments together.
Stephanie Peacock
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If the Government are willing to accept the new clause, it might be an area that can be improved om, but the point is to try to give greater certainty and greater information to the sector as it struggles to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. Under the terms of the new clause, the report would assess and address the effects of coronavirus on the fishing industry workforce and on the supply availability of fisheries products. The new clause places no obligation on the Government to adopt any particular approach to supporting the fishing industry through these difficult times. It simply requires the Secretary of State to report to the House on the challenges that the industry faces as a result of the pandemic.
I hope the Minister will agree that the covid-19 pandemic has placed a great strain on our UK fishing industry. I hope she will support our new clause to ensure that the Government commit to monitoring the impact of covid-19 on small and big fishers across the country.
The Government need to answer key questions. What measures, if any, will they take to provide more sector-specific support to the fishing industry? What actions will they take to support jobs in coastal communities impacted by covid-19? How will they support British ports? What will the Government do to ensure that more fish caught in UK waters are landed in UK ports, providing important foods to communities hard hit by covid-19? Those are important questions. We hope that work to address those issues will take place in any case, but I am sure the House, the fishing industry and the public would appreciate its being as transparent as possible.
Given the difficulties that the coronavirus pandemic has caused for the fishing industry, if the Government are to oppose the new clause, will the Minister clarify how they will assess the impact of the pandemic and provide support for the industry? What mechanisms will they adopt to ensure that the House, the industry and the public are updated on this work?
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The coronavirus pandemic shows no sign of slowing down or stopping in the immediate future. We know that the disease will, regrettably, live among us and our communities for some time to come. New clause 20 seeks to mandate that the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a report on the impact of coronavirus and the coronavirus disease on the fishing industry.
Last week at the Opposition day debate on protecting jobs and businesses, I commented on the disproportionate and devastating impact the pandemic is having on our communities. In last week’s Fisheries Bill Committee, I spoke about the need to secure, safeguard and create jobs within our coastal communities, particularly at this devastating and worrying time for many of us. Our coastal communities have been severely impacted by the pandemic already, following years of austerity, as well as having to contend with the spiralling expenses of the fishing industry—this particularly affects smaller businesses with smaller vessels.
The new clause indicates to UK businesses that they are at the forefront of our minds during this really difficult time. Providing a report that outlines the impact of coronavirus on the fishing industry workforce, the supply and availability of fishery products, and the commercial viability of the catching sector in general will highlight any issues. It will give the Government and those in the fishing industry a chance to adapt and change, if that is needed to avoid bankruptcy or other financial issues that might arise. It will also mean that Parliament is given sufficient opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s action—or inaction—in supporting UK fishing communities. The Minister will surely agree that that is something our constituents would want.
Victoria Prentis
While I understand that all Members of the House are very worried about the effects of covid-19 on the fishing industry, I want to assure the House that we are very carefully monitoring the impacts on the fishing and seafood sectors. The work that we are doing includes monitoring prices and demand, including landings, for UK seafood, as well as analysis of employment data. We are concerned that the new clause would require a duplication of ongoing engagement and monitoring work. The timeframe in the new clause means that it would not capture the effects of coronavirus after the next six months, which, given the seasonality of fishing, means that it would not capture the full effects, as not all of them will have worked through in the six-month period. We are also concerned about the devolution aspects.
It is definitely true that the coronavirus pandemic has shone a spotlight on the vital role that the food system plays in all our lives, which is why part one of the national food strategy is already looking at the food system in relation to the pandemic. We recognise that it is vital that everyone has access to healthy and affordable food, and the national food strategy is taking forward that work, in addition to work being done by Seafish in data gathering for its 2020 surveys, which are under way. The work is very detailed and the surveys include specific questions about the impacts of covid-19. Subsequent analysis of that data will, I believe, provide the information that is being sought.
The Bill is intended to frame our fisheries management for many years to come. While the pandemic has certainly not gone away in the way that we might have hoped six months ago, I do not think it is appropriate to legislate in a framework Bill for something such as this, when I am confident that the work hon. Members seek is being covered elsewhere. I therefore ask that the clause be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I do appreciate the Minister’s remarks and all the work that the Government are doing, but I am not convinced by her argument that this new clause is a duplicate. It simply asks the Government to come back and report to Parliament, so that they are open and transparent to the public and, most importantly, so that the fishing industry can see the impact of covid-19 on its industry and the support the Government are giving. On that basis, I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Labour’s new clause 21 would set in primary legislation the requirement to label all fish products offered for retail and to the final consumer with the origin and catch method. Retailers are reporting an uptick in demand for sustainably caught or produced food goods. The new clause would not only support the identification of sustainable fish products, but help British consumers identify and buy British fish.
As has been said multiple times in this Committee, negotiations between the EU and UK about fishing quota and tariffs are ongoing and we cannot tell at this point how they will conclude. However, the UK Government can act right now to help our UK fishing industry regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, and guaranteeing that their fish will be identifiable to UK consumers is one such action.
It should be easy to find out, when buying fish in the local supermarket, whether it is Scottish salmon, which is farmed in open net pens, or Chilean salmon, which has a lower rating for sustainability. At the moment under EU law, unprocessed fish must be labelled with the name of the species and the area in and method by which it was caught or farmed. The new clause will protect our UK fish product labelling regime from future trade deals. Last November, leaked documents showed the US’s hostility to food labelling, including front-of-pack nutritional labelling and foods with protected geographical status.
We have a chance in this Bill to set labelling regulations within primary legislation, which would ensure that UK produce is distinguishable in the future. Labour’s regulation would apply to all fisheries products sold in retail and catering, whether pre-packed, non-prepared or processed products. Our clause would give consumers more information about the catch method used to catch their dinner.
Under current legislation, only a general method such as trawl is needed. However, as we have discussed, a trawl can be very damaging. There is a clear difference between beam trawling and more sustainable forms of trawling such as mid-water trawling. Specific fishing gear refers to the detailed type of gear used, for example beam trawlers or purse seiners. Stating the category of fishing gear used in the capture of fisheries products would allow customers to differentiate between more and less sustainably caught products. When they are shopping for their dinner, it should be easy to figure out whether the fish in their fish fingers or their battered fillet was caught in British waters. Labour’s new clause would give British consumers more control over what they eat. Better labelling measures would lead to softer, market-based incentives for fish sustainability. If we are to have a world-leading, sustainable fisheries regime, we must act at every stage of the fish product supply chain, from net to plate.
The Chair
Before we move on, I should say that there will be an opportunity for colleagues to say other nice things after new schedule 1; we have one more schedule to get through.The Minister looks perplexed. Do not worry! Worry about that later.
Taiwo Owatemi
New clause 21 seeks to support UK fishing businesses and the UK fishing industry as a whole by allowing consumers to make informed decisions about buying sustainably sourced fish. That, as Sustain mentions, will give the British public greater confidence, clarity and certainty about the quality of the UK produce they are purchasing.
One of the Bill’s key aims is to restore and maintain UK fish stocks. We should be proud to label UK fishing produce, which will indicate to consumers that we are serious about restoring UK fish stocks, and maintaining them at sustainable levels. By labelling UK fishing produce caught in a sustainable way, consumers can make better choices for themselves and their families. It also creates best practice with regards to fishing activities.
The new clause would give assurances that the UK will not give in to outside interests that seek to weaken labelling regulations. I hope the Government will agree with the Opposition and support the new clause. By doing so, they would be sending a strong message to those who wish to water down our labelling regulations, as well as taking a further step in ensuring that the Bill is committed to sustainability and proper labelling practices.
Victoria Prentis
I am sorry to end on a slightly damp squib, but the new clause is really not necessary. Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, what the new clause seeks to do is already covered by legislation. We already comply with the European regulation 1379/2013 on a common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, which will form part of retained EU law at the end of the transition period. The consumer information stipulated in the new clause is already required by the CMO regulation, so the proposal would simply duplicate the CMO’s labelling requirements.
I completely understand, however, what the hon. Member for Barnsley East says about the importance of labelling going forward. The Government are already committed to a serious and rapid examination of what can be done through labelling to promote high standards—and, indeed, high welfare—across the UK market for fish and agriculture. We will consult on that as soon as we are able to at the end of the transition period—we feel strongly about that—and I hope we will have her support in doing so.
Sir Charles, would you rather I said my nice words later?
Stephanie Peacock
I jumped in too soon with the nice bits.
I thank the Minister for those comments. I understand her first point, but does her Department have plans to introduce regulations that require not just unprocessed fish but all fish products offered for retail to be labelled with where they come from and where they are caught? I urge the Government to be more ambitious on labelling, and to strengthen the labelling rules.
Victoria Prentis
May I intervene to answer the question? Fisheries and aquaculture products will continue to be labelled and marketed as before. We are rolling over the labelling and marketing provisions in the regulation, and they will become part of retained EU law. We want to give certainty to consumers and businesses, especially around alignment with existing markets, as we end the transition period. We are consulting on labelling and we are keen to do so, but any changes to the arrangements would need to be carefully considered.
Stephanie Peacock
The point of the new clause is to ensure that consumers have the information that they need to make choices, and so that they can choose sustainable fish and can buy British. On that note, I would like to vote on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“Seal | Pinniped” |
“Seal | Pinniped” |
“Seal | Pinniped”.”—(Victoria Prentis.) |
Victoria Prentis
Well, we have had kind words from the hon. Member for Barnsley East, and it has been a pleasure to debate this excellent Bill with her. It gives me enormous pleasure to move it to the next stage. It sets out how we will move forward to promote sustainable fishing as we become an independent coastal state at the end of this year.
To that end, I would like to thank you, Sir Charles, and the other Chairman. I would very much like to thank the Clerk, who has managed extremely well. That is very difficult without the normal Box arrangements and without any back-up for the Clerk. I appreciate everything that he has done for us. I thank those on the Opposition Front Bench. I thank particularly all the Committee members, who have not done other things that they wished to do, because they were so determined to give this Bill their full consideration. I thank the Whips, who are both here, and who have kept us in order.
I particularly thank my private office and the Fisheries Bill team for their great work on the Bill. The Bill passes to its next stage in top-notch form, and I look forward to its becoming law very shortly.
Brendan O’Hara
May I add my thanks to you, Sir Charles, and to Mr McCabe for chairing these sittings? I also add my thanks to the Clerk of the Committee for keeping us all on track in what were sometimes very tricky situations. I am sure I am not alone in hating a double negative, and trying to vote accordingly, so I thank him.
The Minister and I did not agree on much, but she was courteous throughout, and there is no doubt that she is across her brief; I thank her for that. I thank all Members on both sides of the Committee for the way the debate was conducted: it was co-operative and constructive; no one can doubt that it was speedy; and we conducted the business successfully. I said in my opening contribution, which feels as if it was many moons ago, that it was like getting a band back together. I trust that, like Sinatra, this will be the last time we do it.
Luke Pollard
I echo the thanks that have been given to the Clerks and the Bill team. I thank all the officials the Minister has tucked away back at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the MMO; Seafish; and the other authorities that have contributed to the Bill. A number of themes have been picked up, not the least of which was safety, and I know that the Minister and colleagues will continue to drive that in a cross-party way. I thank the Minister and those on the Conservative Benches who contributed to the collegiate way in which the debate was conducted.
Fishing is important to our coastal communities, and on Report we will no doubt continue the debate on how we create jobs. I thank the Committee Chairs, and I also thank the Hansard recorder for keeping a good record of our debates and deliberations, which I am sure will be of great use as the Bill progresses.
The Chair
I would like to thank you all for your patience, fortitude and forbearance, and I thank the Clerk. There has been some pretty ropey stuff going on from the Chair at times.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Written Statement
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Coronavirus Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I want to update on the latest local restrictions. The latest evidence indicates that the covid-19 infection rate is beginning to rise across the country. It is therefore now vitally important that the Government take decisive action to limit any further spread and reduce the likelihood of a further national lockdown of the type that was necessary earlier this year. We will continue to review the restrictions to ease or strengthen measures when necessary and based on the scientific evidence.
Changes to Leicester restrictions
Further changes are also being made to the Leicester restrictions. As of Tuesday 15 August, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020 were amended to enable the opening of casinos, indoor skating rinks, bowling alleys, indoor play areas, exhibition halls and conference centres. Socially distanced indoor performances were also able to resume, and remaining restrictions on certain close contact services (treatments on the face, such as eyebrow threading or make-up application) were lifted. These changes meant that Leicester is subject to the same business restrictions as the majority of England and guidance was updated accordingly.
The ban on inter-household gatherings in private homes and gardens remains in place to control the spread of the virus.
The Government will continue to review the remaining restrictions in Leicester at least every 14 days, with the next review due to take place before 24 September.
Additional restrictions in Birmingham
In the west midlands, the increase in covid-19 infection rates can be seen particularly in Birmingham, Solihull and Sandwell, where incidence rates and positivity rates have increased significantly. Transmission appears to be associated with household transmission, travel hospitality venues and other social mixing.
Given the broad transmission routes, we have considered and agreed the request of local authorities to restrict household mixing to try and curb the spread of the virus in the Birmingham, Solihull and Sandwell areas of the west midlands. Restrictions on households mixing within private homes and gardens was enacted in secondary legislation and came into effect on Tuesday 15 September. Residents in these areas should not socialise with people that they do not live with, either inside or outside. This was taken in consultation with local leaders, who are working hard to keep the transmission rates down.
Publicly available Government guidance on gov.uk is being updated to ensure it fully corresponds with the new regulations. Sector bodies will also produce updated guidance where relevant.
[HCWS452]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Tuesday 15th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 126-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (10 Sep 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
A list of participants for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments, or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted. During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groups are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate.
Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, what we learned from the abortive boundary reviews of 2013 and 2018, conducted under the rules set by Parliament in 2011, was that they were very disruptive. Very many constituencies were to be split up, with different parts of them to be sent in several different directions, and many anomalies were caused not by the boundary commissioners but by the rules.
Naturally, the proposals in these reviews were unpopular with many MPs from different parties, to the point that several Conservative MPs met with me privately in 2013, hoping that I could help prevent them being implemented. Having seen the actual effect of these reviews, many MPs in the other place raised concerns in recent debates about the rigid requirement of no more than a tiny 5% variation from the quota for electors for each constituency.
Attempts were made to reassure MPs that another review might not again lead to such fundamental changes and perverse outcomes, but in June the Constitution Unit confirmed fears that it would. It reported that
“changing the size of the Commons”
from the figure of 600 proposed in 2011
“would not substantially affect the degree of disruption.”
The academic experts studying this Bill, whose reputation for their understanding of boundary review processes is universally regarded, all sounded alarm bells about the consequences of this Bill. The late and much missed Professor Ron Johnston, with his colleagues David Rossiter and Charles Pattie, concluded that
“the new rules are just as likely as those they replace to result in major disruption to the constituency map at all future reviews.”
When the reviews were to be held every five years, they concluded that adhering to a fixed number of constituencies and a restricted tolerance of only 5% in constituency electorates would mean that
“major change would occur in around one-third of seats and minor change in another third.”
The work of these academics was very persuasive to the members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. The committee produced an excellent report in March 2015 with strong recommendations about future boundary reviews. It concluded that to avoid large numbers of anomalies in drawing up new boundaries and major disruption with every review, a variation in constituency electorates of up to 10% is really required. It also said that in its opinion this would still allow the Government to achieve their objective of roughly equal-sized constituencies. The conclusions of that Select Committee, with cross-party agreement for its recommendations, should have been the starting point for this Bill.
Those most familiar with the history of the 2011 Act which brought in new processes for reviewing constituency boundaries will know that we came very close then to a government concession which would have allowed a 10% variation in the quota for each constituency. This was when the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, told the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, that this might be necessary to get the legislation through. It was only because David Cameron did not want to grant that concession in response to an organised filibuster that it was not made. It was not an issue of principle.
Ministers should now consider that the previous Bill of 2011 was nearly killed off because of the rigidity of its adherence to the 5% limit for varying the quota of electors for each constituency. An amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, which would have allowed variation to the strict quota in exceptional circumstances and which proposed extending the margin for flexibility from 5% to 7.5%, was carried in the House of Lords by 275 votes to 257 on 9 February 2011. This was not an amendment that my party was able to support then, but for reasons that I will explain, it would do so now.
The amendment provided for a 7.5% variation and became the subject of parliamentary ping-pong. When it returned to the House of Lords a week later, the Government were able to defeat it only by the narrowest possible margin of just one vote—242 votes to 241. On that occasion, 68 Lib Dem Peers had to vote with the Government because of the coalition, and to deliver a referendum on the alternative vote system. If we had not, the Government would have lost by 134.
We Liberal Democrats are now free to vote without those constraints, with greater knowledge gained from the abortive reviews and with the benefit of independent analysis of the consequences of the new rules. The evidence is clear that allowing only a 5% variation in the quota produces many anomalies and much unnecessary disruption to constituency boundaries with every review. The Government should therefore not be wedded to the 5% rule.
The reasons for it have been shown to be misconceived, as it was never the case that all large constituencies were Conservative-held and all small ones had Labour MPs. The 5% rule is not necessary to meet the agreed objective of roughly equal-sized constituencies, and there is no particular benefit to any party in insisting on it. It is an issue on which the Government may have to compromise if they wish to secure passage of the Bill in time for the Boundary Commissions to start work in 2021.
The Government and all those concerned with boundary review issues would do well to reread the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on 9 February 2011 at col. 231. I regret having been put in the position of opposing his amendment on technical grounds and because of my party’s desire to secure a referendum on the alternative vote system. My view is that the current Amendments 15, 16 and 17 all avoid the problem I described then about vague definitions such as “viable constituency”.
Amendment 18, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Grocott, repeats the error of introducing vagueness to the rules where clarity is required and legal challenges should be avoided.
Amendment 19 shows typical wit on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, seeking to suggest that the rules should move in exactly the opposite way from that sought by everybody. His amendment would force the Boundary Commissions into proposing the most perverse set of boundaries.
I also believe that the best interests of those pursuing the later Amendments 21, 22, 23 and 24, about Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, would be best served by supporting Amendments 15, 16 or 17, which provide for consistent rules across the UK for the election of a UK Parliament.
Why is it so important that one of Amendments 15, 16 or 17 is carried? Under the proposed system, small population shifts in English regions, Scotland or Wales will change the quota for the number of MPs representing each of them. Each such change will then trigger major changes involving most constituencies and will mitigate their being formed on the basis of natural communities, or within the same counties or local authority areas.
One ward moving from one constituency to the next will not be the end of the process. Moving that one ward from constituency A to constituency B will trigger moves of more wards away from constituency B, and perhaps to constituencies C, D and E. Each of those constituencies may then see some of their wards moved further afield leading to the break-up of constituencies F, G, H and others. The process has been described as akin to “pass the parcel” as wards are all moved around with knock-on consequences.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, suggested that much more splitting of local government wards would reduce the knock-on consequences of moving whole wards, but this will not generally happen. The Government amended the 2011 Bill so that the rules must generally have regard to ward boundaries as well as to local authorities and so on.
The Boundary Commission for England has explained that it has
“traditionally sought to avoid the division of wards between constituencies, recognising their importance in reflecting community ties and to aid the efficient running of elections”.
It said that it would split wards in only “exceptional and compelling circumstances”, but that
“the number of splits should be kept to an absolute minimum”.
For the 2018 review, it eventually agreed to just 10 wards being split in the whole of England. Maintaining the 5% limit means major disruption with each review.
The academic experts have now gone back to look at the changes in the electorate since they first suggested that one in three constituencies would face major boundary changes with each review. They have also noted that there will be more disruption after eight years of population changes than there would have been after five. Based on the data from 2018, they said that
“around half of all seats would experience major changes at each subsequent review, with just one in five escaping change of any sort”.
But the review to be published in 2023 will be based on changes in population over a 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, so it will be even more disruptive and the outcome may be known less than a year before the general election.
However, we can bring some common sense and greater stability to the process by changing the 5% rule. The Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters considers variations of up to 10% perfectly acceptable. Today may be the first time that I have quoted the Conservative MP Peter Bone in defence of any of my arguments, but his Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill proposes that the figure be set at 7.5%. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to some of these arguments and accept that greater flexibility on the 5% rule is needed.
Accepting Amendment 16 would indicate support for what the House of Commons Select Committee found cross-party agreement to in 2015. There is only limited flexibility in Amendment 15, and the wider latitude provided for in Amendment 17, even when the Boundary Commissions do not identify special circumstances, is problematic.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am not sure that I will tell my honourable friend Mr Bone about the support he has from the Liberal Democrats—I am very solicitous for his health, of course. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made a powerful and interesting speech, which I listened to carefully, as I have tried to to all speeches in your Lordships’ Committee.
A false dichotomy underlies part of our discussion last week, between an attitude posited—even called a sort of arithmetical obsession by one Member of the Committee, who avows his authorship—and the idea of fluidity and connection with local places and local ties. It is said that these two things are antithetical; they cannot run together. Of course, there is a balance in these matters. I believe, and I hope to persuade the Committee, because the Government cannot accept the amendments spoken to today, that a good and fair balance is struck by a tolerance of 5%.
There has been a difference of opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott, proposed a tolerance range of 15%, plus or minus 7.5%. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, backed up ably by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, proposed plus or minus 8%, together with headroom to move to 20%—plus or minus 10%—where deemed necessary. The noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes, went further, suggesting 20%—plus or minus 10%—in all instances. Amendment 22 in the next group even envisages a 30% range in some circumstances. A variety of opinion has been put before the Committee, before referring to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who went in the other direction by suggesting a tolerance range of 5%.
I also thank other noble Lords who spoke, my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hayward. My noble friend Lord Blencathra nodded to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Forsyth and came down on balance, I think, in favour of 5%, as did my noble friend Lord Hayward. His expertise, detailed knowledge and experience of this subject—matched, as we heard today by other Members of the Committee—are of great benefit. I was struck by what he said about splitting wards and noted also what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said on this subject.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra gave us a dose of practical political reality in his powerful speech. There will be disputes. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was very solicitous for the future of the Conservative Party, which was kind of him, but wherever one strikes this, there will be disruption—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—but the Government believe that the current position, set out in existing legislation, is the right one; namely, a tolerance range of 10%, to allow the Boundary Commissions to propose constituencies 5% larger or smaller than the quota.
The Government are resolute in their goal of delivering equal constituencies so far as possible. We committed to do so in our 2019 manifesto and the elected House has upheld that position. With our having made that pledge, I hope noble Lords will recognise that this House should not wind back the current reasonable and achievable tolerance range of 10%.
Of course, I understand the views expressed in this Committee about communities being kept together within single constituencies and about particular geographies being respected. They are powerful sentiments and were eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, but the concept of equal votes—the simple idea that each elector’s vote must count as nearly as possible the same—is equally, if not arguably more, powerful. It is the cornerstone of our democracy and fundamental to maintaining voters’ participation and trust.
The only tool we have by which to ensure such an approach is to apply the electoral quota on a universal basis while allowing appropriate flexibility to the Boundary Commissions to take into account important local factors such as geographical features and community ties without introducing significant variability. That will remain the position. Previously, Parliament has debated tolerance and judged that a range of 10% is right and will allow this. The Government believe that we should hold to that position. It strikes the right balance between achieving equal, fair boundaries and allowing the Boundary Commissions flexibility to take account of other factors.
If we let out the seams of tolerance, as it was put in debate, the results are quick and clear, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra illustrated. Using the electoral figures from 2019, with a 15% range, one could range from 78,000 electors to almost 11,000 fewer. At 20%, one would be looking at a potential disparity of 20,000-plus electors, with some constituencies of around 62,000 and others approaching 83,500. I agree with my noble friends Lord Hayward, Lord Blencathra and Lord Forsyth: there is no legitimate argument for having constituencies with sizes varying by potentially 11,000 or 20,000 electors, depending on the amendment in question in this group. That is not equitable.
At 20%, the latitude provided to the Boundary Commissions is so significant that more than 80% of constituencies could be untouched by the next boundary review. Some—and it has been argued for in this Committee—may think that a good outcome, but I urge that we recall that the purpose of a boundary review is to update constituencies to take account of how the population has changed. The current parliamentary constituencies, which no one defends, are based on the electorate as it was in the early 2000s, nearly 20 years ago. We all know that there have been significant shifts since then, in migration, in housebuilding and in population growth.
Let me touch on the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, with some interesting historical references —of giving the Boundary Commissions discretion to apply a greater tolerance in certain instances where they judge it to be needed. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggested a basic tolerance range of 16%, but with flexibility to move to 20%. Similar ideas were put forward in the other place. On the face of it, such discretion may seem attractive, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made a good fist of it, but, in reality, it can make the job of the Boundary Commissions more difficult and the outcome of boundary reviews considerably less certain.
It is not difficult to envisage that the Boundary Commissions would quickly come under pressure to use the discretion allowed by this amendment. When a commission used that discretion in one part of its territory, it is highly likely that communities in another part would call for something similar. The same phenomenon would be likely to occur across the four nations of the union. For example, were the Boundary Commission for Scotland to be quicker to propose constituencies with a larger variance range, it would surely not take long for a similar approach to be demanded of the Boundary Commission for England or for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, mentioned protected constituencies. We have discussed this concept and will do so again on a later group of amendments. I thank him for acknowledging that there is a small number of specific instances where exceptions might be sensible. We will discuss that later but, again, the Government’s feeling is that we have struck the right balance.
One reason why the Boundary Commissions are as effective and respected as they are is that they implement rules that are clear and unambiguous—the importance of clarity of rules was referred to also by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. While they act with clarity and transparency and steer clear of subjective judgments and rankings, the scope for disagreement and challenge—yes, it will be there—will be limited. The Government are keen to protect that position.
Our task is to update the UK’s parliamentary constituencies and to ensure that our electors have votes that are fairer and more equal. That task is urgent. As Professor McLean said of Parliament when giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee,
“it is … very embarrassing that it is operating on the basis of 20-year-old boundaries and therefore we did not have equal suffrage in the 2019 general election”.—[Official Report, Commons, Parliamentary Constituencies Bill Committee, 23/6/20; col. 94.]
I should at this point add my own comments of respect and appreciation for the late Professor Ron Johnston and endorse what many others have said in this Committee.
I urge the Committee to recognise that the tolerance level agreed in previous legislation and reaffirmed by the elected House on this Bill is right and reasonable. Changes to it have been rejected on numerous occasions in the elected Chamber, to which it relates. I ask noble Lords to resist the desire to fix something that the Government contend is not broken and not to press these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
On Thursday, on an earlier group of amendments, I thought that the Minister was correcting my quotation from the Constitution Committee. In fact, he rightly questioned my assertion that it had endorsed, rather than simply noted, suggestions from others as to how to ensure that the Boundary Commissions were independent. He was right; I was wrong. I think that is 1-0 to the Minister.
However, on this amendment, the Minister is on shakier ground, but I shall to try to avoid making what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, called a “holier-than-thou” speech, especially as I want first to turn to something more serious that the noble Lord said, when he claimed:
“Trying to link this matter to the issue of saving the union is very shoddy politics”.—[Official Report, 10/9/20; col. GC 320.]
I shall not try to pretend that I understand Scotland, but just at the moment in Wales, when the Government seem intent on weakening the devolution settlement via the internal market Bill and when again and again UK Ministers ignore the Welsh Government—indeed, even sharing the internal market Bill with Welsh Ministers two hours after it had been shared with the press—the noble Lord might note that a seismic reduction in Welsh voices in Westminster fuels separatist emotions and the feeling that Wales is a mere afterthought to this Government. I was particularly struck that the Government’s statement on the internal market Bill quoted the Scottish Secretary of State, a Scottish businessman and the Scottish Retail Consortium, with no equivalent endorsement from anyone in Wales, not even the Welsh Secretary.
I am not speaking for Scotland, but I hope that the Government do not think that chopping Welsh input into Parliament has no wider implications. As was said in an earlier debate, the Americans recognised early on that size alone did not matter, with each state being accorded proper recognition in the Senate. The UK Government should give serious thought to binding in each of the four nations if they really want to retain the United Kingdom. This does not go to the heart of these amendments, but it is a response to what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. Incidentally, he apologises because he has just left to chair his own Select Committee, but he has been with us thus far.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 18. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 18
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“Taking account of local ties
(1) Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act is amended as follows.(2) In rule 2(2) (electorate per constituency), after “4(2),” insert “5(1)(d),”.(3) In rule 5(3) (factors), at the end insert “, except that a constituency does not have to comply with rule 2 if the Boundary Commission considers it reasonable taking into account the factor in paragraph (1)(d).””
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I am getting increasingly concerned about the form and the forum in which we are considering this matter, which is so important to our democracy. We said in previous debates that the Bill ought to be in Committee on the Floor of the House, and it is not: it is in this Grand Committee. I do not blame the Government in any way for the fact that we are in special arrangements because of Covid-19—it is not their fault—but because of that, we are isolated from reality. If we were considering this normally, there would be much more media coverage of what we were doing. The Scottish media might have been interested in the arguments for 59 constituencies remaining in Scotland, yet none of them has picked it up. We would also have had experts—I recall this well from previous discussions—sitting outside the Committee Room, but they are not allowed in now because of Covid-19. I used to get very useful advice from the Law Society of Scotland about various matters, but we cannot get that now. This is really an opportunity for the Government to squeeze things through, to say, “No, we are not accepting any amendments” and get away with it without any pressure. I fear that that is what is going to happen. It is a great pity, because it means that we are not dealing with some very important issues.
The Minister is obsessed with equal votes. He keeps going on about it; he has said it on so many occasions. I pointed out on a previous occasion that the irony is—and my Liberal Democrat friends jumped up and down with excitement—that if you take what he is arguing to its logical conclusion, you end up with proportional representation, particularly the single transferable vote. My noble friend Lord Lipsey argued very strongly that because some seats in the past were considered safe seats—they are not always, but there are still some significant ones—it is only in a limited number where the vote actually counts. We did not get an answer from the Minister, although I hope we will eventually. My noble friend also mentioned—it has just been mentioned again by my noble friend Lady Hayter—the turnout. I said on the previous occasion that there were also people who were not registered. The truth is that that there are a lot of citizens of this country who, for one reason or another—because they are poor or disadvantaged, for example—are not registered or not able to get out to vote or live in constituencies where their vote does not count. That is a different category. We really need to think about that seriously.
Turning to my Amendment 18, it is back to arithmetic. The amendment fits in with the plus or minus, whether it is 2.5%, 5%, 7.5% or 10%, because that is flexibility. It is all a question of flexibility. I want to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I have great respect for him; I see him at meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and we very often debate things together. He made an eloquent and very elegant speech last Thursday: it was really quite captivating and I enjoyed it. However, as is often the case, the noble Lord was not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I am not saying that he was lying: it was just the way that the argument was put, which was very clever indeed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, MPs argue a case at Boundary Commissions that is particularly advantageous to them and their party. That is why they go there: I have been to half a dozen or more Boundary Commissions, and I have done that. They can often creatively call on local ties and natural boundaries if their lucky numbers do not come up and they are facing notable boundary changes. However, none of that should diminish the fact that local ties and natural boundaries are very important and should be taken seriously in terms of constituencies.
At present, local ties and arithmetic are dominant in this argument. They theoretically have equal status. In my experience, however—and I am open to contradictory arguments from the noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Rennard, and anyone else who has a lot more experience than I have—by default, arithmetic usually triumphs. I have seen it again and again: the deputy commissioner has said, “No, no, no, I have to go by the numbers. The numbers take precedence over local ties.” That is not beneficial to our representative democracy. Drawing arbitrary lines through communities does nothing to serve the needs of those local communities and ensure proper representation.
The Government ought to be more aware of the inconsistencies and drawbacks in relying on an algorithm, as we saw with the exam results fiasco last month. Surely some lessons might be taken from that in terms of arithmetic—numbers being the god we worship.
Amendment 18 in my name seeks to ensure that community boundaries and community links are given priority over arithmetic—it would make them paramount. Of course the arithmetic has to be taken account of and of course it has to fit in to the plus or minus—whatever percentage we ultimately agree. In that way we can avoid circumstances which result in the creation of artificial boundaries which have limited community coherence. I want to see local ties such as school catchment areas, major highways, major local authority boundaries and natural boundaries such as rivers, lochs—lakes, for the English among us—and mountains given greater priority. This would all be subject to the constituency limit, which, as I and others have argued, should be as flexible as possible.
A plus or minus 10% quota would provide greater flexibility for the Boundary Commission to accommodate these important local ties and natural boundaries. Hopefully it would take account of the particular circumstances in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What one party gains in one area, it could lose elsewhere if, indeed, there are still old party loyalties. Certainly, in my own country they are not as strong and clear as they used to be. Things are also changing in England, and things will continue to change, so that should be taken into account.
Nevertheless, by taking a community-centred approach, we can create a framework that supports and nurtures strong connections between the Member and her or his constituents. It also provides a more logical and sensible structure to support opportunities for further devolution of power across the United Kingdom, not just in England—I shall be arguing that in a Question next week in the Chamber—but in Scotland, where unfortunately there has been far too much centralisation in Edinburgh following devolution to Edinburgh. There needs to be much greater devolution within Scotland.
I beg to move.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20 in my name. I am delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who is widely respected in the House, both for his service as an invariably responsive and listening Minister and for his previous role in Wales since devolution. Noble Lords will recall that he endorsed my plea at Second Reading that the especially distinct identity of Cornwall should be recognised in the Bill.
I am also pleased to have the support of two of my noble friends, both of whom have given great public service to Cornwall. Noble Lords may be aware that allies on Cornwall Council have also endorsed my proposition.
Physical geography makes it abundantly clear that Cornwall is an especially distinct entity in the UK. If you try to follow the boundary between England and Wales and England and Scotland, or even between Northern Ireland and the Republic, you have the devil’s own job. You can find yourself endlessly crossing largely invisible lines. However, if you try crossing almost all the boundary to Cornwall, you will get very wet. When the Conservative Party was pushing the case for a Devonwall constituency, David Cameron was very dismissive of the River Tamar. He is reported to have objected, “It’s not exactly the Amazon, is it?” Ironically, his comparison is actually rather useful: the Tamar has been a natural boundary from prehistoric times, while the Amazon is the natural route into the interior of all of South America. Indeed, for many centuries it would have been the only link between different inland areas.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I am in much agreement with what he said, specifically on Cornwall and Devon. My name is also against Amendment 20. I thank him for his kind words and say that he was making even more sense than usual despite that lack of sleep. I offer him many congratulations on that feat.
I want first to say something in general in relation to amendments in this group before turning to the position relating to Cornwall. I have much sympathy with the argument that a 5% variance in each direction is too strict and rigid. We should not apologise for a principle of equal-size constituencies in population terms in general. We have demonstrated as a country and a Parliament flexibility in relation to some islands, quite rightly, and I cannot see why we should not do the same elsewhere. Clearly, there has to be a restriction on the variation, but we need more flexibility in that direction, particularly in rural areas and particularly in the rural areas of Wales, which I know well. There is a compelling case in relation to Brecon and Radnorshire; I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who knows a thing or two about that area. There is such a case to be made too in relation to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The same principle applies, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said.
In Cornwall, not only does the Tamar provide an effective natural boundary—who can doubt that who has been into Saltash?—but it is also a demarcation of a clear difference between Cornwall and the rest of the country. It has its own cultural attributes, its own language and its own national minority. There is a powerful, compelling case for acting differently in relation to Cornwall as we have done in relation to islands such as Ynys Môn, the Isle of Wight and so on. I agree with the powerful case put by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.
I shall not delay the Committee too long, but I strongly support this amendment. The Minister, whom I know well and who has listened with great care and attention as he always does in these debates, appeared sympathetic to the case for Cornwall. I hope that he is persuaded of the need to protect in legislation the unity of Cornwall and to write that into the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Baroness Jolly. No? If the noble Baroness is not with us, we shall go on to the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22 standing in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to whom I am grateful.
Why this Bill? Is there a clamour from voters to change their constituencies? No. Do, for example, rural voters in Wales want even larger constituencies because they think that their MPs are too close to them? No. So what is the motivation?
Much is made by Ministers, as the noble Lord, Lord True, has already done, of the case for equalisation, but equalisation has been the principle behind our constituency system for generations—we all accept that principle. The point is that the Boundary Commissions have had the discretion to apply it fairly and sensibly, taking proper account of local views, of community identity and of geographic sparsity instead of being rigidly straitjacketed, as this Bill requires.
The Bill means that the uniqueness of Wales, in the past always having had special consideration by this Parliament, including in the 1944 Act, and by the Boundary Commissions, is ignored. In no other nation of Britain, proportionate to the population, are there such large and remote areas and vast geographical rural areas where there are thousands more sheep than people and constituencies are hundreds of square miles if not larger. Yet under this Bill, four existing geographically large seats in Wales could well become, and almost certainly will become, two monster ones. Instead of being hundreds of square miles in size, each will become thousands of square miles, in mid-Wales, north Wales and west Wales—none of them, by the way, Labour seats, so no party pleading is going on here.
Much has been made about the Bill creating constituencies that are more equal in size, but that has come at the expense of community ties, history and geography. We do not live in a world where populations grow in neat conurbations which fit an electoral quota dictated from on high. Nor does our geography in Wales lend itself to communities being switched dogmatically between constituencies to help achieve that quota. Our existing system already takes account of that by trading off strict electoral quotas in order to prioritise community identity, local ties and geography. Identifying with the constituency we live in and the close link between an MP and their constituents are fundamental to our parliamentary democracy and envied by democracies around the world.
The rigidity of the electoral quota and the 5% variance provided for in the Bill put that in jeopardy and give primacy to a rigid mathematical equation which is damaging for our democracy. That is why Amendment 22 proposes, in relation to Wales alone and to meet its specific needs, that the electorate of any constituency be no less than 85% of the United Kingdom electoral quota and no more than 115% of that quota. Why is this needed? Wales’s unique geography means that constituencies can vary drastically, from vast rural constituencies which are sparsely populated, such as the existing Brecon and Radnorshire, to densely populated, small urban constituencies in Cardiff and Swansea.
It is no surprise that two of the five largest geographical constituencies, Montgomeryshire and Dwyfor Meirionnydd, are also two of five smallest in electorate size, while two of the five largest electorates, Cardiff South and Penarth and Cardiff North, are also two of the five smallest geographical constituencies. There is a logic to that. There are seven constituencies in Wales which are more than 1,000 square kilometres in size—Brecon and Radnorshire is more than 3,000 square kilometres—but because of the rigid electoral quota used during the last review under the previous legislation, the Boundary Commission for Wales ended up proposing mega constituencies to achieve numerical parity and to cover the vast areas of sparsely populated rural Wales, as I described in great detail when moving Amendment 14. Much the same will happen under this Bill.
Mega constituencies like that will only alienate voters from those whom they elect to represent them, leaving them feeling more cut off and remote than before. It is a toxic combination which will lead to disengagement and undermine democracy. Equally, the strict quota is problematic for valley constituencies and makes the task of creating constituencies which make sense to valley communities extremely difficult.
It is not easy to move single communities from a valley and dump them in a different constituency. By their very nature, valley communities are linked and do not easily connect with neighbouring valleys. To reach a neighbouring valley you cannot just drive over a mountain of fields and forests. You have to drive to the top or the bottom, making communication take longer and not easy. Valley communities are also linked to specific towns in terms of transport, community links and historical ties. These community ties form the basis of many of the valley constituencies in the south Wales area, which I know well, still live in, and represented for a quarter of a century.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 22 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain, who spoke so impressively in support of it. I will also address the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Foulkes and I particularly warmed to the case made for Cornwall. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that if our amendment relating to Wales is not acceptable, there is nothing to stop similar, parallel amendments being put forward with a case for England, Scotland or, indeed, Cornwall itself. That is in the hands of noble Lords in this Committee or on the Floor of the House on Report. All I would say is that the case for Wales stands out because of the extent of the changes proposed by virtue of the rules being put forward.
I will pick up on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, made about the valley communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, will be familiar with this as well. When I was a councillor in Merthyr before becoming a Member of Parliament, I had good friends who had never been to the Cynon valley, the next valley to the west, or the Rhymney valley, the next valley to the east. That is the nature of the valley communities. It is not because of a closed mentality but because the geography and topology of the area dictates it.
We have already debated the number of seats that Wales should have in the House of Commons and I hope that the Government will give careful thought to that between now and Report. Amendment 22 addresses the other aspect of this issue—the factor that led to Wales having a slightly higher representation than is fair statistically. That does indeed relate to geography and topography and the nature of Wales, the distribution of our population and, in particular, our communities.
As I said at Second Reading, MPs are representatives not delegates. If they were delegates, then, arguably, the number should correspond to the number of electors on whose behalf they cast their votes in the legislative process. If that were the case, they should also reflect the political balance of their constituencies by proportional representation which, of course, the House of Commons has rejected. If MPs are not elected on such a basis, it is quite illogical that their constituencies should be determined by that very dimension.
MPs deliver a service to their constituents. That involves making themselves available to discuss, dealing with individuals and with groups of constituents, a diverse range of issues, and taking them up at Westminster. As MP for Caernarfon, I represented a range of different communities of interest in the 92 towns and villages which made up my then constituency. I had to be reasonably knowledgeable about farming and fishing, manufacturing industry and slate production, river pollution and radioactivity, tourism and higher education, as well as a whole range of social legislation and service delivery. I had 28 community councils all expecting to see me on a regular basis, and I worked very closely indeed with Gwynedd Council, the unitary authority within which my constituency was wholly located. I had to work within the twin structures of UK government departments and the Welsh Office, as then was, and deal with a plethora of all-Wales bodies. I had to discuss and correspond about such issues in two languages, since 84% of my constituents had Welsh as their first language, and I had a five-hour journey each way, each week, between Caernarfon and Westminster.
My point is this. If I had had a compact seat in London, I could have undertaken my duties as MP in far less time than was needed to do so in Caernarvon. For there to be an equivalence in the service afforded by an MP to constituents, there has to be some weighting in the structure of representation. Rural areas, communities for whom London is remote, areas where the structure of government is different and communities of a different nature to those of metropolitan England—all these should have a representational weighting to achieve an equivalence of service delivery. In practical terms, it would be ludicrous, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, emphasised, for a county such as Powys to have only one MP. The south-east of that county looks to Newport and Cardiff for many services, the south-west to Swansea, the north-west to Aberystwyth and Bangor and the north-east to Wrexham. The commission which draws up any new Welsh constituency boundaries should start with the assumption that Powys has two MPs, and the rest should follow from there.
There should be a flexibility in the numerical size of constituencies to allow such a structure, and Amendment 22 goes a long way to provide this. There can never be a perfect answer that fits all circumstances, but I believe there should be some guarantee in both constituency service terms and the coherence of a national voice, of a de minimis representation for Wales in the House of Commons and, within that, the flexibility to make it work for its communities. Amendment 22 offers that possibility and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat some of the debate on the previous grouping, when my noble friend Lord Blencathra and I made comments on a number of issues in relation to some of the localities we have discussed today and the scale of geography that different constituencies face. I merely repeat my observation that I have a Cornish father and I was born in Devon, so I have sympathy with and understanding of the emotive issues that that division may generate.
Perhaps I may clarify one point for the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, because he was not sure about the balance between the numbers game, to use his phrase, I think, and the influence of local factors. I say this with at least two glass walls between me and the Government Whip, because she may want to hit me for pointing this out. In fact, in the legislation to which I referred, Schedule 2 says that the electorate of any constituency “shall be”, in other words the number is pre-eminent, whereas the requirement to take factors into consideration is described by “may”, as the noble Lord is indicating. Therefore, one has pre-eminence over the other.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, thank you for letting me speak. As a signatory to the amendment, I should explain a little why I decided to support it. I have lived in Wales for many decades and provided healthcare to some of these communities. The geography is unique and different to the cultural mix in cities in either England or Scotland—I have done exactly the same as a GP in inner-city Glasgow.
Wales currently has 40 constituencies for its 2.3 million registered electorate. Yes, the size of the constituencies is smaller on average or on median size than other nations in the UK, but Scotland’s smallest constituency has half the number of electors of the smallest in Wales. The current boundaries in Wales allow co-terminosity, which helps co-ordination between the Senedd and Westminster. I will return to that relationship between Wales and Westminster in a moment.
To look at this and try to understand it, I spent some time with an Excel spreadsheet to look at the consequences of a rigid numerical approach. A cull of Welsh MPs to provide only 29 would be a 28% reduction in representation from Wales under the 2018 proposals. While maintaining 650 MPs, a leeway allowing a 5% margin on electoral numbers would still lost Wales nine seats—a 23% reduction in MPs. Are the Government determined to alienate their support for the union and fuel separatist nationalism? It certainly looks like that from all their behaviour at the moment. Funnily enough, as far as I can see, England would see only a rise in numbers under the Bill’s proposals.
A 15% lower margin on electorate numbers—I say lower because it is not about raising the 15%—although again hitting Wales hard, would decrease representation from Wales by 5%, or two MPs. However, it would also allow the complexity of the geography and demography to be accounted for. For an MP in Wales to represent an area with difficulties of travelling across large areas where, as we have heard, the sheep really do outnumber the population, it can take over two hours in some parts and around four hours in those same places in the winter. The South Wales valleys are indeed quite distinct zones, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, and travelling from one to another requires driving north across the Heads of the Valleys road and down, or south to the M4 and up the valley. While it is reasonable to expect the MPs to do that, the constituents cannot. Many do not have their own car, have care responsibilities and cannot just access a remote MP surgery in an adjacent valley, nor do they identify with that position in an adjacent valley either. Poverty and an elderly population—9.5% is over 75—means that few have IT access to Zoom or Teams, and so on, although I accept that after Covid, that might have improved. However, on all other measures, they will effectively be relatively disenfranchised in relation to UK government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has already pointed out the political message that this is giving. The political message a massive cull of Welsh MPs gives is that Westminster is not concerned about Wales. I wonder whether one solution to meet the Minister’s concern about a 30% range of variance overall would be simply to delete the upward tolerance and allow only a downward tolerance. Without that, this amendment will fuel a narrative that Westminster really would like to see Wales cut off, cut out, and effectively ignored.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, this is a pretty odd grouping, is it not? You have one amendment on the links between constituencies, one on Devon and Cornwall, and one on Wales. It would have been even worse if I had not insisted on degrouping my amendment on Brecon and Radnor, for which the Committee will pay a price when I introduce it in a few minutes’ time. The grouping is so wide and disparate that I do not have a great deal to add, so I will not.
First, I totally agree with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes about local ties, which seem wholly to have been ignored by the Government in drafting the Bill, and which I will come back to in the Brecon and Radnor context.
Secondly, I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Hain about the underrepresentation of Wales—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and a few other noble Lords came in behind him. I will say only that even the 15% variant would not deal with the Brecon and Radnor problem; it deals with certain problems but not with that.
Finally, on the epoch-shaking issue of Devon and Cornwall, I am in no doubt about the passions that this stirs in that part of the country, but I know nothing about it or those passions, and therefore I will remain silent.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on Welsh and Scottish matters, in particular on the complications of the geography of Wales, beyond saying that of course all the regions of this country have large and disparate constituencies. One of my strongest memories of the early days of the coalition Government was of standing in William Hague’s office in the Foreign Office, discussing with him where exactly it was as you moved from Richmond up Swaledale that you lost mobile phone coverage, and seeing the horrified expression on the face of his private secretary as he realised that the Secretary of State would be unattainable in large areas of his extremely large and remote constituency. Yorkshire also has large constituencies.
On the question of the union as a whole, I will say only that we should all be very worried about its future. I have close relatives who live and work in Edinburgh, and each time I talk to them, I get increasingly concerned about the future of the union. The image they have of a competent Government, who also value international ties, as opposed to the incompetent and English nationalist Government in London, gives me no guarantee that if there were another independence referendum, they would not vote to support independence. We also know the games that are being played over the future of Northern Ireland. I leave it for the Minister to reflect that we have a Government who are playing fast and loose with the union even as the Prime Minister insists that he is doing his utmost to defend it, and we need to be extremely cautious about that.
I most want to focus on Amendment 18, which talks about the importance of retaining local ties. I remind the Minister that the Conservative manifesto last December made no reference to a 5% variation as the limit, but said:
“We will continue to support the First Past the Post system … as it allows voters to kick out politicians who don’t deliver, both locally and nationally.”
That is the way one can defend the first past the post system—it is about having a recognisable community which each MP represents and in which the voters are aware of the link between the constituency and the MP. When I first started out in politics, I remember many Conservative MPs who would say, “I represent all the voters in my constituency, not just the ones who voted for me”. That was the old approach to this. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has already said that the important thing is whether you can identify with the constituency you live in. I remember in the 2010 election standing in the middle of the marketplace in Huddersfield, canvassing for the Liberal Democrats, and every other voter who came up to me on market day said, “I live in so and so—can you tell me which constituency I am in?” We are only half way towards the problem that most voters do not know what constituency they live in. If we move boundaries more and more frequently, and more and more without reference to the idea of local community, we are moving away from the principle of the first past the post system.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, knows Edmund Burke off by heart, and his references to the importance of localism—of the “little platoons” in which people live. We are in danger of losing that connection. As we lose it, we weaken the connection between the voter and their elected representatives, and we therefore weaken trust in democracy as the idea of politics becomes one of a distant game in Westminster not connected with the voter on the ground.
I fear that the devolution White Paper, when it is published next month, may make that worse. We already have in cities such as Leeds and Bradford local wards which are 12,000 to 15,000 voters per ward. That means of course that in Leeds there are only four wards per constituency, which is one of the reasons why the question of dividing wards up as you adjust the numbers for the Leeds constituency comes up so frequently. Many of these wards used to be entire urban district councils. The gap between the most local elected representative and the voter has already been severely damaged, and I fear that next month’s devolution White Paper will have little to do with devolution but much more to do with weakening local government further. I appeal to the Minister, whose distinguished record in local government I am well aware of, and as someone who cares about local government, to bear in mind how important it is to restore trust in democracy among our voters by recognising that democracy starts at the local level and requires a link between voters, their local community and democracy as such through their elected representatives.
Given that, Amendment 18 is important. We should not lose sight of this. We do not wish to follow the United States down the road where each district is redrawn after almost every election according to partisan forms. Under a Conservative Government we follow American politics far too often in far too many ways. We need politics to regain its sense of the local, the national and the regional. That is why I strongly support this amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the case made for respecting communities by implementing the principle of equalisation in a fair and sensible way, as my noble friend Lord Hain put it, is pretty convincing. As I stressed at Second Reading and in Committee, MPs represent and need to know and understand the communities in their patch if they are to be able to speak on behalf of individual constituencies as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, described. The better MPs know the schools, clubs, local authorities, head teachers, councillors, GPs, hospitals, charities and churches in their area, the better equipped they are not just to understand but to sort out the problems brought to them, hence the need to permit the Boundary Commissions, as they set about their work, to respect community ties.
It is obviously writ large in the case of Wales. One part of my family from one valley was Welsh speaking and the other from not many miles away as the crow flies—although a long way by road—was largely English speaking. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said in an earlier debate, we do not want Welsh MPs to have to go up to the Heads of the Valleys, across and then down to the bottom of the next valley in the same seat, a point emphasised today by my noble friend Lord Hain. As has been mentioned, Scotland’s special geography has been recognised in its two preserved seats, as has Ynys Môn, or Anglesey, in this Bill. I used to live in Anglesey. Believe me, it is much faster to cross the Menai Bridge than to travel from one valley to another in the south.
I recognise that I have not served in the Commons and neither has the Minister, but I think we both have enough colleagues who did to know a fair amount about the work of MPs. The amendments in front of us now are partly to help constituents to be well served and partly to help MPs represent those constituencies. They are partly to recognise the importance of communities and partly to give a proper voice to all parts of the union. They are important, and I hope that the Minister will hear what is behind them and be able to respond accordingly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I do not believe that we have been able to recover the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, so on that basis, I call the Minister.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I should open by congratulating the son of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on his great achievement in the channel. I think many noble Lords know that I am descended from generations of fisherfolk, and genetically the greatest horror I can imagine is finding myself swimming in the open sea, miles from land. I congratulate the team on their extraordinary achievement.
Moving on to the serious business of the amendments, I strongly disagree with the repeated tenor of the remarks made in your Lordships’ Committee that the proposal for a Boundary Commission with permission to have a plus or minus 5%—that is, 10%—tolerance in the size of seats sweeps away, as someone put it, all local ties. I say with respect that that is exaggerated talk. In discussion of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Hayward and I have made no secret of the fact that we believe that having broadly equally sized constituencies is pre-eminent, but there remains an allowance for recognising local ties and geography and so on, and it is to caricature the nature of the Bill or the Government’s objectives to say that it will sweep away local ties.
Without being in any way critical, because I know it is a long-held aspiration of many in your Lordships’ House, I can say only that as we have listened to the debates over the past three days some of these very arguments about local ties have come from people who for many years have argued for massive, multi-member constituencies in the name of proportional representation. There are difficulties in arguing on the one hand that small local ties are important, as I would argue and the Government recognise, while on the other saying that all these constituencies should be swept away and rolled together. I respect everything that everybody says in your Lordships’ Committee, but I note with interest that outside this Committee many of the self-same people have spent many years calling for massive multi-member constituencies.
We have talked on many occasions about tolerance. It is an important issue. There must be some degree of tolerance. There is disagreement in your Lordships’ Committee about what that might be, and that is reflected in the amendments before us. I will come on specifically to the points on Wales, which we have already discussed in this Committee, but it is an extremely important issue. It is not true to say that this Government do not respect Wales or that they are playing fast and loose with the union. Political comment and knockabout are fair enough, but this Government are passionately attached to the concept of our great union and all of us who speak about it should not feed the impression that we think otherwise. I will come back in detail to those points.
Starting with Amendment 18 and the idea that the Boundary Commission should have the ability to ignore the tolerance range wherever, in its opinion, local ties demand a more flexible approach, here the same arguments that we made during our previous discussion of the benefits of limiting the discretion of the Boundary Commission apply. Like many of us, I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said. He knows very well that if he tugs at the issue of local government, he certainly tugs at my heartstrings, which perhaps shows what a sad individual I am, but he is absolutely right about the importance of local government. Many of us here in your Lordships’ Committee will have had the privilege of serving either a constituency in Parliament or a local authority ward and, whether we have or not, we have all come from a local community. Several of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I, have recognised that somewhere that we represented in our titles. Like every citizen, we feel strongly about those places and about what defines them: their geography, community and particular cultures, as my noble friend Lord Hayward said. I am a historian by training and vocation, and I could never be blind to those issues. These are our local ties; they are important and our experience is rich with them.
However, this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would place an obligation on the Boundary Commission to judge the respective merits of different local ties and to reward those deemed particularly strong with special treatment by relaxing the rules, but what of the neighbouring constituency where no special treatment applies? Perhaps in the neighbour’s case, the community might fit neatly into the constituency proposed and all within it will be content, but that will not always be the case. It is inevitable that some local communities where ordinary tolerance rules will apply will feel that if only the Boundary Commission understood their character fully, they too could have a different, more appropriate and more generously drawn constituency.
These are the essential ingredients of dispute and challenge, the kind of process that my noble friend Lord Blencathra described for us and that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, drew our attention to in talking of the importance of clarity. They bring a potential to undermine in some ways, and certainly make more difficult, the work of the Boundary Commissions. I repeat that the Bill allows respect for local ties and the Government believe that what is in it is sufficient and the Boundary Commission will respect that.
Amendment 22 seeks to allow the Boundary Commission for Wales to use a tolerance range of 30%—plus or minus 15%. As was powerfully argued by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the intention is to provide more flexibility to the Boundary Commission for Wales in how it responds to the particular geography of Wales, which in parts is rural and sparsely populated. I do not accept that Wales has been treated, to repeat a phrase that was used, punitively. My noble friend Lord Hayward addressed this point. I and the Government do not believe that equal representation in our Parliament is punitive; it is equal representation, which should apply across England, Wales and Scotland. We all have an equal stake in our union and should be equally represented. Wales, of course, has the great benefit, which England does not, of having its Senedd.
I cannot accept the amendment. As with the other amendments we have discussed, we cannot accept an amendment that will allow a greater degree of variation in the size of considerable numbers of constituencies, in this case only in Wales. We cannot prejudge how the Boundary Commission for Wales might apply this proposed tolerance range, but the result could be that, as was pointed out today, more urban constituencies—for example in Cardiff or Swansea—would have considerably more electors than more rural, less populated constituencies. That variability in electorate size means one thing: voting of differing strengths for the people of different parts of Wales and the people in different parts of the union. Therefore we cannot accept the amendment before the Committee.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and supported by my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. “Shall Trelawney die?”—in my day at school we used to sing these good old songs. I am fully aware of the passion—the word has been used by others—that is rightly held for the history and spirit of Cornwall and Devon. The noble Lord’s amendment looking at Devon and Cornwall seeks to erect inviolable borders around each of those two counties. I am sure this will find great favour in parts of the south-west. In effect, the amendment treats Devon and Cornwall separately, with their own allocation of constituencies, just like the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Once the allocation for Devon and for Cornwall had been set, presumably using the same method as for the four nations—consequential amendments would be needed to establish this, but I will not go into the technicalities of amendments as we are arguing the issue—it would be for the Boundary Commission for England to propose the boundaries of those constituencies within the boundaries of Devon and Cornwall.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his moderate and reasoned response. However, I appeal to him again to look at Amendment 22. By the way, I have never favoured multi-member PR seats; I have always been in favour of the single member alternative vote system, which is fairer. I urge him to listen and read again the excellent contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and her point about fuelling separatist nationalism. We had a Secretary of State for Wales in the 1990s called John Redwood; he was a perfectly nice man personally but he behaved in an arrogant fashion. A lot of people in Wales, despite the moderation the Minister showed in his response, will see this as a punitive measure because Wales has been hit harder than anybody else.
We are not asking for the moon in Amendment 22. It is a moderate, constructive amendment. I and those who have backed it are not seeking to overturn this legislation, whatever our feelings about it or the motivation for it. We are asking the Government to give this to the Boundary Commission for Wales because of the unique circumstances of Wales which have historically always been recognised by Parliament. This is making a break with tradition and history, and the Minister should explain why the universal principle of equalisation, which has applied over the changes in boundary reviews for a long time, has been put on a rigid, straitjacketed altar that affects Wales so uniquely and badly.
There should be a 15% variation for Wales as opposed to 5%. Yes, there will be knock-on implications for England, but it has hundreds of seats—more than 500—whereas Wales has 40, so it will be a bit of impact for everybody as opposed to a massive impact for a few in Wales. I urge the Minister to reconsider this. Otherwise, his Government will reap a bitter harvest in Wales, as happened in 1997 when they lost every single MP because they were perceived as behaving in an arrogant way towards Wales. I do not accuse him of that personally, but I appeal to him to look again before Report at this moderate, constructive amendment proposing a 15% variation as opposed to a much more rigid 5% and see whether he can support it.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord enormous hope of a volte-face in the Government’s position. I can say to him and to all members of the Committee on this and other issues that I will read what has been said extremely carefully. It is my duty as a Minister to listen to what colleagues and other noble Lords say here and to reflect on it.
The Government’s position is that of course we want Wales, as all other parts of the United Kingdom, to be well represented. A sense of contact with democracy, which others have referred to in this Committee, is vital. Wales is fortunate in that it has a wonderful, solid tradition of local government out of which some of the greatest politicians in the history of our country have emerged. It has that system of local government and the Senedd with legislative powers over a range of policy areas. It has a strong voice in Westminster, including through the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee and voices on the Benches of this House—we have heard them today—who persuasively make the case for Wales every day.
The Bill does not seek to change any of Wales’s democratic traditions—as if one ever could; we would never wish to do that. It would simply make sure that for UK general elections, wherever a vote is cast across the Union, it will carry the same power in helping to decide who governs our country. That is our position and the one I put to the Committee. Of course, I was not suggesting in any way that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was guilty of arguing for multi-member constituencies outside this Committee and for micro-activity inside. I think he perhaps knows who I had in mind. I will, of course, reflect and carefully read the wise and heavy words of all those who have spoken. I have no doubt from what I have heard in this Committee that we may well be hearing further discussion of this later in the Bill and on the Floor of the House, where, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, many of us would like to be.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am grateful to members of the Committee for supporting my Amendment 18, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who stressed the constituency link. It reminded me that when I was in a radical mood, as I was when I was a bit younger, I used to say: “Why do we use this term ‘the honourable Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley’? It is very old fashioned”. Someone reminded me that it is a very clear way of reminding people that you represent a constituency. You are not there as George Foulkes, you are there as the honourable member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley—that is very important. They do not do the same in the Scottish Parliament; they use individual names, as the Chairman—I nearly called you Ian—knows. In fact, Alex Salmond used to call me Lord Foulkes, using “Lord” as a term of abuse —look what happened to him. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his support and for reminding me of that.
I am even more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for pointing out exactly what I was trying to say earlier, that “shall” refers to the arithmetic consideration and “may” to the local links. I wanted to turn it the other way around and I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
My noble friend Lord Hain made a very powerful argument on behalf of Wales. I am almost Welsh—I was born in Oswestry. I remember at Gobowen station an announcement that the steam train would go to Llanymynech and Pant. I thought it would breathe heavily at Pant, but Pant, of course, is a town in Wales, as members of the Committee will know, so I know Wales very well. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Hain: “Don’t make the case for Wales at the expense of the case for Scotland”. I was disappointed that he did that.
I remind him that the largest constituency set out by the Boundary Commission for Scotland was Highland North, which is 65% of the size of the whole of Wales. Scotland represents one-third of the land area of the United Kingdom—sparsity, size and difficulty of getting around apply a fortiori to Scotland more than even to Yorkshire, with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, on my left, and to Wales. Please do not give the Government the opportunity to divide and rule. The case for Scotland is strong; the case for Wales is strong as well.
Finally, I have got to know the Minister a lot better as time goes on and he is a very polite and kind man, but he did say that if conflicts arose between one area and another with people arguing for one constituency, then another might lose out as a result. That is precisely what the Boundary Commission is there to sort out. It has to make these judgments in relation to the representations that it receives. I therefore do not accept his explanation—despite the nice way in which he put it. We will no doubt return to this general and particular issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 21. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Clause 7: Protected constituencies
Amendment 21
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
“(d) a constituency named Brecon and Radnorshire with identical boundaries to those of the existing Brecon and Radnorshire constituency”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an additional protected constituency to make this seat geographically manageable.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, Brecon and Radnorshire, let me count the ways I love thee. It was quite a tie to come up to the House to be able to present my case for the constituency in person this afternoon when I saw the weather forecast suggesting 24 degrees today. I believe strongly that it should remain a single constituency, but perhaps more importantly, I have sought the views of the present Member, Fay Jones, as to whether it should be a single seat. All the views of existing Members of Parliament on their constituencies and boundaries have to be taken with a pinch of salt. As an invariable rule, they want no changes in the boundaries unless they think it is going to bring in a lot of extra votes for them, in which case they may well favour changes, but Fay Jones has established herself as a well-liked local representative of the people.
She writes as follows: “Brecon and Radnorshire is an outstanding constituency but it is not without its challenges”—you can say that again. “It stretches from Ystradgynlais”—did I get that right, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter?—“in the south-west corner of the constituency 60 miles north of Swansea to Knighton in the north-east, 10 miles west of Ludlow”. Towns include, “Brecon, Crickhowell, Talgarth, Builth Wells, Llandrindod Wells, Presteigne, Knighton, Rhayader, and Ystradgynlais itself—a huge variety and more than 3,000 kilometres, which is bigger than Luxembourg. I frequently have a 63-mile drive to get from one meeting to the next, taking well over an hour and a half to drive between meetings. Considering the additional challenge of sub-standard broadband and mobile signal, it is still essential to travel to face-to-face meetings as much as possible. Covering such a large rural area takes a huge amount of time and energy and, while I hope I am still young enough to do the role justice, an even bigger constituency may reduce the quality and frequency of the service offered by the Member of Parliament.” I endorse all that.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment to add Brecon and Radnorshire to the list of protected constituencies in Wales. It is, as the noble Lord says, a beautiful constituency, with endless miles of green, lush hills and pastures, a few popular and busy market towns, and wonderful historic farmhouses. It is a constituency that I am very familiar with. I have enjoyed every occasion when I campaigned or canvassed there. I can testify to the remoteness of some of the villages and the problems of walking up to the top of hills in an effort to get a mobile phone signal. It also, of course, has the rather dubious honour, as we have heard, of being the largest constituency by area in England and Wales.
The noble Lord’s concerns are understandable, but his concerns reflect those of other constituencies too. Last week, I said how comfortable many felt with the 40 constituencies we have had in Wales since 2010. However, I recall the reactions to the outcome of the 2018 boundary review in north Wales as well. That review proposed that my home constituency of Aberconwy in the north, a reasonably compact constituency with an electorate of some 44,500, was to be replaced by a new Gwynedd constituency, covering the whole of the rural hinterland, from the tip of the Llŷn peninsula in the west almost as far as Denbigh in the east, some 70 miles across, and south as far as Tywyn in Merioneth, some 60 miles away from my home in the Conwy Valley. As is the case with Brecon and Radnorshire, there would not have been a town with a population larger than 10,000 in the constituency. The thought of attracting a candidate brave enough to take on a commitment to such a large area was quite daunting.
I hope the next review will be kinder to north Wales. Whereas the review for the 2010 elections succeeded in producing compact constituencies by linking the more populated coastal conurbations with their rural hinterlands, that option was not available to the 2018 review. The reduction in the number of proposed constituencies in Wales at that time from 40 to 29 and the requirement to create constituencies of equal size put a strain on the options open to the commission.
Key to the hope for a less severe outcome next time in north Wales is the decision to create the protected island constituency of Ynys Môn. The 2018 review had linked the island with the university city of Bangor, across the Menai Straits, in order to create the larger Ynys Môn and Bangor constituency. This had the effect of leaving the rural area of north-west Wales without a major conurbation to help reduce the area of the massive Gwynedd constituency the commission proposed.
I assume that it was this same approach that also led to the proposed formation of the Conwy and Colwyn constituency—an amalgamation of the major coastal conurbations of Llandudno and Colwyn Bay, which also robbed their rural hinterlands of areas of significant population. My hope is that the 2020 review will now be in a position to link rural areas of north Wales to their larger conurbations and create constituencies that make more sense historically, geographically and demographically, even if those new constituencies cover a much greater area than they do now.
The 2018 review also proposed increasing the size of Brecon and Radnorshire by adding part of south Montgomeryshire to it. The noble Lord is obviously seeking to avoid that proposal returning, but the review also proposed increasing the size of Ceredigion by adding parts of north Pembrokeshire and adding south Clwyd to the remaining part of Montgomeryshire, creating the mega-constituencies the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned earlier. Each of these mid-Wales constituencies could make an equally valid claim to become a protected constituency, but I think that each of them realises that protection for one constituency, in these circumstances, can have a negative knock-on effect on its neighbours.
Now, with 32 or more seats to create, rather than the 29 proposed in 2018, there is some hope that the Boundary Commission for Wales will have slightly more room to manoeuvre and will have the opportunity, I hope, to deliver a better balanced outcome.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Brecon and Radnorshire is the largest constituency in Wales and England by area, with a population of around 69,000 and an electorate of 53,000. It is a rural area with a small population, and to get the numbers up to the quota suggested would mean having a constituency that would cover an even larger area of Wales.
Brecon and Radnor at the moment is a very big constituency, stretching from Ystradgynlais in the south—which is the largest town with a population around 9,000—to Presteigne in the north. It is a round trip of around 300 miles. I know as I have done it. I spent much time driving around the constituency when I was a Labour Party organiser. I used to enjoy the scenery very much. The drive over the Brecon Beacons is probably the most scenic you can find, I would have thought. The beauty is outstanding.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief because I do not have the power to reminisce like my noble friend Lord Lipsey or the recollections of my noble friend Lady Gale of traversing the constituency and seeing more sheep than people and presumably getting more and more frustrated as election day dawned.
My great-grandfather was born in mid-Wales, and I have a great affection for the area. I primarily put my name to this amendment because it demonstrates, if nothing else, the absurdity of having rigid numerical targets for the impositions of the Boundary Commission and then exempting islands and Ireland from the requirement while constituencies with 3,000 square kilometres are left to fend for themselves in arguing the case for a balance between the size and rurality of the constituency and the logic of being able to represent people adequately with individuals able to make contact with their constituency MP other than on Zoom or by text.
It seems to me that the Government have put the Boundary Commission in an impossible situation. The only thing I can say about the debates we have been able to have —and they have been extremely powerful, including earlier this afternoon—is that it might help the commissioners and those doing the leg work for the commission to understand much more powerfully just what the challenges on the ground are. I hope by the time they get the final remit that the Government will have adjusted their requirements and whatever amendments we are able to pass on Report will be kept in the House of Commons. Without them, we are going to get some absolute absurdities and contradictions. Speaking to this amendment and highlighting the position of Brecon and Radnorshire is a way of demonstrating that a little common sense should apply. I understand that we are nudging nearer to greater parity of numbers across the bulk of the country but we should stick rigidly to giving power to the Boundary Commission to make sense of local requirements.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, there have been some very powerful contributions on what looked like a very small problem, although it is for a very big area. I know this constituency quite well. One of my brothers has lived there for over 60 years, and I spent a great deal of time in the company of my splendid colleagues Richard Livsey and Roger Williams, both of whom will be well known to many Members of your Lordships’ House and, no doubt, to the Welsh Members of this Grand Committee. They were both very effective MPs for that constituency. Knowing that area, I have great sympathy for the arguments that have been made. However, I will underline and reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Humphreys.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, we will now resume the debate on Amendment 21. However, before we do, I will explain what has happened for the benefit of those who have been joining remotely. In the building, the Division Bells alerted us to a Division, and I adjourned the proceedings. Unfortunately, however, my adjournment was not heard and, as a consequence, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was not informed that it had happened and he continued with his remarks, for which we owe him an apology. We therefore invite him to repeat his remarks so that we may hear them. Although they were still being spoken, they were drowned out by the bell and various other elements. Therefore, if the broadcast hub can return us to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, we will invite him to repeat his remarks.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
I am very grateful. It was in fact a complete mystery to me that the House was voting, because in preparation for my speech I had, correctly, turned off my iPhone, so there was absolutely no way I could have known that a Division was taking place. If any Members of the Grand Committee have already heard anything of what I have said, I apologise most sincerely. The repetition will probably be quite different, because I was seeking to respond to the debate that had taken place, rather than just to read some prepared remarks.
I know the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency quite well. My brother has lived there for more than 60 years. I went there on a number of occasions to support Richard Livsey and Roger Williams, distinguished Members of Parliament there. I spent a lot of time with local farmers there, understanding only something of what they were saying, because my Welsh is non-existent, and I found it extremely important to know something of the communities to which other Members have referred.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for his understanding. If something is worth saying, it is worth saying twice. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
I am not sure whether the Deputy Chairman is inviting me to say everything I am about to say twice, but I will try to refrain from doing so.
I welcome this debate. It illustrates the fallacy of trying to achieve arithmetic equivalence with no recognition of geography, travel habits, infrastructure, community or even the work of an MP in representing her or his constituents and constituency—I make that distinction between the two. We are talking here of a constituency of 3,000 square kilometres—it is larger than Luxembourg—so representing it is already a challenge, not just for the MP who has a 60-mile drive between meetings but for political parties which need to function along constituency lines. Brecon and Radnorshire may have a small number of voters, but it is very big not just in its heart but in geography, as its MP said, from my home town of Ystrad in the south to Knighton in the north-east, much of it with scant access to public transport. I have never done it myself, but my noble friend Lady Gale says it is about a 300-mile round trip. I hope she was not enjoying our views too much when she was driving at that time. So it is very different from my present home in Hackney where it is still possible to beat the bounds, albeit I do it on a bicycle these days—a mode of transport that now defeats me in Wales.
It is already difficult, as we have heard, for the MP to serve this constituency as it is. A larger one would not only be more challenging travel-wise but would break the pattern of travel, which, as we have heard, is currently up and down the valleys and not across mountains. Organising meetings with constituents, interest groups, local councillors and Senedd Members—or organising elections—would be near impossible, with simply no public transport reaching across the constituency.
As I said earlier today and emphasised at Second Reading, MPs do not just represent constituents but communities. An expansion which took the constituency into different places of work with different schools, served by different local authority areas with different histories and even different dominant languages would make relating to all the relevant interest groups and organisations really hard to achieve—particularly when involving different local authorities and a greater spread of elected representatives. Understanding the community, its rhythms, employments, schools, charities, welfare clubs—where we come from it is choirs—is as vital a part of MPs’ work as the casework they turn to every weekend. That is partly because, as I said earlier, dealing with that casework means you need to know the organisations in your constituency.
It is a very rural area, as we have heard, and has a low population. To achieve the quota, even if it were amended, it would have to cover very different areas, possibly Montgomery, as was suggested last time.
As has been said by others, it has been accepted that islands are a special case and that constituencies should not cross water. I have to say, mountains are as high as rivers are deep, and communities have been built up along valleys, not across hills. I look forward to hearing from the Minister—I wonder whether she will take up the suggestion to come and visit the place—how an even larger constituency will serve the needs of the good people of Brecon and Radnorshire.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their comments this afternoon on Wales in general and on Brecon and Radnorshire in particular. As I have already stressed, I understand how strongly your Lordships feel about particular parts of the country and about protecting the voices of the communities that dwell there.
Having spent 25 years in local government and gone through many boundary changes in my divisions, I understand how difficult it is. I also understand that there are opportunities to explain to the Boundary Commissions about local priorities, communities and transport links, and I understand that they listen. Not all is lost. Every MP and councillor will think that their particular constituency or division is unique.
The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, responds to the geography and rurality of mid-Wales by proposing a protected constituency covering the area currently covered by the existing constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. Here, the tolerance rules would not apply. I have heard the passion for this constituency from almost every noble Lord. Interestingly enough, I also know this area very well. I have sold many sheep—Black Welsh Mountain, torddus and torwens—in Builth Wells over a number of years. I have also spent many very happy weekends at the Royal Welsh Show in this constituency. I know how rural it is and how difficult it is to get around there. I was particularly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, saying “I love thee”. That is how many of us feel about the places we grow up in and live for the rest of our lives.
Just like many other rural parts of the UK, the rural character of parts of Wales can generate a small number of larger constituencies in places, and Brecon and Radnorshire is currently the largest. This amendment would remove that constituency from the tolerance regime and fix it at its current electoral size, which is approximately 55,000. That is over 15,000 less than the UK average.
There is no doubt that rural constituencies present their own challenges, particularly in terms of travel for constituents—we have heard a lot of that from noble Lords, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Gale —and their MPs, but that truth would also apply elsewhere, in East Yorkshire or North Antrim, for example. It also applies to Montgomeryshire, right next door. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, the size of some of the constituencies in Scotland is far, far greater.
I remind your Lordships that the Government’s manifesto commitment is to deliver updated and equal constituencies. We have heard that many times in this Committee. There are some unique geographical locations where tolerance cannot reasonably be applied and where a protected constituency is merited, but there are only five of them. They are all islands with considerable populations. Ynys Môn is an island, but it is also of sufficient size. These islands are separated from the mainland by sea and with the accessibility challenges that come with that.
To ensure equality for the electors of the United Kingdom, our approach to protected constituencies must be a sparing one. If we were now to add Brecon and Radnorshire to that short list of protected island constituencies, we would not have to wait very long for several other rural constituencies of a similar size in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to join the queue, and with good cause. Much of the debate of this amendment has gone back to the tolerance levels. However, I think my noble friend Lord True answered these queries in the debates on previous amendments extremely well and I do not intend to repeat his arguments.
The Government believe strongly that equal constituencies and equal votes are important to our democracy. This is not a queue that we wish to form, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We have had no requests to speak after the Minister so I call on the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly those who have spoken twice. I will make one point. The Minister expressed her support for the existing exceptional constituencies and said that Ynys Môn was of sufficient size. Not only is it a quarter of the size of Brecon and Radnorshire in geographical area, it has 51,925 electors as opposed to Brecon and Radnorshire’s 55,490. If Ynys Môn is of sufficient size, so is Brecon and Radnorshire.
This may have been an oversight by the Minister, but I did say that I and the Conservative MP for Brecon and Radnorshire would like to have a further conversation before Report. It would be extremely kind if the Minister were able to give an assurance that that request will be seriously and positively considered. Subject to that, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Does the Minister wish to come back on that point?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I will talk to the department and I am sure that we can work something out.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Excellent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
That concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. Thank you.
House of Lords
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness Clark of Kilwinning
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Walney
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Can noble Lords asking supplementary questions please keep them short and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief. I call upon the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to ask the first Oral Question.
Renewable Energy
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ravensdale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the updated recommendations from the National Infrastructure Commission that the United Kingdom should aim to meet two-thirds of its electricity needs using renewable energy sources by 2030.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the recent NIC report and will consider its recommendations. The Government are committed to reaching net zero through a sustainable, diverse and resilient energy system. This will require significantly increased renewables deployment. Renewables are on track to deliver the majority of electricity by 2030, having reached nearly 50% in the first quarter of this year. The energy White Paper will set out plans to further accelerate renewables deployment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I declare my interests, as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for that response. Given the NIC’s findings that increased earlier investment in renewables can be delivered at the same overall cost, meeting half only of total demand by 2030, and will not increase costs for consumers, can the Minister give assurances that the Government will prioritise investment in the UK’s world-leading renewables sector in the forthcoming spending review?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will understand that the spending review is of course a matter for the Treasury and that I cannot comment ahead of its decisions. However, we are prioritising investment in the renewables sector. We are accelerating new capacity through the contracts for difference scheme, which gives us certainty to drive private sector investment and has been very successful in driving down costs.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Do the Government have any plans to go above the 65% renewables target in this NIC report? Secondly—[Inaudible]—the Government not to build any more nuclear power stations. Based on Hinkley Point’s mushrooming costs, which are even higher than HS2’s, they would do better to carry on with more renewables, as the report shows that their costs are coming down significantly.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think I caught most of that question. The noble Lord is correct that renewables such as wind and solar are now some of the cheapest forms of generation per unit. These technologies are key to meeting net zero but will need to be complemented by other sources of power, including nuclear, which are available when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to support and scale UK advanced nuclear technologies, including AMRs, and will they consider classifying certain nuclear as renewable?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. The Government recognise nuclear’s potential to support the transition to net zero, as a proven continuous low-carbon energy source. AMRs in particular could support the deep decarbonisation of industry in future.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests, as in the register. Presumably, the Government accept the NIC’s view that
“renewables alone cannot create a resilient energy system for future decades”.
Following the excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, how many additional nuclear power plants, large or small, are now planned to keep us on the pathway to zero net emissions, prevent power cuts and, I hope, reduce crushing energy bills? Can we have some precision in the plans for this area?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend speaks with great authority on this point, but it is important to say that renewables will be key to meeting our net-zero targets. However, as I said earlier, they will need to be complemented by sources of power such as nuclear and gas, with carbon capture and storage, and additional flexibility such as batteries and interconnection. We should be prepared to support further new nuclear projects in the years ahead.
Lord Oates (LD)
Does the Minister agree with the National Infrastructure Commission that hydrogen has a key role to play in meeting our net-zero targets, not least as a storage medium for intermittent renewables? Will the Government therefore ensure that we invest in the hydrogen economy on a similar scale to competitors such as Germany, so that we maintain our leading edge in green hydrogen technologies and do not, once again, miss the bus?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I hope we will see more hydrogen-powered buses in the front so that we do not miss them. We have an excellent hydrogen strategy. We are investing considerable sums in developing hydrogen. We will have further announcements to make on the subject.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
Does the Minister not regret that the recommendations fail to take account of the importance of nuclear power as a reliable, firm, low-carbon baseload element in our energy mix? Should the Government not immediately inform the Japanese Government and Hitachi that they consider it of the utmost importance to revive the Horizon nuclear power station project at Wylfa, Ynys Môn? Will my noble friend also confirm that the Government still intend to contribute to its funding through the construction phase, which would greatly lower the cost of electricity generated? Given the likelihood that Hitachi will cancel the project tomorrow, should the Government not acquire the Horizon site to preserve options for its future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in previous answers, I agree with my noble friend that new nuclear can play a role as we seek to transition to net zero. It is the only technology that is currently proven, and can be deployed on a sufficiently large scale, to provide continuous low-carbon power. We will be prepared to support further new nuclear projects in the years ahead if they can show that they provide value for money. We continue to engage with all developers.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I suggest that the Government might like to encourage small-scale hydrotherapy—sorry, hydroelectric. I have seen a small village in Colombia supported by a mere drop of eight metres, giving 3 kilowatts. There are many hills above our coastline. Should we not be encouraging more people to use water as a source of electricity?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord might want to re-ask his question on hydrotherapy to my noble friend Lord Bethell, who is answering the next Question. We acknowledge the valuable contribution of hydropower to the UK energy mix over many decades. Most hydropower capacity was of course installed in Scotland last century, with smaller amounts in Wales and England. Most of these installations are still operating and still successful. They account for almost 2% of total electricity generation.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
This important report challenges the Government to raise their ambitions to meet the climate emergency and stimulate a green recovery. As the Minister said, renewables accounted for a record 47% of generation in the first quarter of 2020. What impediments does he foresee to meeting the recommendation that 65% of UK electricity should be delivered using renewable energy sources by 2030? How can they be overcome?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord said, we have a tremendous record in deployment of renewables. Renewable capacity in the UK has gone from less than 9 gigawatts at the start of 2010 to almost 47 gigawatts at the start of 2020. We certainly hope to increase that rapid deployment.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
Could the Minister talk about the future of interconnectors and whether more are planned to give the security of supply to which he referred?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord correctly said, a number of very successful interconnector projects already exist and will exist in the future. We think they will make a valuable contribution to our energy mix and to providing security of supply.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
At the moment, solar power provides only 2.2% of our energy needs. What are the Government doing to increase this percentage? In particular, why are they not doing more to encourage householders to install solar panels on their roofs?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord is right that solar will play a critical role in the mix. A number of projects have already been approved and are ongoing. I am sure we will receive further bids for solar power projects in the contracts for difference auction next year.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will press my noble friend to say whether the figure he very kindly gave the House includes energy from waste, whether he will look to increase the contribution that it makes to renewable forms of energy, and in particular whether its benefits will be shared with local communities.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The figures I gave were on total renewable capacity, but my noble friend makes a good point. A number of waste-to-energy schemes have been highly successful. We of course have to recognise that various communities have some concerns. We will always seek to work with local communities to make sure that any further projects are acceptable to them.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: NHS Long-term Plan
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic, what plans they have for changes to the NHS long-term plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the NHS for its remarkable achievements in response to Covid-19, from freeing up an additional 33,000 beds for Covid patients, to maintaining access to primary care by ensuring that 93% of GP surgeries offer video consultations, and swiftly mobilising an additional 65,000 former clinicians to help fight the virus. Learning from the Covid response will naturally inform future service priorities. However, at present, the Government’s focus remains on supporting system recovery and any amendments that may be needed to the NHS long-term plan will be considered in due course.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and echo his tribute to the magnificent efforts of health service staff. I remind the House of my membership of the GMC board. He will know that the NHS entered this crisis underpeopled and under-resourced, and that a huge backlog of work has built up. There have been estimates that as many as 10 million people will be waiting for treatment at the end of the year. There is an issue with cancer patients waiting for tests and treatment. Can he give an indication of the work being done, despite the pandemic, to get the NHS back on track? Surely he agrees that the NHS five-year plan will have to be recalibrated to take account of this.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his generous comments towards the NHS. Undoubtedly it is true that, after a massive epidemic such as the one we are living through, we will have to rethink some of our priorities and learn from Covid, but I will add a few comments about the restart. The focus on getting patients back into hospital is having a huge impact on cancer waiting lists. Attendance at GP surgeries is increasing all the time, and waiting lists are coming down dramatically. I pay tribute to NHS staff for their hard work on this matter.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, given that the health protection remit of Public Health England is to be subsumed into the new national institute for health protection, can the Minister tell us what steps Her Majesty’s Government will take to ensure that health inequalities are robustly addressed through programmes of health education and promotion, as envisaged in chapter 2 of the NHS Long Term Plan?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right; health inequalities are a massive priority for the Government. Covid has demonstrated how health inequalities play out when an epidemic such as this one hits the country. That is why we put education and levelling-up on health generally as major government priorities, why we are investing in 50,000 new nurses and 40 new hospitals, and why health remains a number one priority for this Government.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the long-term plan has set an ambitious target for 2028 of 75% of cancers being diagnosed at stages 1 and 2. Does he agree that this must involve GPs, and that GPs having face-to-face consultations with patients is the only way that this target will be achieved?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We are enormously proud of the commitment to early intervention on cancer. This is the absolute core of our life science priorities. It is envisaged that we will have a revolution in the diagnostic capabilities of the NHS in order to hit these targets and, where necessary, face-to-face GP appointments will be made available. However, I am not sure that every single appointment needs to be face to face. One of the learnings of more than half of the 100 million consultations that took place between March and June was that telephone and video appointments can be extremely productive.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that late diagnosis causes many disasters in many health specialties? Does he agree that the respiratory programme is vital and has been highlighted by Covid-19? Should we not be training and employing more doctors, nurses and physiotherapists as respiratory specialists across the country in the long-term NHS plan?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely agree. It is a grave shame that too many diagnoses happen late. We are proud of our acute care, but it is this Government’s mission to move to a priority around early intervention which will have a huge impact on the quality and length of people’s lives and make modern healthcare more affordable. The noble Baroness is entirely right that respiratory interventions are an important priority.
Lord Desai (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is not good enough just to praise NHS staff. Will the Government commit to spending a certain percentage of GDP on health as soon as possible? I suggest that 12% of GDP should be spent on health; then we would not have a repetition of this disaster.
Lord Bethell (Con)
We do not just stand and praise. We are recruiting a huge number of new staff—50,000 more nurses and more GPs—and we invest in them through our people plan.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the long-term plan cannot be delivered without effective community nursing support. Community nurses get people out of hospital and prevent others from being admitted. Currently, the service is short of several thousand nurses. What changes does the Minister expect to be made to get these nurses recruited, trained and operational?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the importance of community nursing, and all community-based healthcare, including community diagnostic hubs. The interest in nurse recruitment has risen dramatically—by 138% in recent months—partly because of our massive advertising campaign and the renewed focus of NHS trusts in community nursing, which will be matched by opportunities to provide training for those who step forward for jobs.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, in light of the experiences of people relying on social care during the current pandemic, might the NHS long-term plan make some adjustments to account for the need for integration between NHS and social care? When can we look forward to the proposals for radical social care reform, to ensure parity of esteem for the NHS?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right to raise the importance of social care. Undoubtably, one of the things that we have learned through Covid is that the NHS and social care sectors must work more closely together. That was always envisaged as one of the pillars of the long-term plan. It is now an increased priority. That has been witnessed through much closer collaboration in recent months between trusts and the social care industry. We continue to invest in social care, providing councils with access to £1.5 billion for adult and social care in 2020-21, as extra support during this difficult time.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I must try to pin the Minister down. Can he commit to publishing a plan for the future funding and provision of social care by the end of this year, as the Prime Minister promised in January? My honourable friend Liz Kendall MP has today written to the Secretary of State about the need for a clear social care winter plan. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that no one with Covid-19 is discharged from a hospital to a care home, to prevent a repeat of the terrible impact that this had in the first months of this crisis?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I cannot commit to a social care plan before the end of the year. It will require a huge amount of political collaboration and I suspect it will take longer than the next few months. I remind the noble Baroness that we have a £600 million infection control fund to help social care through the winter.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, despite additional Covid funding, many NHS trusts are having to cut back on crucial capital investment programmes because of increased financial pressure. For example, some hospitals are having to replace obsolete and ineffective scanners with slightly newer but far from up-to-date models. Does the Minister agree that when the NHS long-term plan is revised, it will need to include a recovery schedule from these perhaps inevitable but nevertheless damaging short-term responses?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Chancellor has made it clear that catch-up support for the NHS to recover from the impact of Covid is an important part of his financial projections. However, I remind the noble and gallant Lord that we are investing in 40 new hospitals. It is a massive capital investment and the impact on our healthcare service should not be underestimated.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now move to the next Question, which is from the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Examinations: A-level and GCSE
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the arrangements needed for A-level and GCSE examinations in the 2020/21 academic year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, this Government are committed to ensuring that students taking A-levels and GCSE exams in 2021 receive the qualifications that they deserve. Exams are the fairest way of judging students’ performance and we expect next year’s exams to go ahead. However, we recognise that students have experienced disruption to their education due to Covid-19. We will continue to work with Ofqual, the exam boards and sector representatives to ensure that next year’s exams are fair.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, the exam fiasco could have been avoided had the DfE been prepared to listen to the teacher associations and other relevant bodies. Can the Minister assure us that this listening has happened in preparation for next summer’s exams? And what contingency plans are in place if an individual school has to be closed down?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, throughout the period of the pandemic the department has been working closely with sector organisations, local authorities, multi-academy trusts and teaching unions. Of course, we are listening at the moment to all suggestions to ensure that the 2021 examinations go ahead. I would welcome any further contribution from the noble Lord and will ensure that it is taken back as we work through the contingency plans for next year.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest, as my younger daughter will be taking A-levels next year. There is an extraordinary disconnect between predicted and actual A-level results. This conceals a real mischief being done to disadvantaged children, and it will surely be worse this year. Are officials working on this question? If so, may I and others who have ideas and solutions to propose be put in touch with them?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we are particularly concerned to ensure that disadvantaged students, along with other students, have the best opportunity to catch up. In relation to 16 to 19 year-olds, £96 million is available for small-group tutoring. However, I reiterate that I would welcome any contributions and ideas from noble Lords to make sure that we have all that information and so that we, Ofqual and sector representatives can work together to ensure that we run exams properly in 2021.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will the scrapping of the spoken element of foreign language GCSE exams in 2021 be temporary? If so, when does the Minister expect it to be reinstated? Has any impact assessment of this measure been made regarding the suitability of this exam for entry into sixth-form or university study, or in the eyes of employers?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the alteration to the spoken element of foreign language examinations is only for one year; it has not been scrapped. There will be a change to the assessment, but that will be done during the course of study, rather than in a formal speaking exam, which is similar to how English language is conducted in our schools. That was done to reduce the pressure on students and to free up some teaching time.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, none of us wants a repeat of the confusions in this year’s exam system, especially young people, who are very articulate about their concerns. What has the department learned from this year’s problems? The Minister said that it wants to consult and to hear suggestions. Here is one: will it consult young people on the fiasco that we have had?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to next year’s exams, the department is just about to embark on a whole programme of engagement with stakeholders. I will obviously take back the noble Baroness’s suggestion that we consult the widest possible group of people so that we can learn from what happened last year and ensure the position for 2021.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests: I am a university academic. What conversations are the Government having with universities about the possible disparity between the A-levels that students might achieve next year and the academic background that they need for certain subjects such as medicine if they have lost part of the syllabus because of teaching breaks owing to Covid?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Minister for Higher Education, Michelle Donelan, has been meeting, at times daily, with a higher education task force. In relation to A-levels, there have been many fewer changes to the curriculum instructions issued by Ofqual. There have been changes to subjects such as music and drama because we recognise that those students must have the breadth of curriculum to progress to higher or further education. However, we are of course working on contingency plans. That is the stage that we are at at the moment, and I will take back those comments to the department.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, for exams in 2021 Ofqual is proposing that, in most subjects at GCSE and in all subjects at A-level, students will be expected to have covered the full course content, despite many having suffered significant losses to learning time this year when schools were closed. As a result, qualifications risk being seriously undermined by the fact that some students will have had access to all the content while others will not. Given the chaos of the past two months, I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment in an answer a few moments ago of the need for a contingency plan. So will the Secretary of State agree to work with teachers and school leaders to develop a robust national system of moderated centre-assessed grades, should exams need to be suspended again nationally or locally next year?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the guidance put out by Ofqual outlined that schools should teach the breadth of the curriculum, but there have been changes to certain subjects, particularly at GCSE, where there are choices of topics—for instance, in English literature. There is no full requirement to do geography field trips because that is about saving time, and for public health reasons such trips might not be possible. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion, and it is one that I will formally take back to the department. This is the perfect time for this Question, so I will make sure that all suggestions are taken from the Chamber, and I hope that noble Lords will feel free to send any further suggestions to me.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con) [V]
Three independent research bodies have now reported that during lockdown a fifth of students had no access to a computer or had access for less than an hour—that is, 1.7 million students, and they are the disadvantaged. I fail to see how they can catch up on five months’ education in 12 months—it is utterly impossible. We should not count too much on tutoring, as most tutors have never taught disadvantaged children, which is quite a different business. So I very much support the contingency plan. The Minister must plan for the possibility of not having exams next year but, if the exams are to be held, they will have to have a substantially reduced content. That is the only way in which those 1.7 million students can be treated fairly next summer.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government are of course concerned about catch-up for all students. In relation to disadvantaged students, £350 million is being made available for tutoring, and those mentors will begin to be in schools in the second half of the autumn term. We have provided over 220,000 laptops and another 150,000 will be made available. However, it is pleasing to tell noble Lords that the attendance statistics were announced only 50 minutes ago, and more than 7 million children and young people are back in the classroom. Noble Lords will be aware that one thing that the Secretary of State has asked Ofqual to consider is whether to delay the exams next year to allow more catch-up teaching time.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, research by the Runnymede Trust and others shows that pupils from BAME communities are still less likely to be accepted by the Russell group universities, even when equally as qualified at A-level as their white counterparts. What are the Government doing to address this issue?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, the universities are autonomous institutions, but they are regulated by the Office for Students. Under that regulatory framework, they have to have access and participation plans. One of the success stories over the last number of years is that black students have been more likely to take up a place in higher education; I will write to the noble Lord with specific statistics to support that statement.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register. Members of the National Education Union in independent schools are very concerned that, unless there is a change to assessment, students in state schools will be very much disadvantaged. Without further amendment, the assessment of A-levels and GCSEs will be more a measure of teaching time lost than of students’ abilities and knowledge. This could be remedied in part by introducing greater use of options within subjects—as is already in place in Wales and Northern Ireland—and open-book assessments. Will the Minister consider these suggestions?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
When Ofqual consulted on these matters, it considered whether to introduce not just choice of topic but choice at question level; its opinion was actually that that would disadvantage weaker students—so, it has been considered. Of course teaching has now begun, and so it is not an option at present.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19 Secure Marshals
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many COVID-19 Secure Marshals they plan to have in place by 1 October.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
Local authorities are best placed to determine the model of deployment and responsibilities of marshals in their areas. We do not expect to set national targets for the number of marshals but rather to work with local authorities to encourage them to consider using marshals where appropriate. We will be setting out further details in due course.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, for the first time since the 1300s, mingling is an offence under English law. The Home Secretary confirmed today that, if two families of four saw each other on the street and stopped to say, “Hello. How are you?” they would be mingling and carrying out an offence. Can the Minister tell us what enforcement—not education—powers the new Covid-secure marshals will have to stop such mingling?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The marshals are there to encourage compliance rather than to act as the enforcement arm, which is provided by the police and environmental health officers.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, this is the latest flight of fantasy from No. 10, designed to distract attention from the manifold failures of the response to the coronavirus: the lockdown that came too late now being lifted too fast; the “world-beating” test system which is not. There is no news on whether these marshals, who will be acting with the Prime Minister’s authority in the community, will be DBS-checked, or whether they will have proper PPE. They may be spat at; they may need stab vests. Is it correct that no money is being provided for this—though the Daily Telegraph tells us that they are going to be paid £30,000 a year—and that these marshals will have no powers to enforce anything? The Minister cannot tell us how many there will be or when they will arrive. Can he tell us how they will differ from phantom armies deployed by a deranged despot from his bunker as everything collapses around him?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I note the rhetorical flourish, but marshals have already been deployed throughout the country very successfully to encourage and support compliance and to welcome people back into public areas—places such as Leeds, Bradford, Cornwall, Devon, Peterborough and Crawley. We will continue to work with local areas to come up with approaches to deployment and to the training that is required. An announcement on funding will be made in due course.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister will know from his time as London’s second deputy mayor for policing and crime, encouragement and enforcement of the rule of six would be an ideal role for police community support officers and special constables, who have always been more representative of, and closer to, their local communities than police officers. Since 2010, however, their numbers have fallen by almost 14,000, alongside 14,000 fewer police officers in the same period—but, unlike the modest recent increase in police officer numbers, their numbers continue to decline. What will the Government do to reverse the cuts in police community support officers and special constables, who are best placed to carry out this type of work?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the enforcement approach to be adopted by the police involves engagement, explanation and encouragement first—before moving to enforcement. As noble Lords will know, this Government are committed to increasing the number of police officers with enforcement powers on our streets, but we recognise the important contributions that police community support officers make.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I was most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his telephone call this morning, but can he tell us what legal authority there is for the appointment and payment of these Covid marshals?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The appointment and payment of the Covid marshals will be organised through the relevant local authority, which will then determine how best to deploy them; it is a local, not a national, matter.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, given that, with the acquiescence of the Government, the application of the European Regional Development Fund specifically prohibited local authorities from recruiting Covid marshals, what financial support will be given to local authorities to cover the cost of hiring, training and equipping these marshals? What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that marshals are respectful, act with integrity, and uphold human rights as well as, importantly, the rule of law?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point out that the Government have provided local authorities with an unprecedented level of funding—some £3.7 billion in unring-fenced funding—to respond to the pandemic. I have already stated that a further announcement will be made on specific funding for marshals and, of course, we will be working with local authorities on the training required for them.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, many councils will have been surprised to hear that they have been instructed to employ new marshals without any specific funding from the ministry—but what is new these days? My colleague, Councillor Nick Forbes, the Labour LGA leader, was quite clear in media reports at the weekend that many councils are on the brink of financial collapse, despite the Minister’s previous announcement of the £3.8 billion. They cannot afford these appointments. Can the Minister please confirm that the Government have at least consulted all councils before the announcement? Can he detail what support will be offered to councils in relation to the employment of these marshals?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Many councils across the country already use marshals to keep the public safe. We have worked closely with councils throughout the pandemic and continue to be in close contact with them. We have been clear—and I have been clear—that we will provide more detail on funding in due course.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, with the Home Secretary saying today that two families meeting in the street cannot even say “Hello” to each other, does the Minister really think that the intervention of marshals will be publicly acceptable? What will the Government do to ensure that they are properly trained to behave appropriately and deal with people who may be very aggressive in response?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
We have already seen the successful deployment of marshals to support the public in following the guidelines in a friendly way. Their responsibilities have included directing pedestrians, providing information, cleaning touchpoints, preventing mixing between groups and being a point of contact for information on government guidelines.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House whether the Covid marshals will be trained by the police and given powers to issue fixed penalties to those refusing to comply with the rule of six in its various settings? Will their powers extend to wilful refusal to self-isolate—for example, on return from a designated country?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working with local authorities to understand the different levels of training that have been provided to date to inform our work. The deployment and responsibilities of marshals are likely to be tailored to individual areas. As such, local authorities are best placed to determine what training will be appropriate for marshals in that area.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, if these marshals are to be deployed in the near future, will councils be expected to divert existing parts of the workforce to fulfil the marshal role? If new employees are to be taken on for the role, how will the processing of CRB checks and other requirements fit with the Government’s timetable for implementation? I am sure the public will feel reassured by the marshals’ existence but, as they do not have enforcement powers, how will the public’s expectations be managed?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend will be reassured to hear that local authorities are best placed to determine the responsibilities and deployment of marshals, and they will tailor that to the local area. In terms of expectations, it is for the police and local authorities to hold enforcement powers and to recognise that these marshals will help to support improved compliance in local areas.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I support Covid-19 marshals helping with compliance with the new laws and regulations, as coronavirus is on the increase again. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to give uniform training to Covid marshals so that they can conduct their job efficiently? Secondly, with many councils running short of funds for the marshals, how do the Government plan to support such councils?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I think I have already pointed out that training will be developed in consultation with local authorities and worked through locally. Under the new burdens doctrine, we will always look to deal with funding pressures, and more will be announced in due course.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
I hope my noble friend will forgive me, but this sounds like a most un-Conservative policy that is potentially a really terrible idea. “Marshals” is a terrible name, to start with. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that these marshals will be appointed to “ensure”—not advise, assist or support—social distancing in our communities. He made it sound like Dodge City. Could my noble friend please calm my racing heart by telling the House what training the marshals will have to ensure that they enforce the regulations? Perhaps most important of all, what is to prevent too many of these largely self-appointed law enforcers becoming busybodies, score-settlers and simply social gunslingers?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is fair to say that in many of the areas where marshals have been used, they have not been called marshals but stewards, wardens or ambassadors, and they welcome people to the local area. This is about improving compliance, as opposed to the existing enforcement arm of the state. We are seeing great successes in a number of diverse places, and we will build on that.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and that brings this part of Question Time to an end.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, unusually, today, we have to have a 10-minute break.
Rule of Law: Law Officers
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role the Law Officers have in ensuring that the rule of law is maintained in (1) the development of domestic legislation and (2) their policies relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from and future relationship with the European Union.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the duty of the law officers is to give the Government full and frank legal advice, to advise and to stipulate adherence to the rule of law. Our advice is confidential, and it is fundamentally important that it remains so. As I have said previously, the freedoms and protections that we all enjoy rely on the rule of law. It is an important constitutional principle and, as a responsible Government, we remain committed to it.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not difficult to retain confidence in the Lord Chancellor and the law officers of the Crown when they acquiesce in the Government’s declaration of willingness to break international law? Are these officers of the Crown not charged with responsibility for ensuring that Ministers respect the rule of law, national and international, in all circumstances—a duty with which permitting threats to break it is hardly compatible.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I would find it difficult to disagree with any of the observations made by my noble friend. Of course, we must advise Government—as we would advise others—to temper the rule of law at the level of both domestic and international law. I have to say to this House that, in my opinion, the present Bill does not of itself constitute a breach of international law or of the rule of law.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The key characteristic for law officers is not brains—they can get all the advice they want from the English Bar or the lawyers—but backbone. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confirmed that a breach of international law would be caused by the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act under Article 4 of the withdrawal agreement.
The Advocate-General produced a load of rubbish to the EU withdrawal committee this morning when he said that Article 16 justified saying that it was not a breach. The party that changes its story on the law—as this Government do—shows it lacks backbone. How does the Advocate-General feel able, consistent with personal honour and professional duty, to remain as Advocate-General?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, let us be clear that I have satisfied myself as to the correct legal position in this context. As I indicated to the EU Justice Sub-Committee this morning, it is my view that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland essentially answered the wrong question.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
For goodness’ sake. He is a Cabinet Minister.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I hope that the noble and learned Lord has not become unwell in view of the noises emanating from him—but, if he has, I wish him well for the future.
Let us be clear that we are in a situation where we have rights under an international treaty. Those rights include our response to any breach of obligations by the counterparty, be that a lack of good faith or such action as would fundamentally alter the obligations under the treaty, giving rise to a position—under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention—where we could withhold our operation of the treaty.
It has been suggested to me by no less a legal authority than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that we can simply rely on Article 16. This has immense novelty value. The idea the Executive can enter into a treaty at the level of international law and then rely on that to displace primary legislation passed by the domestic Parliament is, I respectfully suggest, extraordinary. That requires these mechanisms in the UKIM Bill to address the contingency of a material breach that we need to address.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord told the Scottish Public Law Group in Edinburgh in June 2018:
“If the rule of law is disrespected, and falls into disrepute, elected governments will not be able to govern effectively—any government is simply shooting itself in the foot if it undermines the rule of law.”
The contingent powers in this Bill to change the Northern Ireland protocol unilaterally trash the dispute resolution provisions in the treaty that Boris Johnson signed, and on any sensible reading undermine the rule of law, as Brandon Lewis candidly acknowledged. Will the Minister acknowledge that for him to promote their use by introducing a statutory instrument under these provisions in this House would violate his overarching duty under the Ministerial Code to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations, as the Court of Appeal found and as the noble and learned Lord is reported by the Guardian correctly to have advised the Prime Minister? Does he acknowledge that it would also violate the law officer’s oath that he took as Advocate-General of Scotland, and would be a gross dereliction of his duty?
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
It would be helpful if questions could be kept brief, in which case we might be able to get through the list. We are not doing too well so far.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, with great respect, I adhere completely to my previous observations about the importance of the rule of law, and I have no difficulty with those statements. What is contemplated is a contingent situation, one in which we find that the EU has materially breached its treaty obligations and in which we find that it may have acted in such a way as to fundamentally alter our obligations under the treaties. In those circumstances, we have Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol. We also have Article 62 of the Vienna convention with regard to withholding our operations. However, we have to look at our dualist system: not only do we have obligations at the level of international law, pursuant to Article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, but we have drawn them down into domestic law by virtue of Section 7A of the withdrawal agreement Act. Article 16 of the international treaty does not confer upon the Executive the power or right to ignore that primary legislation. That is why an instrument and means of dealing with this matter rapidly and effectively needs to be in place lest there should be such a material breach.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
Can my noble and learned friend confirm that, if the Government invoke Article 16 to tackle the problems that they foresee, they would still need legislation like the Internal Market Bill to implement it? Do not we need that legislation on the statute book before the end of the transition period to reassure businesses that they will not have to either submit export declarations or pay tariffs on all goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I entirely concur with the observations of my noble friend. As I indicated before, it is one thing for the Executive to determine an issue at the level of international law in terms of a treaty, but they cannot utilise that in order to ignore primary legislation of our domestic Parliament. Therefore, a means has to be in place to address the effect of that domestic legislation, and that is the purpose of Part 5 of the UKIM Bill. It will enable us to bring forward regulations that will do that—and, indeed, regulations that will require explanation and the affirmative approval of this House.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
In view of the fact that the Minister accepts an obligation on the Attorney-General to protect and safeguard the rule of law, in regard to this matter where there are different views, what action is the Attorney-General taking, along with the other law officers, to show the importance of upholding the rule of law?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I sought to explain this morning to the Security and Justice Sub-Committee the position that I adopt with respect to this matter, and why I consider that the provisions of the Bill are entirely limited in their intent and effect and fall within the rule of law and the requirements of international law. I certainly do not anticipate that those provisions would be abused. Indeed, if they were, I cannot foresee that either House would contemplate passing the relevant regulations. If they did, I would certainly have to consider my position as a law officer, because I owe my obligations to Parliament as well as to the Government.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise that any attempt unilaterally to modify the terms of the withdrawal agreement would adversely affect not only future trade partners but also the confidence that EU citizens resident in this country will place in the commitments that the United Kingdom has made under the agreement? The confidence of British citizens resident in EU countries would also be damaged if they saw that treaty commitments could simply be set aside. Can he offer any reassurance in either regard?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I would offer absolute reassurance with respect to the points that have been raised. First, there seems to be a common misconception that somehow we could unilaterally alter the treaty provisions. That is simply not possible and is not being attempted. What we are addressing are circumstances in which, in the face of a material breach or fundamental changes in our obligations due to the conduct of the other party, we need to take preventive measures to maintain the paramount intent of the Northern Ireland protocol, which is the integrity of the Belfast agreement.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister has a very distinguished record in the Scots and English Bar. Does he not find it demeaning to stand up and give this lame political justification for what distinguished lawyers outside Parliament consider to be a breach of the law? How can he justify continuing as a law officer, given that situation?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am not seeking to give a political justification for anything; I am providing a legal justification for saying that the UKIM Bill falls within the boundaries of international law, within the boundaries of our treaty obligations and within the boundaries of the rule of law.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, when the Advocate-General supported the withdrawal agreement in this House, did he find it as ambiguous and problematical as the Prime Minister now claims? If so, why did he vote for it?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I was not concerned with either ambiguity or problems within the withdrawal agreement Bill; others may have taken a different view.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, may I take it from his earlier answers this afternoon that my noble and learned friend agrees that the law officers’ first duty is to the rule of law, their second is to Parliament and their third—and very much their third—is to the Government, and that respect for the rule of law encompasses ministerial obligations under both domestic and international law? The Bill that we are considering disapplies sections of a treaty that we have freely entered into. How does that fit with the rubric that I have just read out?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
On the first point, I entirely agree that the role of the law officers requires them to address the rule of law, Parliament and government, and in that order, without any difficulty. As regards the present Bill, it is designed to provide for a contingency, which will operate only in the event of us having to respond to a material breach or fundamental change in obligations, and then only by bringing forward regulations that will require the approval of this House. Unless and until that occurs, there is no breach of the treaty; there is simply a means by which the treaty obligations can be addressed in the event of a breach.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
Will the Minister agree that, while the Internal Market Bill is clearly intended as a negotiating tool, it can easily have the opposite effect and lead to a further hardening of attitudes? “I’m not going to play with you” is bad enough in a school playground; in international negotiations, it can lead to a dangerous ripple effect, undermining national and international treaties.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the extent to which these provisions might be used in the context of negotiation is for others to determine. What I will say is that I have to accept the factual matrix as set out by those who represent the Government in these negotiations. Where it is suggested that, for example, the United Kingdom would not be listed as a third party country for the purposes of animal and food products, with the result that it would be unlawful to move such food products from the mainland to Northern Ireland, and that is justified on the grounds that they do not know what our standards are when they are their standards, we then have to contemplate that the outcome of these negotiations may not only be adverse to everyone’s interests but, ultimately, amount a breach of obligations that we have to maintain under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed, and I apologise to those Members who were not reached. That brings the Question to an end.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. In putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 15th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 130-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (15 Sep 2020)
16:50 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 130 / Noes: 225 - Amendment 12 disagreed.
21:06 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 258 / Noes: 208 - Amendment 31 agreed.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and speak to the amendments in the first group. We come to Report and therefore I repeat my interests, as set out in the register, as vice-president of the Open Spaces Society and my historical involvement with the British Mountaineering Council.
This is the Agriculture Bill, so it is fundamentally about agriculture, farming and farmers. It cannot avoid being about many other things too because agriculture takes up some 70% of the land area of this country. Therefore, the Bill inevitably is also about everything else that happens on that land. We had a thorough discussion in Committee of Part 1, which is all about the permissive powers the Secretary of State will have in future to provide funding for a range of things, starting with farming and farming-related activities, but also those ancillary to or related to rural land.
Like much of Part 1, the small provision allowing funding for the provision of finance and access is permissive and general. The fundamental difficulty we all had with this Bill in Committee is that it is all about what the Government might do, rather than what they will do. We do not know what they are going to do, and they do not know either. We will have to wait to see how the Bill will be put into operation. Then, it will be far too late to discuss it as primary legislation.
All the amendments in this group are about access. Thinking back, huge progress has been made on access in the last 20 years in different parts of the UK. The CROW Act 2000 created access land, rights of way improvement plans, access forums and a great deal more. By and large, despite the horror stories that some people told us at the time, it has been successful. Scotland had the Land Reform Act 2003, which resulted in my political colleague Ross Finnie, who was the Minister in charge of it, being described as,
“Mugabe in a tartan outfit,
by the Scottish Daily Mail, and lots of other things like that. That Act created the right of responsible access to land in Scotland—and it was all land—so long as the access was carried out responsibly. Again, people thought it would be horrific but, in practice, that part of the Act has been pretty successful. However, I emphasise the word “responsible”. It is absolutely true that some people go to the countryside and do not act responsibly, and that matter should be dealt with.
Under CROW, we had English coastal access, which was started by the Labour Government before 2010. In 2010 there was an attempt by some Conservative Ministers, which I can bear witness to, to put a stop to it, but that was one of the things that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition made sure happened. In 2015, Nick Clegg announced that it would be completed in 2020. It has not quite happened, for various reasons, but it is going to be finished—so things have been moving forward.
What is happening now is dangerous in several respects. There is the problem of the potential loss of the ability, under cross-compliance and the environmental requirements on basic farm payments, for access authorities to make sure that farmers do not block access. In Committee, I asked what was happening about that under the new system, but I have not had an answer yet. Will the new ELM tier 1 payments require that farmers and land managers adhere to the law and allow access where it is legal? Will tier 2 take into account rights of way improvement plans, for example? Will they have to do it? Many tier 3 landscape-scale payments will, if I understand them correctly, be made on access land, so they are a wonderful opportunity to develop and improve current access for both people undertaking the access and land managers.
Other issues are being dealt with by amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. However, Amendment 1 puts in a specific requirement for consideration to be given to funding for access improvements as well as maintaining and supporting existing access. This is a really good opportunity to do this. Improvements would be voluntary, so it does not force anything on anybody, but it does put into the Bill the possibility of providing money to strengthen existing access. In some areas, access on farmland is very good; in others, it is pretty poor. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Addington for adding their support to this amendment.
We want to see enhancements to the path network and, importantly, improved maintenance of existing public access. This is very important. If the existing facilities—the gates, stiles and paths—are clear and well signposted, that is a route to good management and is in the interests of everybody. It is not to anybody’s advantage if they are all falling down and you have to climb over walls and barge your way through to get access, or if you cannot find where you are going and get lost. Maintaining access is, therefore, in everybody’s interest, whether you are managing the land or going there for recreational purposes.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I agree with much of what he said about public access and the health and well-being benefits thereof. I will speak specifically to my Amendment 2, which changes the ELMS targets in Clause 1(1)(b) from “enjoyment of” to “health and well-being benefits from” the countryside. This goes to the heart of the Bill and what the countryside is for. Is it for our enjoyment or for our benefit?
I apologise for not being present in person, particularly on a day when I have tabled a number of amendments. I am currently in quarantine following a fortnight in California, where it was 116 degrees last week. California is parched by drought. It is ravaged by wildfire and overrun by Covid, exacerbated by a food production system that maximises profit and productivity. There is no doubt that the Californians “enjoy” that remarkable land, but that enjoyment patently does not inure to the benefit of their health, well-being or environment.
This amendment was debated in Committee and many noble Lords supported the inclusion of health and well-being benefits, so I will not repeat myself, but I note that this provision remains unchanged from the original 2018 version of the Bill. This is despite the onset of the worst public health crisis in a century, during which the public health and well-being benefits of our natural environment, and our domestic food supply, have never been more important. It is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to put the crucial goals of health and well-being on the face of the Bill. However, I am equally concerned at the use of the word “enjoyment”. This is either a wholly subjective term that is inappropriate for legislation, or it has a specific meaning as a property right—the right to quiet enjoyment—which simply cannot be a public good.
I declare my interest, now and for the rest of this Report stage, as a Devon farmer and the holder of certain long-standing feudal rights. I originally trained as a property law barrister and I am very aware that enjoyment of land is a basic freehold right that may be granted to tenants or exercised by bringing a tort claim in nuisance. Is the granting of public property rights what the Government intend to reference in Clause 1(1)(b)? If so, I would not be wholly opposed to that, but it needs to be stated explicitly and would deserve considerably more debate than is available today. I would also question whether that amounts to a public good, given that there is an all-too-vibrant property market at work in this country at the moment.
Equally, if this is merely the dictionary definition of enjoyment—“the taking of pleasure in something”—it is overbroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referenced, we have heard much in the news lately of public access and enjoyment, including raves taking place in contravention of lockdown guidance. The participants at those events are undoubtedly gaining public access to, and considerable enjoyment from, the land in question—but it may not be to the good of their health or well-being.
As I stated in Committee, I am a champion of responsible public access to the countryside, but not to the detriment of the environment, the well-being of the public or the private rights of property owners. This provision, as drafted, potentially damages all three. I hope the Minister can provide much-needed clarification on this important issue.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister and all those in Defra who have worked so hard between Committee and now to provide us with letters and briefings. The time they have given it is very much appreciated and will hopefully speed up this process.
I will speak primarily to Amendment 5 standing in my name, which seeks to ensure that public access is “granted voluntarily” in the ELM scheme
“by the recipient of that assistance.”
The Minister confirmed this during a virtual session we had the other day, and it is important that he puts it on the record, because there has been some confusion as to whether Defra would be able to impose any of the conditions in Clause 1(1)(a) to (j) as part of giving a grant. If the Minister could assure me that each and every one of them is voluntary, that would be a help.
I support what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has just said. His wording in Amendment 2 is better than that in the Bill. I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about irresponsible behaviour. It is important to remember that irresponsible behaviour is both ways—both by those who come to the countryside to take exercise and walk along a footpath, and also by the farmer who prevents that for various reasons.
Your Lordships will recall that, in Committee, I went on at some length about litter, which is the blight of Covid-19. I got an email from somebody who said, “You’re absolutely right but don’t forget the farmers, who leave an awful lot of litter around, from their black plastic sacks and other things”—and that is absolutely right. I wrote back to him and said I totally agreed with him. The responsibility has to act both ways, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it does when the Bill becomes an Act.
I would also like to ask my noble friend about the status of access. If it is a voluntary agreement as part of an ELM scheme, what is the status when that part of the ELM scheme comes to an end? If it is a five-year agreement and there is voluntary access at the end of five years, does that access become statutory or just fade away?
A final thought: when we are talking about access, one of the great things that Covid has shown is that if you give animals and birds a bit of peace, they will come out and show themselves and they will prosper more than when they have humans around. There are certain times of year when the use of footpaths is not helpful to breeding animals and birds, and I hope that there will be a bit of flexibility on both sides to ensure that these rights benefit animals and birds as well as human beings.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which encourage public access and improved accessibility. Equally, I am in favour of Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Public access should not be forced on farmers just because they have been given financial help. That would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill. What should happen instead, as proposed by my noble friend, is that, where relevant, access would be
“granted voluntarily by the recipient of … assistance.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have a suspicion that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, had not quite finished, but we will return to him if he indicates he had not completed his remarks.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Would the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, please finish his remarks?
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
I confirm that I have finished my remarks already.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I beg your pardon: they were worth waiting for. The next speaker will therefore be the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the access part of the Bill immediately caught my eye in terms of improving people’s health and enjoyment of the countryside. “Enjoyment” may be a term that is challenged, but it surely includes healthy exercise in the country, in a controlled environment with support. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is not necessary, because I was assuming it was a voluntary interaction to get support; you get some funding to do support in a constructive, sensible way. I understand why he tabled it, because it is a useful piece of clarification, and we probe in Committee but clarify on Report. Hopefully, it will remove some of the, shall we say, more lurid stories we had over the summer—a quiet summer with the press.
I discovered on certain occasions that I was in favour of an unlimited right to roam over everybody’s gardens. It started with the BBC and carried on. I have to give praise to the Telegraph, which did not put anything like this out, possibly because it spoke to me first.
Anyway, as we go through this, the amendments I have down in my name are all about clarifying and, when they make reference to existing Acts of Parliament, trying to put this in context. I refer to the 2000 Act and the 1980 Act: we have something solid, so let us pin it down and find out what we are trying to do.
In the current environment, one thing we have discovered is that if your heart and cardiovascular system are in good condition, you are less likely to be a vulnerable person who is collapsing the NHS. Exercise is the wonder drug, and the best introduction to exercise if you are away from it is walking, after which you may start running or anything else. Taking exercise easily in a pleasant way is the thinking behind most of my approach. It is a pleasant experience to be outside walking.
My amendments also make it possible that the Government will fund those people who have entered into this to make sure or attempt to make sure there are paths that are useful for just about anybody, not just the convinced rambler who, armed with the right clothing and heavy boots, marches across a muddy field. They are for the person in a wheelchair or pushing a wheelchair or pushing a buggy. Can they get support to make sure that they have a hard surface that does not turn to mud at the first drop of rain? That was some of the thinking behind linking this to other Acts.
Farmers should get to it. This is very important for the simple reason that people stick to a hard path, by and large, but not to many other paths, including great paths such as the Pennine Way and the Ridgeway that get muddy. People avoid the mud and expand the path. Any biodiversity around that path is immediately destroyed by people’s size 6 and up shoes. It ruins the ground and the diversity. So the aim of my amendments that refer to other Acts is to try and make sure you can maintain a path that is usable under most circumstances.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I have added my name to those of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee on Amendment 5, because, as has been said, it is important that we get clarification. We must also ensure that farmers and other land managers realise that the access provisions are voluntary and will not be imposed. We need to take everybody along with the new framework, and the new way of looking at how we finance our agricultural system. If land managers fear that this will be compulsory they may not take part in it. Obviously, there is a good reason why we want more access—but it must be voluntary.
I echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about making paths, if possible, accessible to all, not just to what he called the hardened rambler. I also concur that there are occasions when paths and access must be curbed, for various reasons. Even nature reserves have to close paths because a bird—or some other creature, but it is normally a bird—has decided to nest right by them, and the last thing it needs is a lot of people walking past. I hope that the Minister can give us the clarification that we desire.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I offer the Green group’s support for Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will speak on other amendments, so I shall confine myself to this one. Amendment 2 has multiple benefits. As the noble Earl explained, it would improve the clarity of the Bill, with “health and wellbeing” being measurable and quantifiable terms rather than the—if I may say so—rather woolly drafting of “enjoyment”.
This also helps us to come to terms with the rest of the debate and to set out clearly what the Bill is trying to achieve. We need our countryside to provide multiple services for us. In terms of our health and well-being, we need a great improvement from our present diet, to one packed with fruit and vegetables. We also need widespread broadly available leisure opportunities, and we need to look after the health and well-being of the natural world so that it can maintain biodiversity and bio-abundance, store carbon, prevent flooding, provide clean water, et cetera.
The economy is a complete sub-set of the environment, and ours is in a parlous state, as the RSPB reminded us this week with its reflections on our “lost decade for nature”. There is a context to the Bill involving contesting views, summed up as “sparing versus sharing”. The idea behind sparing is that we trash much of the land—the soils, the biodiversity and the waters—but we leave some of it, in its still surviving or restored state, as pristine as possible. Spare some, and the devil—or the agrochemical companies—take the rest.
Sharing involves looking after all our land—the soils, the wildlife, the air and the water. Those are things that everybody needs around them all the time for health and well-being—rural and town residents, visitors, and those who eat the food that comes from them. That is, as the noble Earl’s amendment says, for their health and well-being. An occasional visit to a specially protected treasured area will not deliver health and well-being if the rest of our countryside is trashed.
When we reach Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and consider the damage done by pesticide application, this will all come into acute focus. Amendment 2 gives us a chance, in the early stages of the Bill, at the start of today’s debates, to set out a crucial understanding of how our health and well-being, and our future, depend on looking after every inch of our environment. If we live in a healthy land, we will have a healthy society.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I too thank the Minister for the timeliness and succinctness of the brief we have received. As we will be on this subject for a while, I had better declare an interest, in that I own woodland, which is managed by a professional and with the agreement of the Forestry Commission. And if anything comes up about horticulture, Bedfordshire is part of the heart of the horticultural world, so I will be interested in that.
We should pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I too worried about “enjoyment” for a while and wrestled with it but could not think of anything better at the time. Then I found that he had produced something very helpful, which gives precision. In law, precision is very important, so I hope the Minister will consider it.
I say that particularly because I happen to have some footpaths close to where I live and, as my noble friend will be aware, there is a new hobby of flying drones, which is not necessarily for the enjoyment of anybody other than the person flying the drone. Certainly, if people are walking along a footpath and find somebody else in the middle of the path flying a drone—which is allegedly, but not actually, flying within sight—that is not to the enjoyment of anyone at all.
On Amendment 4, which is the other one that caught my eye, there is no doubt that “accessibility” is vital. There cannot be a Member of your Lordships’ House who has not taken a walk along a footpath and found either a stile broken, something overgrown or another hazard that has appeared, so it is vital. I am slightly worried, though, in that some years ago I experienced that a section of the “rambling community” had gone back to the original maps showing where the closed footpaths were. Those had been closed whenever it was, legally et cetera, but there was then a move to open them up again. There may be a case for opening some of them, but it seems to me that that campaign does not fit with what we require today. However, I come back to the point that accessibility is vital. New public access is much more difficult in today’s world, and I think one has to tread very carefully in that area.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. Briefly, I support Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, if the intention is to make public access a precondition of eligibility to obtain financial assistance for the purposes set out in Clause 1. Many farmers welcome public access and understand that, in many instances, it is most helpful to their businesses, leaving aside any altruistic intent. However, there will always be circumstances in which, for one reason or another, it is inappropriate. Reasons may range from it being environmentally detrimental to safety concerns and privacy reasons. While encouraging public access, surely it should be granted voluntarily by a willing and perhaps enthusiastic farmer, rather than being imposed. Public access may well devalue the farmer’s property and might lead to a reluctance by the farmer or landowner, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has said, to make an application to the relevant ELMS.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be back discussing the Bill on Report. I declare my interests in the register, particularly that I sit on the rural affairs group of the Church of England and that I am an associate fellow, I think, of the British Veterinary Association. I have one comment and a question for the Minister. I do not think that these amendments are necessary, as we discussed in Committee. It would be most helpful if the Minister in summing up could refer to the figures on current public access and rights of way, both in numbers and in miles, that are currently available but not being used and may lapse as a result, before we go on to create any new ones.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 27. The consultation with the dairy industry highlighted a need to define how the codes of conduct will be enforced and how that enforcement will be financed. The dairy industry must be given a chance to provide views about enforcement. A range of options are possible. Arbitration or an ombudsman model are suggested. In either of these models, the cost must be considered. Legal advice and litigation costs will have to be considered. All such costs will ultimately fall on consumers. In this pandemic era, consumers must be considered. Families of lower income and those facing homelessness must be protected. Does the Minister agree that all such extra legal costs must not fall on consumers?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to two amendments: Amendment 2, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 5, in the name of my noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Dundee and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I agree entirely about the beneficial effects of being able to enjoy the beauties of our countryside; that should go without saying. But I also very much agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the position of the landowners and farmers in question.
As we begin what I hope will not be quite such a marathon stage of the Bill, I very much hope that we will never, at any stage of our deliberations, lose sight of the fact that this is the Agriculture Bill, and its prime purpose is to protect and enhance British farming and those who earn their living from it. It is to underline their duties to be custodians of the countryside; it is to underline their responsibility to enable people to enjoy the countryside.
But we have only to reflect briefly on some of the ghastly things that have happened since Committee to realise how important it is that not only are farmers and landowners responsible but that those who enjoy the countryside are responsible. We have witnessed some, frankly, despicable scenes over the last two or three months—people going into the countryside and not enjoying it but pillaging it, defacing it, neglecting what it truly is and creating horror and squalor where there is, and always should be, beauty. I hope we can bear all those things in mind as we go through Report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has been exceptionally kind to me in previous debates. It deeply saddens me that I do not quite agree with him: I think there will always be a tension between town and country, and some of that comes down simply to a lack of information available to those who despoil the countryside, and that is something we should think about.
It gives me great pleasure, even joy, to be speaking on Report on this Bill, with such a broad consensus on shaping a greener future for British farming and land management. The sheer volume of amendments on the Marshalled List is testament to the scale of ambition shared by noble Lords across the House, and it is unfortunate that your Lordships may not be able to divide on as many amendments as we might have liked.
I was going to speak only to Amendment 4, because I thought it was the most radical, in terms of opening up new paths and new opportunities for people to walk, but now that my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle has given me the opportunity to range wider, I shall speak to some of the others.
I am pleased by the cross-party, non-partisan way in which the House has come together to focus on some of the most important issues, so that the Bill addresses some of the most pressing issues facing the health of our people and our planet. I felt that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was very brave in going to California. I have watched with horror the pictures and the testimonies from a California that is clearly suffering and will clearly have a problem feeding and nurturing its own residents in the near future.
The amendments in this first group can be broadly categorised as improving public access to the benefits and beauty of British land, and anything that can be done to expand the public’s access and use of the land is a positive step. The Bill already makes broad overtures in that regard. Despite having a great respect and liking for the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I am not quite sure about the word “voluntarily”. On a path that I regularly walk, the farmer puts all sorts of impediments in the way, and that footpath has been there for many centuries. For example, one often finds wire fencing, flocks of geese or cows that are about to be milked—it makes it quite difficult for the average walker.
Some of the other amendments are simply common sense. It would be perfectly logical for the Minister to go back to the Government, and when the shadow, the spectre, of Dominic Cummings looms over him, I think he should say “Dom, you know nothing about this—go away, and let us improve the Bill”.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to contribute to this Bill, and I declare my interests as a farmer in Scotland and a member of NFU Scotland. Even so, Part 1, to which most of these amendments apply, only affects England and Wales.
I add my support for Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. This is one of a number of amendments noble Lords have referred to which are aimed at bringing the benefits of agriculture to health and well-being. It will be important if this Bill gives official recognition to this element.
I have been listening with much interest to the proposals surrounding Amendments 3 and 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, particularly his extensive list of what constitutes “water”. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked that financial assistance be sought for access—it is a bit of a longer shot to diagnose what assistance is actually needed for the water itself. It might be necessary to define the context in which the words listed should be taken, as they are likely to have different meanings in different parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew your Lordships’ attention to the legislation in Scotland, which gives unlimited right of access to land and water, but allows access only by foot, horseback or bicycle. Motor-driven transport can go only where there is an appropriate right of way, unless the occupant is disabled. We have yet to learn if this distinction will apply to water, but this needs to be thought about. This helps to ensure that the countryside is accessed in a way that provides the most benefit. Even so, there are already examples of the approach of different users conflicting, in spite of the fact that, with one-tenth of the population of England, one might expect there should be less of a risk.
Something which deserves consideration when talking of extending access is that historically, Scotland had a more general right of access before our current legislation was introduced, whereas in the majority of England any access is limited to defined rights of way. During the Bill’s passage, it has been only proper that we give these proposals some consideration. However, the extent and location of acceptable access has not been discussed.
The changes envisaged in these amendments are a complete departure from the current situation. My noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out the way in which they extend the present position. The subject should be introduced with more care than we can readily give in the context of this Bill. I would not be prepared to support the amendments at this time.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. A number of noble Lords have made the point that this an agriculture Bill—of course it is—but we cannot get away from the fact that the principle which underpins it is public money for public goods, and the Government are quite right to make that the principle. The link between citizens as taxpayers and the farming industry is now going to be clearer and more direct than at any time in the last half-century. Therefore, anything which helps public understanding of farming and agriculture is actually in the best interests of farmers and landowners.
Many noble Lords have highlighted the importance of public access and recreation in the fresh air and countryside as part of a broad strategy for improved health, well-being and mental well-being, and I agree absolutely with that. I have observed in this debate and in Committee some conflation of the public rights of way network—which is often historic and enshrined in law—and public access more generally. I am not going to give a lecture on that, your Lordships will be pleased to hear. However, it is important that we understand that these are two separate things.
This comes across very clearly in the Bill, in understanding the extent to which compliance with the law on the part of landowners will be taken into account in assessing eligibility. The other issue is public access: opening up not new public rights of way but new voluntary access. My view—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—is that nothing in the Bill or in any of the amendments would create a new public good or in any way force landowners to do something they do not want to do.
A number of noble Lords have talked about the problems of vandalism, fly-tipping and so on. I understand that: I live in a small village, and the lane out of here is often full of litter. Nobody suggests banning cars, even though people are chucking McDonald’s boxes out of car windows; we do not do that. We try to educate, to enforce, and that is the approach we should be taking with public access, not trying to ban the many for the misdeeds of the few.
I would really like the Minister to make it clear whether financial assistance will be available where landowners voluntarily decide to provide new access opportunities or to improve existing ones. I would also appreciate the Minister’s saying whether any of the ELM tests and trials have been related to water and public access to waterways.
Finally, there is the question of what used to be called cross-compliance, to which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred: whether a landowner who blocks a footpath or a public right of way will still be eligible for grants, or whether that will be taken into account. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. As we are talking about access, I should declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority.
I do not intend to speak at length as we have a great deal to get through today. We had a good debate on these issues in Committee, and I think we all acknowledged the important health benefits from being in the open air and walking in the countryside. Noble Lords have raised many of these important issues again today and, of course, we concur with many of the arguments that have been put forward.
There is clearly a great deal more that can be done to open up the countryside and provide safe and secure footpaths, particularly for those with disabilities. We also recognise the importance of enhancing public understanding of farming and nature. As we know, the Bill already spells out a commitment to provide financial assistance for public access to the countryside and for greater public understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, again raised the issue of access to water—to canals, lakes and the other things listed in his amendment. As I said in Committee, this Bill is about farming and the environment; extending its remit to the recreational enjoyment of waterways is perhaps pushing its boundaries too far.
On reflection, since Committee, I have had a more fundamental issue with these amendments. We believe that the purposes set out in Clause 1(1) have the right balance of interests between the farming community and the environment. It is a delicate balance, which is nevertheless broadly accepted by those whose livelihoods depend on it. This is why we have refrained from putting amendments to this clause, and it is why, even now, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
All of the amendments in this group are worthy in their own way. The issues that they raise are important and we will happily work with noble Lords to pursue them elsewhere—but not in this Bill or at this time, when there is so much else at stake and the future funding of farming is so fragile.
I hope that, despite the good debate that we have had, the noble Lord will reflect on this and feel able to withdraw his amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to what has been a thoughtful debate. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I very much look forward to these days spent on Report, building on our consideration in Committee.
In addressing Amendment 1, I will also address Amendments 25, 3, 4 and 24. I am a great advocate of the benefits that access to the countryside and the natural world can bring. Clause 1(1)(b) will allow financial assistance to be given to support public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland and woodland.
The Government are supporting and enhancing access to the countryside in a number of different ways. We are working to complete the England Coast Path and to support our network of national trails, and we intend to create a new national trail across the north of England. We are ensuring that rights of way are recorded and protected, as well as developing ways to support access through the ELM scheme. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that it is estimated that there is around 140,000 miles of rights of way in England and Wales. The ELM scheme will reward land managers for the public goods that they deliver, including beauty, heritage and engagement with the environment. Public access is a key way that people can engage with the environment. Supporting access is therefore an important aspect of achieving this goal.
In her point about balance, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, reminded us of the clear essence of this—in fact, it is the way in which the countryside is generally successful. How do we balance the many demands on the countryside? Her point was made well and succinctly.
We are looking at how the ELM scheme could fund the creation of new paths, such as footpaths and bridleways, which provide access for cyclists, riders and pedestrians where appropriate. This will be in addition to current local authorities’ rights of way arrangements. The scheme could also support wider access opportunities to, and on, water and waterways, such as lakes and rivers, for canoeists, anglers and swimmers where appropriate. Again, this is about balance. We all know—this is so often the case, in my view—that when this is done through interested parties meeting together, some of the hostility evaporates: they all get round what is perhaps in these times the proverbial table and work through the issues to everyone’s mutual interest.
We will determine in more detail what ELM will pay for as we develop further the scheme; importantly, we are engaging with stakeholders to inform this. The current wording of the Bill allows us to develop, in close collaboration with stakeholders, the best ways of making further enhancements to our exceptional access network, including waterways.
Turning to Amendment 2, I am absolutely seized of the health and well-being benefits that access can bring. All of us have experienced them—many of us throughout our lives—but I think that the nation has particularly found this during the current circumstances. I assure the noble Earl that these benefits can be supported by public access to the countryside. Access provides a huge range of benefits, including improving physical and mental health, but also supports local communities and economies.
I thank the noble Earl for highlighting the importance of access as a public good, which this scheme can support. As drafted, Clause 1(1)(b) will allow for a more permissive approach to meeting the aims of providing greater and more varied access. A broad range of access improvements will be aimed at promoting the benefits of enhancing health and well-being through enjoyment—in the fullest sense of the word, rather than that pertaining to property rights—and understanding of the countryside. I should say that the noble Earl and I discussed this issue with lawyers. The current scope of Clause 1(1)(b) is broader than that proposed by the noble Earl and provides options to develop the best ways of making further enhancements to our impressive access network, including waterways.
Turning to Amendments 19 and 27, rights of way are managed by local authorities and the rights of way improvement plans set out the needs at local levels. When developing schemes such as the ELM scheme, understanding and addressing local needs will be of paramount importance. This is why the Government have proposed that the design of tiers 2 and 3 of the ELM scheme may require spatial prioritisation; in other words, a targeting process to ensure that priority environmental outcomes are delivered in the right places. The Government are exploring the best approach to spatial prioritisation for ELM, including how to ensure that local stakeholders can be involved in determining local priorities. Rights of way improvement plans will already be considered as part of this process.
Clear arrangements are already in place through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to allow for the establishment, recording and appeal of rights of way to agreed standards, and local authorities hold responsibility for their maintenance. Indeed, a national stakeholder group is being reconvened, enabling historic claims to be negotiated and resolved while the consideration of other initiatives, such as a coast-to-coast national trail, is also progressing. The ELM scheme is separate from these aspects of rights of way and thus may offer new and different opportunities, such as the creation of new access, easier physical access and clearer information to enable greater public access.
A number of noble Lords mentioned access. Having have had the privilege of seeing some of the new coastal paths and the opportunities for those of varying abilities and disabilities, I am absolutely seized of the importance of access. As we seek to enhance greater opportunities, wherever possible we should be in a position to help those who do not have the ability that noble Lords here have to enjoy access to the countryside.
Turning to Amendment 5, I again stress to all noble Lords that ELM is a voluntary scheme; I put that on record. Therefore, no farmer will be forced to sign up to the scheme, although they will of course be required to meet their obligations under the law. Ultimately, ELM is a policy delivered by land managers on the ground who know best what their land is capable of delivering. I agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness and the many noble Lords who raised this issue, but again, balance comes into it. There must be balance between food production, the environment, conservation, and the well-being and health of people who want access to the countryside; all these things are the essence of balance.
I understand that, at times, providing such public access can bring about some extra costs or risks for land managers. We will therefore work closely with stakeholders on the full costs of providing access, to make sure that the system works for and is attractive to land managers. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made that point. We want this scheme to work because it is a positive for those who are custodians of the land. It will not work if it is an imposition. Permissive routes—that is, routes agreed for a certain period of time—cannot be claimed as permanent rights of way. Again, this is important in the climate in which we are seeking to do something of strong public benefit by seeking this element of financial assistance for land managers.
I will look at Hansard to see whether there are any further issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, referred to tests and trials. All this—whether it is access or the range of financial assistance—is going to work only if we have the tests and trials with interested parties, so that there is confidence that when all of these financial assistance schemes are applied for, they will be attractive.
I hope I have answered noble Lords’ questions and concerns with the references I have made, through consideration of these matters between Committee and Report and by taking the advice of lawyers as to the drafting. I hope that this will sufficiently reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in particular, and I ask him whether he would feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he said. He elucidated the point on which I wanted to question him but, by that stage, I had already sent in my request to speak. He also mentioned consultation on the ELMS. How many farmers are involved in this? Is he convinced that it covers enough respondents to give an overall picture for the country? It is crucial that we get this right.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I can confirm that the tests and trials will be across all sorts of land tenure in all parts of the country. This is a venture between Government with responsibility to the taxpayer and land managers who are doing—and will continue to do—a considerable amount of work for which, currently, they are not rewarded. I can confirm to my noble friend that we will be working very strongly across the country on access and other matters, so that when the design of the scheme is rolled out, we know that it will be attractive to land managers.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, on the Minister’s last point, I am not in touch with a huge number of tests and trials. There are complaints that the ones with which I am in touch—which deal with things in which I am interested—are not getting on fast enough. We understand that there are problems with Covid et cetera. The people I talk to have no complaints at all about how they are being conducted; they are being involved. In terms of new rights of way, the tests and trials in parts of Somerset—I think they are in the Quantocks—in which the Trails Trust is heavily involved are certainly finding a lot of lost bridleways which are likely to be turned, in modern terms, into new access. The people there are quite pleased with what is happening.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. I am also grateful for the considerable discussions and consultations which the Minister and his department have taken part in during the summer. I believe that the words “health” and “being” in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, belong in Part 1 of the Bill. They ought to be there somewhere. I would have hoped that this was something the Government might accept, if not necessarily in the exact form in which the noble Earl put it forward. I know that this is a Government in the early gung-ho stages of “We know everything, everything we do is right and we are not going to change anything”. It will change as the years go by; it always does. This is something to which the Minister should and could give further consideration. I would like the words “outdoor recreation” to be there, but I am not going to press this.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once. Short questions for elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 6
“( ) protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I will listen with great interest to what the authors of the other amendments say in relation to theirs.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for their support. Despite what has changed since Committee—which I have now lost—I am persisting with this amendment because of part 1 of the report on the National Food Strategy in the name of Henry Dimbleby. I will refer to this in later amendments as well. His conclusion in Chapter 5 is very telling. Although we “got away with it” in relation to the Covid crisis, we came perilously close to food security issues, particularly food shortages in shops during the early stages. Obviously that is something we wish to prevent going forward.
I believe that this is a genuine omission on the part of the Government. I am sure it is purely an oversight, rather than anything mischievous, but if we refer to the later Clause 17, it is extremely important to have a reference in Clause 1. The new subsection we are proposing would insert
“protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing”
and that is extremely important. As the National Food Strategy: Part One so rightly identifies, there are many reasons why we may be presented with such shortages and shocks to food security in the future. That is why it is important to write this into the Bill as a recognised public good, and therefore qualifying for public assistance.
I mentioned the reference to Covid; it seemed that we got away with it this time. However, Clause 17 refers to
“global food availability … supply sources for food … the resilience of the supply chain for food … household expenditure on food … food safety and consumer confidence in food”.
Climate change is obviously a key theme running through a number of amendments which follow later, while future pandemics could give greater cause for concern. I know that other amendments seek to address national food shortages, caused potentially by not growing enough of our own—the level of self-sufficiency is low, as we have discussed previously—and potential household shortages. My main concern is a potential major shock flowing from the lack of a deal and the difficulties of trying to negotiate under World Trade Organization terms of reference, which could lead to major trading deficiencies. That is why I believe that Amendment 6 needs to be written into the clause.
I will listen carefully to what my noble friend the Minister says in summing up, but, without a shadow of a doubt, food security should qualify as a public good and thereby be eligible for financial assistance. If he is able to point us in the direction of how, in other circumstances, financial assistance would kick in, that may go some distance in allaying my concerns. This goes further than a probing amendment, but I do not necessarily wish to test the will of the House on it. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously what we propose in this amendment and what his own adviser, Henry Dimbleby, has said.
The House owes the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, a great debt for bringing forward Amendment 48, and I congratulate him on doing so. There is major cause for concern about how common land will be administered under the terms of the Bill. The danger is that if we leave the discussions at this stage, we will rely on the regulations that will follow, which I know will be manifold. I thank my noble friend for his rather lengthy telephone call. I do not think he realised it would be quite such a long call, but I am so grateful to him and his team in this regard. However, I support the sentiments that lie behind Amendment 48 and, in this regard, would like to know exactly how the regulations which flow from the Bill will apply. I know that, in other circumstances, departments have been willing to give advance notice of how the regulations will apply. That would be most helpful indeed.
I know the reason why common land is so vexatious. I may no longer be MP for Thirsk and Malton but, having stood there, I know that common land is generally not widely understood because it exists only in certain parts of the country. However, there are multiple interests at play there, so I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this opportunity to put our minds at rest. Graziers and others may be few in number, but the current financial assistance they enjoy can make the difference between them putting bread on the table or otherwise. That will be of great interest to the House this afternoon.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I was pleased to add my name to her Amendment 6 because, for me, food security is very much about the public good. Putting this amendment into the Bill, as we would like to see, would try to ensure that the Secretary of State is given powers to give financial assistance to underpin food security, health and well-being. This is a laudable objective, which should be placed in statute and recognised by government as such. It should therefore be placed in the Bill. Particularly at the time of this pandemic, people should be able to access not only cheap food but the food that they need to stay healthy, with the food system acting in relation to policy areas such as health, welfare and food production.
During Committee, many of us referred to the report published by our Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment. The report, Hungry for Change, was particularly comprehensive and found barriers at all levels of the food system that make it harder for people, particularly those living in poverty, to access a healthy and sustainable diet. The lack of a unifying government ambition and strategy on food has prevented interrelated issues such as hunger, health and sustainability being considered in parallel, meaning that opportunities have been missed to develop coherent policies that could bring about widespread change. Everyone should have access to a healthy and sustainable diet, hence the need to ensure that financial assistance will be given for adhering to this objective as a public good, and therefore get public money for public goods.
It is interesting what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said about the National Food Strategy: Part One by Henry Dimbleby. He gave evidence to our committee some months ago. Basically, I suppose he is saying that we were lucky that we did not face further challenges in relation to the pandemic. However, there is no doubt that we have all seen the problems and challenges in food supply chains over the past months. It is important that food security—and, yes, food insecurity—should be recognised as a qualification for future funding in the Bill. I am happy to support this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. I speak in support of Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I have added our names. Incidentally, I also support Amendments 12, 13 and 17 in this group, but do not intend to speak to them. Let me be brief, as a number of the main points that I had planned to raise have already been made by my colleagues. This amendment touches on two areas: food security and the food which brings good health and well-being. Both areas are about public goods.
I am planning to say something more about food security when we reach a later amendment, so I will confine myself to just one thing about good health and well-being. The results of poor diets are well documented. We know that poor diets lead to worse health outcomes, early onset of diseases and indeed, in the case of Covid, a greater likelihood of a slower recovery or death. At a time when the NHS is under considerable pressure, we need to do all we can to join up our legislation so that we can revolutionise diet in this country and make access to good food the best we possibly can.
The reason I am happy to support this modest amendment is that it strengthens this Bill to keep before us the need to improve the quality of food and diet and good access.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hope that even at this late stage in our proceedings, the Minister and Government will be able to take this group of amendments seriously and give them serious consideration, with a view to making necessary adjustments to what they finally bring forward. In supporting this interesting group, I emphasise my support for Amendments 7, 16 and 48.
On Amendment 7, I simply say this as a former president of Friends of the Lake District and a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks. I cannot speak for those organisations, but all my experience with them and with my own family and friends is that, in many parts of our national parks and beautiful parts of the country, livestock are an important part of the scenic setting. I and my family—I speak subjectively—always feel a sense of contentment when we see cattle grazing, but one big condition of all that is that I cannot allow my enjoyment to mask my anxiety lest the farming is not of the highest quality. From that standpoint, this amendment is very valuable indeed.
What is put forward in Amendment 16 is just straightforward sense. I hope that my colleagues agree and that the Government can take it on board. We constantly talk about the relationships between landscape and climate change, countryside and climate change and agriculture and climate change, but this enables the Minister to take practical action to provide support in that context.
We also worry very much about what is happening to the condition of our soil; this is dealt with in the amendment. I have just spoken about landscapes. To encourage members of the farming community to see their role as trustees of our national inheritance in this sense is very important indeed.
How can I—living in Cumbria, five miles from Cockermouth—possibly overlook the importance of flood protection measures? What happened at the time of the great floods in Cockermouth was that the valley up where I live was filling up with water. I was stuck in London at the House and was ringing my neighbours, asking, “What’s happening? How’s it going?” A very great friend of mine, a hill farmer, said to me on the phone: “Well, Frank, all I can say is that I have never seen the valley fuller of water, and it’s got to go somewhere.” That is quite a dramatic illustration of what happened. It went somewhere. The bridge broke at the bottom of our section of the valley and the water poured through and down, out of control, towards Cockermouth.
Wildlife and the environment are concerns we frequently speak about, but we must not just sentimentalise. Here we are giving power—authority—to the Minister to take appropriate action, but it must be appropriate action. I hope the Government will feel able to make some adjustments to meet those points.
On Amendment 48, I have become deeply concerned about the neglect of common land. We may sentimentalise about it and some people may find it controversial, but for any of us who have an ongoing and lasting relationship with and deep commitment to the countryside, common land and the encouragement of a community approach to agriculture are tremendously important. Again, what is envisaged here is underlining the authority of the Minister to take necessary supporting action.
This is a thoughtful group of amendments and I hope the Government will take them seriously.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, for those of us who have spent decades advocating for human society to work with instead of against nature, the specific references to agroecology in these amendments represent a great success. These amendments would each expand the principles of agroecology and ensure that ecological outcomes were delivered.
In particular, I have attached my name to Amendment 7 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which would specifically support pasture-fed livestock systems and the improvement of landscapes and biodiversity linked to pastureland. This is all about a farming and ecosystem format that can help to move us towards some sort of food security.
Food security will be an absolutely huge challenge. Anybody who watched David Attenborough’s programme on Sunday will be aware that he mentioned several times that biodiversity is falling. We need biodiversity drastically. If we do not have it, growing food will become harder and harder. We are at a point in the world where some of it is burning, some is melting and neither of those things is good for the human race.
In addition, the world has not even fully met any of the 20 biodiversity targets set a decade ago by Governments globally. Nature protection efforts have been ineffective. We already have 1 degree of warming and are heading towards 3 degrees of warming. It will be a world that we simply will not recognise.
I am delighted to support Amendment 16 from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and Amendment 11 from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Amendment 16 would ensure that agroecology was truly nature friendly. Amendment 11 would support farming opportunities for new entrants and young farmers, ensuring a healthy supply of innovative and motivated farmers ready to take on the challenges and opportunities of greening our farming and land management.
I hope that in his response the Minister will set out specific and deliverable plans for each of these issues.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8, 21 and 23. I say again that I am very pleased that the Government have added a definition of the word “agroecology” to the Bill. That is a great step forward. I not only thank the Government but congratulate them on recognising this type of agriculture as something that is not just from the past—although it looks to the past for many of its methods and ethics—but is an important way to move forward. The motive of the amendments I have put forward—and I thank the noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support—is to reinforce that message within the Bill.
The area that is not mentioned is agroforestry, which is equivalent. This is not the forestry that the Forestry Commission is into—not that I have anything against that generally—but is around integrating forestry into whole-farm management. Benefits from water management include biodiversity, crops from those trees, silviculture and even energy. So the motive of these amendments is to up a style of whole-farm management that looks to the future and entirely fulfils the reason for having ELMS and this new funding structure. I very much hope that the Government, having taken this one step forward, will be able to take it further forward as well.
My Amendment 21 adds to the word “agroecology” at the top of page 3 of the Bill, which states that
“‘better understanding of the environment’ includes better understanding of agroecology”.
I am just suggesting that we add “and agroforestry” to the Bill. I am sure that that is something the Government would wish to promote in the new financing structures and I can see no reason why it would change the meaning of the Bill in any way. If the Minister could do that, I would be hugely grateful to him, knowing of his commitment to the future of farming and ways of farming that promote biodiversity.
That biodiversity and quantum of nature, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just mentioned, are crucial to how ELMS rolls out. I will be talking about this later, so I will not say more about it now, but biodiversity is something that agroecology and agroforestry can promote to achieve what the Government want.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support a number of themes and their corresponding amendments in this group. They suggest that more should be done in the Bill to promote them. The first is consistency between encouragement of production and of ancillary activities. However, Clause 1(2) almost implies a division between them, because the Bill implies that, although the Secretary of State might support both, equally he might choose to give a great deal of help to one and nothing much to the other. To that extent, Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook usefully deals with this anomaly. It is also addressed by my Amendment 20, which also seeks backing for primary production and ancillary activities on peri-urban farms supplying food.
Secondly, as indicated by my Amendment 13, the allocation of rural development funding to local food infrastructures would enable the Secretary of State to continue and enhance rural development funding, previously available from the European Union, to invest in local food infrastructures. Clearly, investment in local food will improve the financial viability of all farm businesses, create many jobs, strengthen our domestic food system and decrease carbon emissions by reducing food miles, while facilitating access to fresh and nutritious food, to the advantage of all.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Dundee. I thank him for introducing my Amendment 16 so eloquently. He has done a brilliant job and it reduces much of what I have to say.
It is quite clear that when nature suffers, we all suffer. That is why I believe that nature-friendly farming should be front and centre of the Bill. When anybody coming into farming picks up such a Bill and reads it—as I did when I started way back in the late 1960s, when I read the 1947 Act—it should say that nature-friendly farming is the route forward. It is the only way that agriculture will survive in the long term.
I hope all your Lordships have read the recent Living Planet Report, which is pretty horrific reading. It says that the populations of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have declined by an alarming 68% since 1970. That is not all farming’s fault, but farming has been a contributor to that decline. For that reason I welcome subsections (a) to (j), but nature-friendly farming should also be in the Bill. I chose to insert it at this point because of its importance. In Committee it was an amendment after (j), but I thought it deserved a paragraph of its own.
I will correct one myth that seems to perpetuate in some quarters: that you cannot farm successfully and profitably if you also farm for nature. Many farmers have signed up to the Nature Friendly Farming Network, but I also draw the House’s attention to the amazing work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Allerton Project, which I know my noble friend the Minister knows about. It has done years of research on this subject and proved time and again that farmers can improve yields, output and productivity at the same time as improving biodiversity and wildlife on farms.
I will take one example in conclusion: the grey partridge, which is mentioned in the Living Planet Report. There has been a huge decline in this country, of some 85%, in the grey partridge population since 1970. The work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust has proven that farmers can get the grey partridge back in large numbers, as well as being successful and profitable. I commend that template to all farmers and to the House. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister implements ELMS, he will bear that very much in mind.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has already addressed the Green group’s support for a number of amendments in this group. I will not repeat that, but I will address a number to which I have attached my name, starting with Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which focuses on the whole-farm agroecological and agroforestry systems. I thank him for tabling it, and the noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Caithness, for supporting it.
It is clear that the age of industrial monoculture has given us the dreadful condition of our countryside that the noble Earl addressed in his speech. Its waters are polluted and its soil degraded, and biodiversity is in collapse. Yet, at the same time, we have a public with an awful diet and poor health. We need a whole new approach. Actually, agroecological farming is the only kind of farming we should see, with whole-farm systems. Agroforestry is a crucial part of that: trees sheltering animals, holding water, storing carbon, supporting biodiversity, and producing healthier food, including fruits and nuts, and healthier and more varied fodder for livestock. We need the Government to support this transformation, although ultimately that needs to be how all our land is managed.
We have already seen a significant move across most of the farming sector in its approach to soils. It has been a rediscovery of the understanding that the natural facility of soils depends on a flourishing ecosystem of microscopic animals, plants and fungi. I hope the Minister will think about this: I continue to hope that the Government will sort out the Bill’s description of fungi to make it scientifically literate—it currently is not—following the issues I raised in Committee, which are in no way political. They merely seek to ensure technical accuracy. When we focus on agroecology and, indeed, agroforestry, we need to move towards crop diversity. That is part of whole-farm varied systems. It means a system that works with nature, rather than trying to cosh it into submission.
I move to Amendment 9, to which I have also attached my name, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and backed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We have almost lost track of the fact that this is the Agriculture Bill. We are talking about environmental elements, but agriculture is also about food. We need joined-up thinking and systems thinking. There is really no point in producing more sugar, which the world has and consumes far too much of and does massive damage to rich and valuable soils. By contrast, growing fruit and vegetables is a super-policy—the kind of thing the Government should support and which they will have to, if they are to have regard to health and well-being policies.
Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, focuses on peri-urban land. I have probably done this myself: in the Bill we talk about the countryside, but fringe areas and patches of land in cities, towns and villages that might be quite small are crucial for environmental benefits and healthy food production. I am sure the Minister is aware of an excellent article from 2019 published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, which found that allotments and gardens often had 10 times more bees and other pollinators than even the rich environments, as we regard them, of parks, cemeteries and urban nature reserves. Increasing allotment use and food growing can be a positive sign for nature and, of course, for people.
I also express support for Amendment 6 on food security, to which Amendment 20 relates. Relying on the market to supply us with food has given us a dreadfully unhealthy diet, as the impact of Covid-19 has sadly demonstrated—one more weakness the pandemic has exposed rather than caused. However, it is also an insecure approach to rely on the market to supply food. Hundreds of millions of people in the world go hungry now not because there is a lack of food, but because of a lack of access to it. There is enormous waste in the system, particularly factory farming, feeding what could be perfectly good human food to animals.
However, we are in the age of shocks. We have just seen harvests in the US in particular be hit hard by extreme weather. Sadly, a lot more like that is on the way. The state of soils is parlous. To assume we can just buy what we need is dangerously uncertain. There is also a moral question: why should we take food out of the mouths of people in other countries when we could and should be growing our own? Those are two powerful reasons for the Government to provide direct, clear support for food security. There can be few more foundational roles for a Government then ensuring that people do not starve.
Finally, I support Amendment 48. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I agree with them.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who put their names to Amendment 9. I have a little confession: the original intention was to discuss it in the context of the part of the Bill dealing with access, because of the idea of tying health and well-being into public legislation. It is clear, as I have already said—and nobody has argued otherwise—that if you are fit and active, you tend to have better health. However, does the amendment fit in its allocated group? Having thought about it, those organising the Bill have got it right. It fits because it ties in with the general thrust of what we are saying.
What are we doing to try to improve life for the whole planet and for ourselves together? I am afraid it sounds rather meaningless when I put it like that. The idea is that it is a whole, so we are taking something on board and relating it to other activities. If one thing is done under this Bill, it should be to ensure that we look at the whole of what we are doing. The amendment sits better in this group because we have to consider people’s health and well-being and the public good when we are putting money in. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will not totally dismiss the idea that we should have better access to public spaces in order to undertake physical activity. However, that does not fit in with some of the other concerns being raised here about better diet and so on, because it is part of that whole.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a landowner, arable farmer and NFU member. I am speaking to and, subject to the Minister’s response, planning to move Amendment 12, as well as speaking to Amendment 17. These amendments support domestic agriculture to ensure that food security and the stability of food supply are included in the purposes to which financial assistance can be directed under Clause 1.
According to the NFU, 21 August was the notional day on the calendar that would see the UK run out of food if it relied solely on UK produce. It states:
“The nation is only 18% self-sufficient in fruit, 55% in fresh vegetables and 71% in potatoes. For both veg and potatoes, this has fallen by 16% in the past 20 years.”
As I understand the figures, 30% of our food comes from the EU. Supermarkets are fine at the moment, but just imagine a scenario if the UK fails to get a trade deal with the EU so that nothing is agreed on fishing rights, and then French fishermen decide to blockade Calais. That could leave the UK really struggling in obtaining particular food items.
The coronavirus crisis has shown how important it is to have a domestic supply of food. The view of farmers as food producers has never resonated more with the public than at this time, with the need to keep our shelves stocked the highest of priorities. I welcome the fact that the Government recognised that food production role by granting farmers key worker status during the countrywide lockdown. However, I believe that, unless the Government change their post-Brexit immigration policy, there may not be enough workers to gather UK fruit and vegetables in particular, already in short supply, as mentioned.
Given the increased significance of food security in the UK, Amendment 12 in particular would enable the Government to give financial assistance for the explicit purpose of supporting the domestic production of food. After the original Bill barely mentioned food, there is a considerable improvement in this new one. In Clause 1 at present, in developing new forms of financial assistance, the Bill states that the Government
“must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
However, in my view that wording needs strengthening, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said, hence particularly my Amendment 12.
In reply to Amendment 12 in Committee, the Minister stated, if I understood him correctly, that food production does not need financial support because that comes to the farmer by way of profit from the sale of his produce. While that will be the case in some areas, that argument does not cover the situations where dairy farmers have been selling their milk at a loss; where hill and lowland farmers could suffer hugely from the loss of their BPS and a delay in introducing ELMS; or where farmers would like financial support to develop new crops or new processes for growing crops, particularly when these take some years to come into profit.
On Amendment 17, the Minister stated in her reply that
“Clause 4 already places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider in as much detail as considered appropriate each financial assistance scheme that is in or will be in operation during the plan period. If deemed appropriate, this could include how the scheme is to give regard to the production of food in an environmentally sustainable way.”—[Official Report, 16/7/20; col. 1848.]
I accept that explanation and will not be moving Amendment 17.
Some Peers have said that this amendment is trying to do the same thing as Amendment 58. Amendment 58, while totally valid in its own right, is about a national food strategy, which is a perfectly valid plan, but my Amendment 12 is about the provision of financial assistance in order to promote the domestic production of food. It would give the Secretary of State total flexibility on how that was done; it could be through the findings of the food security report in Clause 17.
In summary, I do not think this is a particularly controversial amendment; it is non-party-political, it is supported by the NFU and it need not affect support for environmental measures. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply to Amendment 12, but I am strongly minded to move it to a vote.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to be part of the debate on this group. I agree with almost all the sentiments that have been expressed, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as by the Green Party.
I am speaking today particularly to support the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. One thing that has not been talked about enough is the role of farmers. If the Bill is to do what I think everyone sitting in the Chamber and who is part of this debate at the moment wants to do, which is to ensure that healthy, affordable food is grown on our land and that our land becomes environmentally sustainable and healthy again, then we need a new generation of farmers, but the facts are pointing in a different direction.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned briefly that in 2017 one-third of all UK farmers were over 65. Almost more worrying than that is that, since 2005, those in the 35 to 44 age group have decreased. However, evidence from surveys points to people wanting to farm and to be involved in growing at a local level, on a big level and on a small level. But how are they going to do it? Land is too expensive and they struggle to scale finance and cover the high start-up costs. Responses to the Landworkers’ Alliance survey indicated that 61% of people responding to surveys wanted to access land, 46% needed finance and 54% struggled to access training. All believed that an average grant of around £20,000, which is not a fortune, would really set them on the road.
Another route for the young farmer is also being closed because of poor funding to local councils. Recent investigations have shown that county farms in England have halved in the last 40 years. This is a crisis. If we do not have farmers, particularly young farmers, then everything that we are talking about is not going to happen. When Michael Gove was Secretary of State for the Environment, he talked lavishly about equipping a new generation of farmers, but I am afraid the facts are now pointing in the other direction. You cannot be a farmer if you have nowhere to farm. If we value our farmers then we have to make some changes. With the right kind of investment and the right help, a lot of people could join our cause.
The other big issue is food security and local food. I mention briefly that for 10 years I ran the London Food Board. We instigated a scheme called Capital Growth, which enabled up to 100,000 people to have access to community gardens. In the process, we turned over 200 acres of London into small community farms where people could join in. We are now looking to take that scheme countrywide, but we need grants for that and land needs to be made available.
My final point is covered by the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and concerns training. In my years in London, I spent a lot of time in schools. It strikes me that, unless you are at a public school and the idea of a farm, as something possible, is somehow in your blood, you do not even think about it. I spent seven days, as many of us did, watching the debates on the first stages of the Agriculture Bill. I am absolutely guilty of this myself, but it was quite noticeable that the people who feel invested in the Agriculture Bill tend to be white and middle-aged, and an awful lot of us own land and are quite well off. It seems to me that we are missing a great trick in terms of diversity.
This Agriculture Bill belongs to all of us. It is about our land, our food, our health and our environment. Unless we take some steps to try to change the lack of diversity, we will head towards a greater separation between town and countryside. People have talked about litter being dropped, and there will be more of that because people do not feel that the countryside is theirs and that it belongs to all of us. Schemes that enable people in inner cities to grow vegetables on rooftops, under pylons and in sneaky little corners can really start to change attitudes. It is fantastically cost-effective, and I urge the Minister to look at this as the Government move forward.
In the meantime, I am very pleased to be part of this debate and to see agroecology and food security registering so high up among people’s concerns.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, once again, I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as a farmer and landowner. I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Boycott, as many of the points that I will make are complementary to hers.
My support for Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is wholehearted. It involves the whole essence of the Bill, the aim of which is to take an important and profitable industry into a new era of post-CAP farming in this country on a sustainable and environmentally friendly basis.
The encouragement and support for commercial farming through productivity grants and the funding of ancillary activities are clearly stated, alongside the development of attractive environmental land management schemes—although I fear that the details are still unavailable, so we must put our trust in the Government delivering this. However, what is largely missing is support for new entrants into the industry, other than through encouraging some perhaps more elderly farmers to retire by offering them the balance of their basic payments. Although this will free up some land for new entrants, it is in itself not wholly positive, in that the land so freed up will go to the next farmer with no basic payment to cover the transition period. I fear that the most likely home for this land will be with neighbouring farmers or investors who enter farm contracting arrangements with large farm operations. The small farmer and the new entrant is likely to be squeezed, particularly as he is unlikely to have the financial backing that is available to established farmers and the outside investor.
That is why this amendment is so important. It enables the Bill to provide finance for young farmers and new entrants, who are very important to the industry if it is to grow and develop. These people will, unless extraordinarily fortunate, not have easy access to finance, as they will not have the assets and other security to offer banks and other lenders. Buildings, machinery, equipment and livestock are all expensive. As the land may well be held through a tenancy or other time-limited arrangement, obtaining a loan on acceptable terms will be difficult—hence the need to make it attractive for landowners to let land to such new entrants.
In addition, access to training is key if we are to encourage and help develop new entrants into the industry. The addition of this small paragraph in the purposes for providing financial assistance will help the industry to offer an attractive farming business proposition to those aspiring to a career in it, independent of established farm businesses that might not be able to offer them the same prospects. It also has substantial application to the tech-savvy who see a future in small, capital-intensive farming but who lack land and buildings.
I also support Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as it clearly sets out the very purpose and essence of the Bill.
Finally, I support Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, as it recognises that with changing circumstances, such as limits on movement caused by disease and of course new technology, peri-urban land becomes increasingly relevant to agriculture, horticulture and sometimes trees.
Lord Greaves (LD)
I shall speak specifically to my Amendment 48, which concerns commons. I am not sure how it ended up in this group, but it does not matter. In Committee, we had a longer discussion and I put it in a group on its own, so as to talk about quite a lot of the issues connected with commons. On this occasion, in order to save time, I did not mind in which group it ended up, as I can talk about it in any event.
Again, I am grateful for the help and advice that I have had from the Foundation for Common Land and the Open Spaces Society. It is interesting that they come from different angles. One comes from a management of the commons angle and the other starts from an access angle, but they come together and work together because it is necessary to do so.
I need to go through again briefly what common land is. It is land registered as common land in a register kept under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 or the Commons Registration Act 1965. It is land owned by one person or a number of people which is subject to the rights of other people—the commoners—to use and take some product from it. Nowadays, typically that is the grazing of animals.
Common land is only 3% of the total land area in England but it is 37% of the land above the moorland line. It is therefore used by hill farmers, who depend on the rough grazing, natural grasslands and other sorts of moorland. It accounts for a fifth of the area of the SSSIs in England—not a fifth of the number of SSSIs but a fifth of the SSSI land, as a lot of the moorland SSSIs are quite large. It delivers many public benefits and includes two-fifths of the access land in England. It is often designated in different ways for nature, and, not surprisingly, over 90% of common land was under an environmental stewardship scheme under the CAP. Importantly, these sorts of schemes can continue on the upland commons. However, there are also lots of small, local commons, such as the ones referred to by my noble friend Lord Addington, many of them vital for informal local recreation, such as the village common where people play rounders or whatever. They are also often environmentally important for the reasons given by noble friend.
The problem is the management of the commons under the ELMS. How does a system designed to provide financial support for all these different purposes to traditional owners cope with a number of different interests—owners, commoners and perhaps others? They may be competing interests, and individual commoners may have different views on what should happen. In Committee, I asked the Minister whether the Government had already turned their mind to the administration of agreements in relation to commons, with the particular difficulties that can arise in negotiating, administering and delivering them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, said among other things that the Government were working in the trials to create commons-specific land management plans and systems. There are two tests and trials which I understand include substantial amounts of common, one in Cumbria and one in Dartmoor.
Since then, I was very grateful to have a meeting with civil servants and lawyers, and I was astonished how many people in and around Defra had an interest in commons. It was an extremely interesting meeting, and I was very grateful indeed. I am sorry that the Minister could not come, but I understand. I asked about the two specific local tests and what the Government were doing in relation to small, lowland commons, to find systems for them. I understand that there will be some small, lowland commons in the tests and trials once the national system is brought in next year. I was told—this is where it got interesting—that they were developing toolkits to understand the issues; everybody develops toolkits nowadays. These are toolkits not for what should happen but to understand the issues. One very interesting comment by one of the people in the meeting was that we need to focus on what we need to learn. This all gave me to understand—and it was extremely useful for this, if nothing else—that, as had been suggested to me by some of the people from the Cumbria test and trial, working out what to do with commons is really in the early days. In particular, I asked about disputes and was told that they were still working out a way forward. This was all very honest, and I was grateful to be given that time.
It really comes back to what I said before about the Bill—that we really have to treat the Government as though they are on trust on these matters; we have to trust them to do it properly and do it right. As far as commons are concerned, as the months go by following the passage of this Bill, I shall certainly be on the Government’s back. Indeed, I got some promises in relation to the tests and trials taking place and so on, that people would keep in touch with me—and I shall keep in touch with other noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who are interested in this issue. I hope that together we can form a little group and follow it through with the Government.
It was confirmed that the details of the ELMS with regard to commons would, along with lots of others, be outside legislation. I tabled this amendment saying that that should not be the case simply because it was the amendment that I had tabled in Committee, and I had not had time to think of a new one, but I am not going to push it to a vote when we get to it in order. A lot of work is taking place, but it is at a very early stage, and it will be very important that a lot more work takes place much more quickly. This whole thing is going to come rushing up on people, and we really do not want the commons missed out.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and his very interesting thoughts on commons. That is a very useful debate to have and one we must take seriously. I echo the words of those who have been talking about the need to get new entrants into agriculture and develop diversity.
I have added my name to Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee, who have already spoken about it adequately. I am delighted to see that climate change mitigation is in the list, because we have to take it seriously. I know that the NFU has set an ambitious target with regard to being net zero, so that is something that the agriculture sector is taking very seriously.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on his myth busting around the fact that farming can be eminently profitable and nature friendly. As we have all been hearing, nature-friendly farming is the way forward. I also send my congratulations on his words about the Allerton project of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. I visited it a few years ago and was incredibly impressed by the work there. He mentioned the grey partridge. In conjunction with the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, National England and others, there is also the Peppering Partridge Project, which shows that not only can farming be very beneficial to wildlife but game shooting can be very beneficial to wildlife. That might seem slightly counterintuitive, and I speak not as a shooter myself, but it shows how all those different aspects can work together.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about trust. I have immense trust in the entire ministerial Defra team. We are very fortunate in this House to have my noble friends Lord Gardiner and Lord Goldsmith, and in the other place we have other very committed people who take the environment and farming interests very seriously. There is always the case of not knowing what is going to happen later but, at the moment, I have immense trust in them and wait to hear what they have to say.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and thoughtful debate, and I would like to make a few remarks about three amendments. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering set us off to a good start. However, I want to talk not about Amendment 6 but rather about Amendment 7, and really for the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who referred to those very important words “pasture fed.”
The only thing that really terrifies me about farming is the increasing move in certain places, particularly across the Atlantic, towards what can only be called factory farming, with vast sheds occupied by living creatures who never see the light of day. The glory of farming is, in many ways, pasture farming. Anything that we can do we should do to encourage our farmers to pasture their cattle, have their sheep on the hills and, indeed, to have their pigs eating their mast in the woods —and, of course, to make sure that we move away from that ghastly poultry farming which so polluted one of the loveliest stretches of the Wye earlier this year, when it seeped out from massive chicken battery farms. Anything we can do to emphasise the importance of pasture farming should be done.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support many of the worthy aims of this group of amendments, but my focus is on Amendment 22 in my name, which once more focuses on the clarity and implications of the language used.
Are uplands more important than wetlands? A wise parliamentarian recently told me, when we were discussing the addition of an individual word to this Bill, that considerable care must be taken. The addition of a single word will suggest the exclusion of others. In this clause, the inclusion of “uplands” could well suggest the exclusion of other types of land. The clause seeks to remedy this by including the catch-all language “and all other landscapes”, but this begs the question of why uplands deserve special mention. At the least, it will ensure that all future readers of this legislation will consider the promotion of uplands as more important than the promotion of those other landscapes. Consider the public servant tasked with committing funds to the protection of cultural heritage who is faced with the choice of two projects, one for uplands, one for wetlands. He or she will read this provision and undoubtedly choose the former, which would be a mistake.
Undoubtedly uplands are important, and the cultural and natural heritage therein is vital, but uplands can be no more important than wetlands; indeed, stating my interests as an estuary dweller, I argue that wetlands are considerably more important than uplands. Wetlands harbour considerably greater biodiversity than typically monocultured uplands, and 90% of wetlands have been lost since 1700. Being often near to urban centres and easily accessible, wetlands offer ready public access. Being found on or near the coast, wetlands are much more susceptible to the ravages of climate change and are at the forefront of our battle with rising sea levels. Wetland farmers, often pasture farmers, are as marginal as upland farmers and will struggle with a loss of BPS and export markets due to Brexit, and wetlands are often created and maintained by a remarkable physical heritage in the form of levees, embankments and drains.
I note by way of example the Exminster marshes. Created by Dutch engineers in medieval times, they are the site of a civil war battlefield, England’s oldest lock canal, Brunel’s amazing atmospheric railway—the great western railway—and the M5. They host the university’s playing fields, a major RSPB nature reserve and many small farms that traditionally raise England’s earliest spring lamb; this is ancient pasture-fed farming of the most carbon-neutral variety. To their west is Marsh Barton, with Europe’s largest collection of car showrooms, all of which they protect from the ever-rising sea levels. No area of landscape can be more important yet, without this amendment, they may lose out on ELMS funding to possibly less-deserving grouse moors in Yorkshire.
I trust that the Minister will clarify this issue. I am highly supportive of many of the other amendments, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with its focus on common land. This is such an important element of ancient land tenure in Devon on uplands and wetlands. It is undoubtedly deserving of special protection.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling this amendment. When I first read it, I thought the key words were
“protecting… the food security of citizens”.
I am of the generation who went through the war. We had extensive food rationing, even after the war ended in 1945; it was nearly 10 years before we got rid of all food rationing. Did we not have a reminder in the first few days of the coronavirus lockdown of just how important food supply is? I pay tribute to our supermarkets and the supply chain, particularly those suddenly putting on extra production and extra harvesting in a magnificent way.
I very much support Amendment 12, tabled by my noble friend Lord Northbrook, and Amendment 11, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the very wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. The Minister has told us in his briefing notes that he is aware that agriculture is going through a major transition stage. As we move to this new subsidy arrangement, I am confident that the Minister is aware of the challenges and is alert to them. At the end of the day, food security is vital and absolutely fundamental to this country.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I repeat what I said in Committee about this part of the Bill. It is a bit like a Christmas tree that everybody wants to hang their favourite bauble on. Indeed, many of these baubles are very admirable, but we risk getting to the point where the list of the purposes for which the Government can give support becomes so long and detailed that the Bill threatens to collapse under its own weight, and, as noble Lords have said, give undue prominence to those elements that just happen to have had a handy pair willing to put them on to the list.
However, I must give myself a moment of indulgence on this one—while I am ticking everybody else off—and say that, if I was asked which one candidate bauble I would favour, it would certainly be the agroecology- and agroforestry-related Amendments 8, 21 and 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which he very eloquently introduced. However, to be honest, the environmentally sound practices included in several of the amendments in this group, including my favourite bauble, can already—and hopefully will be—supported by the new ELM scheme and the list of purposes already listed in Clause 1(1), and I am sure that is what the Minister will say.
I am afraid I cannot support Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Food security is important, but an amendment here is not the way to secure it. Even in the interests of food security, food production is already supported by markets, as the Minister said in Committee, and we must not erode the already skinny funding needed for the environmental and other public goods that are already supported by public funding and would simply be diminished if funding for food security were to be added to that list.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
First of all, I declare my interests as a farmer in Suffolk. The lesson I draw from the seven days we had in Committee on this Bill is that we—and the Government—need to widen our attitude and approach to this whole subject. With the final departure from the EU, we have a tremendous opportunity in being able to redesign the CAP, which had become very narrow and bureaucratic, into something that covers a much wider aspect—I am talking about the rural economy. This is a crucial part of the British economy and, therefore, it is crucial to the national interest. We have heard from a number of noble Lords about the importance of food security.
I am really trying to say that, in this group of amendments, we have had many examples of the way we can expand and change the uses of the money that previously went through the CAP, which was really based on that original trade deal between Germany and France—the French were going to import from German manufacturers, and the Germans would look after French farmers. Now, we can look much more widely, and one of the things that all these amendments do is encourage different forms of support, endeavour and action within agriculture.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack when he says that we do not want to focus on the mega factory-farming approach. It must be much more about smaller and more intensive farms. For example, the Dutch produce an enormous amount of food on their very much more limited land but in a very sustainable and environmentally friendly way. There are many lessons to learn, and I hope very much that our further discussion on this Bill will enable the Government to widen the final output of this Agriculture Bill. Thank you.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I begin by saying how pleased I am to be following my noble friend Lord Marlesford who, while his experience of farming is at the opposite end of England to mine, shares many of my concerns, interests and priorities. I also declare my own interests as a farmer and landowner in Cumbria.
I approach these amendments from the perspective that the scope of the financial powers in the Bill should, so long as they are discretionary, be drawn as widely as possible. I understand the strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, but at this stage, when we really do not know how the future is going to evolve, we must keep our options open.
I spent some of the summer looking at farm accounts, and one of the things that struck me is that most of the money that comes into farming in rural Britain comes from the food sector. If this is to change rapidly and significantly, some huge bills are going to have to be picked up by somebody somewhere and, certainly, in the middle of the current financial predicament in which the nation finds itself, we have not got unlimited resources to do that even if we wanted to. In the short term, I cannot see that this form of income into the agricultural sector can be found either by cutting costs or by another form of payments if there is a dramatic reduction in income from food production. Therefore, it seems to me that this has got to be at the core of rural land use businesses, and policies for them, in the immediate future.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
The reason that I put my name to this group was a single amendment—so I will resist pontificating on the others—and that was Amendment 11. Looking down the notes of the points I was going to raise, every single one can be ticked off in the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, so I do not propose to repeat them. What I will do is give them my 100% support.
One point I will raise concerns the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about younger people being tech savvy. I remember that, in my last session at Defra from 2006 to 2008, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, organised a seminar for young farmers. There were about a dozen or 15, as I recall. I remember being absolutely gobsmacked and overwhelmed by the technical language they were using, which was way above my pay grade. That gave me considerable confidence that the future was in good hands because technology was going to be used, and that reinforces the point the noble Lord made about the change in attitude and culture.
The fact of the matter is that those two speeches encapsulate all the points I want to make, and I say to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that, if you push this, I will vote for it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. This is an extremely important group of amendments. The House spent a long time debating financial assistance in Committee and there was a thorough airing of all the issues, some of which have come back in this group.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has raised the issue of food security, a subject which concerns us all. Access to healthy, affordable food is the right of every child and promotes good health and well-being. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised the issue of food poverty, which is also extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised biodiversity and the role that pasture-fed grazing stock can play in promoting it. It was clear from watching David Attenborough’s programme “Extinction” on Sunday that biodiversity has come into sharp prominence —a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I shall be listening to the Minister’s response on this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Teverson raised whole-farm agroecology and agroforestry systems—a subject he is, quite rightly, passionate about. Trees are the green lungs of any country and we destroy them at our peril. It is therefore vital that we encourage agroforestry and tree planting, and that the financial rewards match the level of investment and management required. My noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Greaves are pressing the case for joint health and well-being strategies to be included in the financial assistance provision. Given the current health situation of the nation, I would hope that they are pushing at an open door.
Domestic production of food and agricultural products to ensure sufficient food security is a key element of the Bill. Nearly every sitting day we have a question about the impact of Covid-19 on the population, both elderly and young. The longer the pandemic goes on, the more the scientists learn about its impact, how to treat it and who are the most vulnerable of our residents. We know that exercise and a healthy weight and diet, while not a total fail-safe protection against infection, make a tremendous difference to our ability to survive and make a full recovery. As we enter a possible second peak, it is therefore paramount that the Secretary of State should have available to them sufficient information to ensure that food supply is stable and sufficient, and that food is produced in an environmentally friendly way. The whole thrust of ELMS is to move agriculture on to a more environmental footing. However, ELMS is not exactly just around the corner, and it is necessary to act now to protect both food supply and the environment. Can the Minister give the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the Chamber the reassurance that we are seeking?
I have added my name to Amendment 11 from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on new entrants. Many of our long-standing farmers are considering whether now is the time for them to retire—as the noble Earl said, a third of our farmers are over 65 years of age. As we move from CAP to ELMS, it is vital that everything possible is done to encourage new entrants and young farmers to take up the reins. Entering farming is a very expensive venture; buying land is likely to be well beyond the reach of many young entrants, even if there is land available. Encouraging existing landowners to make land available will be vital to allow new entrants. Start-up capital will be needed to make a success of the new venture, alongside training and qualifications. Just talking of the list is intimidating and could put off some would-be hopefuls. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, set out the case eloquently and was well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Like the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I am looking for answers from the Minister as to how the Government intend to deliver on this vital element of continuing successful land management on behalf of the rest of the country.
The Minister made it clear in Committee that he was keen to limit the list of activities attracting financial assistance, and he is supported in this by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. However, I fully support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his quest to gain support for nature-friendly farming. The activities listed in his amendment are all vital and inextricably linked. We cannot have biodiversity if we do not have good soil health and good water and air quality. We cannot protect species if we do not have sufficient flood-protection measures and climate change mitigation. If the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, can he tell us just how the Government intend the activities in the list to be achieved and protected?
Similarly, I support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in including wetlands as well as uplands. The different types of species that can be raised on the various types of farmlands all add to the rich cultural and natural heritage of our countryside. Not all farmers will be blessed with grade 1 agricultural land, but all types add to the variety of produce and the rich diversity of our land. I thank the noble Earl for raising the issue of the wetlands in Somerset.
Lastly, my noble friend Lord Greaves has made a thorough case for the inclusion of common land, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this important element of land management, as well as on the rest of the amendments.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, at the start of my remarks on Report on amendments to the Agriculture Bill, I declare my interests as recorded on the register, including as being in receipt of funds from the CAP under the present system. As with the first group of amendments, I thank noble Lords for tabling their further thoughts after Committee with these amendments today. Once again, they highlight the very broad nature of agriculture, which, in many ways, interacts with economic activity from many sectors and interests in the rural economy. This in turn has a bearing on many government departments.
Several of the amendments focus on matters related to food security and, indeed, insecurity. We agree that these are important matters that we will come to later in the Bill. In relation to the Minister’s concessions—which are very much welcomed—and to Amendment 58 on the national food strategy commissioned by the Government, I can add that I too was very impressed with the initial report recently published by Henry Dimbleby.
We consider that the Government have a very clear focus on the issue without requiring the specific Amendment 12 so eloquently spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, which we are unable to support from the Labour Benches. However, we have regard to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others, which overlaps with Amendment 70 in the name of my colleague and noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch on the Front Bench. Ensuring opportunities for young farmers and new entrants is incredibly important and underlines the future prosperity of the sector.
In outlining the purposes for which financial assistance can be given, we consider that Clause 1 gives a fair balance and appreciation of the many options that may be developed over time. It provides a good way forward, rewarding the production of food while protecting the environment. I am sure that the Minister will be able to provide the extra information and assurances that we are all looking for, and that he has taken due note of all the important points raised for sustainable agriculture into the future.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to what I think has been an extensive and very interesting debate. I turn to Amendment 6, which I shall address along with Amendments 9, 10, 12, 17,13 and 20. I will say—particularly to my noble friend Lord Northbrook and as a fellow member of the NFU, but to all noble Lords—that the Government agree absolutely that the production of food is of critical importance and that this will not be overlooked in the designing of our future schemes. Indeed, this is precisely why the Bill includes a duty for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage food production and for food to be produced in an environmentally sustainable way. So I say, in particular to my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Northbrook, that Clause 1(4) as drafted recognises the strong interdependence of farming and the environment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate and the support for Amendments 6, 7 and 48. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has met me half way, but he has not gone quite as far as I would have liked. I am concerned about Clause 17, which sets out what the specific circumstances of food security might be. There would fall within Clause 1, but I would like confirmation. For example, if there is a shock to the trade system, would that be considered? I am sure there will be opportunities to discuss those later.
I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in support of Amendment 7, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Cormack, it is important that we have the opportunity for what my noble friend Lord Northbrook would call nature-friendly farming: the pasture-fed grazing livestock systems and the more extensive, less intensive form of farming that this country has come to know and love, particularly in the north of England. I am delighted that there has been such a good, positive discussion on common land. I will leave the Minister with one question; I do not expect him to reply today. Will the registration of common land be complete before the pilots are finished and the new ELM schemes come into effect? Perhaps that can be banked for later.
I fulsomely thank all those who have contributed to the debate on all the amendments in this group. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
Lord Northbrook
“(c) supporting the domestic production of food and other agricultural products to the extent the Secretary of State considers necessary to ensure a sufficient level of food security in the United Kingdom, having regard to the outcomes in the most recent report produced under section 17.”
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s winding-up speech. He has been doing a magnificent job so far in navigating this Bill. I much appreciated his detailed arguments justifying no change and pointing out other supporting clauses of the Bill. However, after a lot of consideration, I still find too vague the phrase that the Government
“must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
As my noble friend Lord Dundee said, this may result in food production support being ignored completely. I also prefer the wording on food security in my amendment. This is too important an issue to pass by. It is not a party-political amendment, or particularly controversial, but I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 14
“( ) The Secretary of State may only give financial assistance under this section for or in connection with environmental land management if all those standards for good agricultural and environmental condition set out in paragraphs 3 to 6 of Schedule 2 to the Common Agricultural Policy (Control and Enforcement, Cross-Compliance, Scrutiny of Transactions and Appeals) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/3263) as are applicable are met for the relevant land.”
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am very grateful for their support. Currently, all farmers in receipt of common agricultural policy payments have to deliver, under the cross-compliance regime, a range of standards described as “good agricultural and environmental conditions”—a snappy little title. Some of the standards have now been enshrined in UK law but some have not, and would disappear when the good agricultural and environmental conditions provision disappears with the end of direct payments to farmers and the end of the cross-compliance regime.
The standards that would be lost are primarily those covering the management of hedgerows, the protection of soils and the provision of watercourse buffer strips. My amendment is aimed at ensuring the delivery of all the standards for good agricultural and environmental conditions, which were previously assured by cross-compliance and which all farmers receiving subsidy had to respect, and to make sure that they will continue to be a condition of receiving public money under the new system.
The Minister very kindly organised a meeting with himself and Defra officials, and they acknowledged that the holes that I have identified, which would be left by the cessation of the cross-compliance regime, were indeed holes, and that something would have to be done to plug them. The Minister has indicated that the Government plan
“an intensive consultation on standards in the autumn, laying out what standards should be achieved by all farmers receiving public subsidy, but there is not yet any agreement on the mechanism for enforcing such standards and the design principles and regulatory strategy are still being worked up.”
As noble Lords know, direct payments are due to start to taper shortly, though the date will be a subject of debate in this House later on Report. It is not entirely clear when cross-compliance requirements may disappear. Can the Minister clarify that date? Whenever it is, we could well end up with a gap in hedgerow, watercourse and soil protection during the transitional phase, and possibly beyond, depending on the results of the intensive consultation on standards. I suggest that the holes that the Minister acknowledges in environmental protection would be very easily and, if I may say so, elegantly plugged by this amendment, so I hope that he will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, taking my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the previous group of amendments, I do not want to pontificate about this. The amendment has been eloquently proposed, and I am delighted to have added my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She has previous talked about baubles on Christmas trees, and now she has provided us with an eminently suitable plug. I am concerned that if we are not careful, these things will, although maybe not on purpose, be allowed to slip down the plughole, so I urge the Minister to ensure that we have an ample plug, to stop this happening.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to have put my name to Amendment 14, and particularly to emphasise the importance of cross-compliance GAEC regulations on the preservation and management of soils. I spoke to my own soils amendment in Committee, and I appreciate the Minister’s subsequent letter identifying the various ways in which soils may be protected going forwards.
However, the variety of potential soil protection measures and regulations on its own reveals the weakness of the post-Brexit system, as none of the methods identified has the broad and clear application of the cross-compliance regulations with which farmers are so familiar. As the Minister has already accepted in responding to the second group of amendments, sustainable soil management, including the maintenance of organic matter within our soils, is undoubtedly the most important element of environmental land management. Farming is soil management. Healthy organic soils are an essential carbon sink, and provide an astoundingly diverse ecosystem for microscopic life beyond our comprehension. They also minimise run-off and erosion, decrease the need for artificial fertiliser and ensure better productivity. The loss of the regulations, and the gaps that the noble Baroness referenced, will cause terrible damage to our net-zero targets.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has set a wonderful precedent here. Anything I would have said on this has been said by those who have already spoken, so I shall leave it by saying that I support the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, since Committee I have reflected on two aspects of the broader farming area that we did not really look at in any particular depth at that stage. So I would like to place on record that, in my judgment, horticulture will play an ever-increasing role in the broader farming area. It is land, but of course it may be under glass or may use some of the new techniques for intensive production, particularly of certain vegetables.
Secondly, there is the small but ever-growing viticulture industry. I have done a bit of an inquiry and I declare an interest as a mini-grower, with 100 vines. There are now some major players in the UK who are producing in volume and looking for opportunities to export, which is a very important dimension as we set off on our journey on our own. There are also a lot of micro-growers who are looking for opportunities to develop. So I do hope that land and farming will remember that there is horticulture and, particularly now, viniculture.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, one of the issues that has persisted in this Bill, and in others, is the lack of regulatory underpinning, particularly here with regard to the ambitions of Clause 1. This could be characterised as an ideological obsession that the market can save us and an attempt to squash agricultural policy into that market mindset.
The truth is that without minimum standards some areas of land will fall into very poor condition. It is unfortunate that the Government have not engaged with your Lordships’ House to address this fact. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, presents a sensible off-the-shelf solution, which she explained extremely well. I think the Minister would be hard-pressed to justify the Government’s opposition to her amendment. I support it very strongly.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on bringing forward this amendment. It shows what a sense of humour she has: having torn to shreds all the amendments in a previous group as being “little baubles”, she now comes forward with a bauble of her own.
I would like to put on the record that I am quite content with Clause 1(1)(j), which calls for
“protecting or improving the quality of soil.”
I can understand the basis behind the amendment, but for all of us who are concerned about the content of the soil and about good agricultural and environmental condition, I think that it is actually all contained in Clause 1 as it stands.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on moving this amendment so eloquently, and the other speakers in this group for their contributions—albeit that they have been very brief. I regret that mine is not going to be brief.
I have added my name to this amendment, along with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, because I feel it is really important. There is undoubtedly an approaching gap in the legislation. The current Covid-19 pandemic should be a wake-up call to the fact that disease stemming from both wild and domestic animals is attributable in some countries to modern agricultural practices that are unsustainable and increase the risk of zoonotic disease. This is very serious in some countries. In the UK we have high standards of animal welfare, but our practices on land management and soil protection need closer monitoring.
The Minister has, on many occasions, reiterated that the Bill is a framework Bill only. This has led to it being silent on the role of regulation, which is extremely unwise as there is a regulatory gap which it is vital to plug. Without regulation, important environmental protections currently provided through the EU CAP, such as preventing hedgerows from being cut during the bird-breeding season and protecting watercourses and soils, will be absent after Brexit.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young for moving this amendment and making the case so persuasively. She is raising an important point about what will happen when the environmental standards, which are currently required through cross-compliance, no longer apply when we leave the EU and the existing payments regime is phased out. We agree that it is vital that the standards that apply, such as to hedgerows and buffer strips to watercourses, should not be lost by accident or intent.
It all forms part of the promise made when we left the EU that our environmental standards should be at least on a par with what went before. It is also part of the bigger promise of the Government that they will leave the environment in better shape than when they inherited it. So we cannot afford to go backwards on this issue.
As my noble friend has made clear, these issues are part of a bigger project to review standards and develop a new regulatory regime. This is fine as far as it goes, but the clock is ticking and we know that these reviews take time. The review will be taking place against intense activity to get the new ELMS regime up and running, with all the supportive secondary legislation that will be required to make that happen.
So there is a real danger that the provision of new regulations will be delayed, and a regulatory gap will occur. My noble friend’s amendment provides a neat solution to ensure that those standards not yet required by UK law will be safely assured for the future.
To be honest, as other noble Lords have said, we do not understand why the Government have not put something similar in the Bill, and there is still an opportunity for them to accept this amendment today. But if the Minister is not so minded, I would be grateful if she could provide sufficient reassurance that the review and its outcomes are on a fixed timetable. Can she also guarantee that our environmental standards achieved by cross-compliance will not be compromised in the meantime? I look forward to her response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The primary effect of this amendment would be to provide a new lever to oblige recipients of financial assistance under Clause 1 to meet cross-compliance requirements. This includes parts of the cross-compliance regime where there is no backing in domestic legislation.
A large proportion of the rules currently contained in the cross-compliance regime are replicated in domestic legislation. Rules such as those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Control of Pesticides Regulations and the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations will continue to provide protection for our valuable wildlife, soils and watercourses. It will remain mandatory for individuals to continue to comply with all domestic regulation, irrespective of whether they qualify for financial assistance.
We understand the important role that regulatory standards play in trade, in protecting our environment and in protecting the health and welfare of animals. That is why the Government will take a proactive approach to engaging with industry. Responses to our landmark Health and Harmony consultation, our wide-reaching review led by Dame Glenys Stacey, and our discussion document on the ELM scheme have informed, and will continue to inform, our regulatory framework. This autumn, we intend to launch an engagement package—the intensive consultation to which the noble Baroness referred—which will provide an update on the thinking around the future regulatory system. We want to use this to start a co-design process with industry, opening the conversation with stakeholders on the best approaches to designing a future regulatory system.
The Government are exploring other possible levers that we could use to encourage more effectively industry compliance, which would deliver improved environmental outcomes. The ELM scheme will cover a range of environmental outcomes to ensure that farmers and land managers improve their practices and are rewarded for doing so. We are considering a range of measures to ensure that we deliver these outcomes, including, for example, requiring individuals to meet certain requirements as a condition of entry within the scheme itself.
Finally, I assure noble Lords and emphasise that we should take the time to get this right—and we have the opportunity to do so. Individuals will be expected to continue to comply with all current cross-compliance regulations until we delink payments from the land or direct payments end, and until not before 2022. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, worried about the regulatory gap, but we are striving hard to ensure that this does not occur. Through our engagement process and the development of our ELM policy, we will ensure that our high environmental and animal health and welfare standards continue to remain world-leading.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance on this important matter, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests from noble Lords to ask a short question, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
I thank those noble Lords who contributed to this debate. The majority recognised that there was a real hole to be plugged and that something needed to be done.
I thank the Minister for her remarks, but before I talk about them in a little detail, I want to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This is not just about soils, and paragraph (j) alone does not provide the required protection. To give a couple of examples—one of which has been raised already—one of the provisions in the GAECs concerns cutting hedgerows in the breeding season. Alas, I see that happen too often these days. If there were no requirement for that to be prevented, other than the Wildlife and Countryside Act, I am not sure that farmers would recognise that issue in all cases. The other example is even more germane, because it can impact on the economic profile of a farm business. At the moment, farmers are required to provide two metres of green cover in each direction from the centre of a hedge. If that provision disappeared, we could see the wholesale ripping-up of farm headlands, which would not be protected by any existing legislation.
I very much welcome the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, after Committee on the good agricultural and environmental conditions, but many of the schemes that he outlined in the letter are not statutory requirements but voluntary or guidance schemes—that is, schemes that people need to sign up to. They do not have the statutory and regulatory clout of the GAECs and cross-compliance.
I take the Minister’s point on taking the time needed to get the new regulatory system right, but 2022 is not very far away for the delinking of payments and the abolition of the good agricultural and environmental conditions requirements, so I hope that she means getting it right in terms of both timing and content. Personally, I would welcome the entry requirement for ELM being a statutory provision—as the Minister mentioned—with the maintenance of standards and adherence to a basic range of standards being a requirement for ELM. Of course, the big problem is that ELM is a voluntary scheme and bears down only on those farmers who take up that provision.
There is a lot to be done to get a good regulatory framework. The one thing that we do not want to do is pay for measures that farmers have come to know and love—they have got used to them; they have built them into their farm businesses; they see them as giving them legitimacy in the eyes of public and showing that they are looking after the farmed environment; and they are proud of the fact that they have wildlife and habitats on their farms. We cannot then go back in time and see them as something that farmers must be paid for, rather than the minimal social contract with the nation on how farmers will deliver basic environmental conditions.
I will restrain myself and wait for the consultation in the autumn. I hope that it happens quickly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of an amendment and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 15
The Earl of Devon
“(2A) Financial assistance under subsections (1) and (2) may only be given to—(a) persons who are involved in the production of products deriving from an agricultural or horticultural or forestry activity, including recognised producer organisations, associations of recognised producer organisations and recognised interbranch organisations as established in Part 6 or as recognised under the CMO Regulation on the day this section comes into force; or (b) those with an interest in agricultural land, where the financial assistance relates directly to that land.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that financial assistance under the Bill is provided only in relation to farmers, including those operating through POs, APOs and IBOs, agricultural/horticultural/forestry activity and/or agricultural land.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is the Agriculture Bill. As I have said before, it is not the environmental land management Bill—although listening to today’s debates and reading Clause 1, it would be easy to forget this. This is the first piece of agriculture legislation since the 1940s, yet it appears that agriculture and food security are secondary, even tertiary, considerations behind the provision of our environmental outcomes and the enjoyment of the general public.
I have donned the NFU wheat-sheaf to show my backing for British farming. The NFU is particularly concerned about this issue. It strongly supports the amendment and has urged that it be pressed to a Division. This is a key issue for farmers.
Undoubtedly, 2020 has been a terrible year for many, but please spare a thought for the farmers. Despite being lionised for their heroic contribution to feeding the nation through lockdown, they have faced a horrendous harvest. Torrential rain throughout last autumn made the sowing season a washout. Pestilence, such as the flea beetle, killed much of what germinated and the growing season saw a drought before torrential summer rain washed out the harvest. It has been a biblically bad farming year—and what do they have to look forward to? The loss of their basic payment and their European markets.
I discussed my amendment with the Minister and have sought views from far and wide. It has been suggested that, given that agricultural use covers 60% of the UK’s land mass, the lack of direct reference to agricultural support does not unduly matter. This is the exact issue about which farmers are so concerned: not only are they looking at a decrease in direct payments year on year during the transition period but they can expect that the decreased funding will be spread over 40% more of the UK’s land mass, to areas that are not agricultural. I note that those areas of land mass that are not currently farmed may well be more in need of environmental land management support than our farmland, which has been so well husbanded by farmers over the past decades. The result would be an even greater drop-off in agricultural funding just as our largest export market closes and lower-standard competition from overseas increases.
Farmers deserve much better. This amendment will ensure that they at least remain the focus of this, the Agriculture Bill. I am minded to test the opinion of the House on this issue, but I will listen with interest to the debate and await the Minister’s response before deciding. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said in moving his amendment. For a number of reasons I will set out, I will argue that his amendment does not go far enough and is inherently flawed. Were he minded to withdraw it, I would be happy to step into the breach. Subject to what the Minister has to say, I may be minded to move my amendment in that regard.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by begging the forgiveness of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I feel a slight rat in that, having had his support of my immediately previous Amendment 14, I am going to speak against his Amendment 15, as well as Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Farm businesses and farmers will be the primary recipients of payments for public goods, but the environmental land management scheme will be one of the main ways of delivering the objectives of the 25-year environment plan and should not be limited in scope to agricultural land and farmers. It must support wider land management and multi-objective uses of land, since we now have land needs in excess of the land we have. We will have to get land to work several times over for its living if we are to meet all these land use needs.
Farmers need to think of themselves as land managers in the future, delivering multiple objectives—food, obviously, but also carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity management, water quality management, soil management, flood risk management and a whole bundle of access, recreation and human health benefits. We need to see that farmers of the future are not just going to be about farming for food but delivering those multiple objectives.
I will give a couple of examples of the sorts of thing that would be prevented if the payment restrictions were only to farmers. One is non-agricultural habitats like blanket bogs, which often occur in farm holdings but may not. They are pretty crucial to combating climate change, and they are cost-effective ways of improving water quality. I should declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust: a second example is support for owners of non-commercial woodlands, such as community woodlands, to plant more trees in the interests of biodiversity, climate change and all sorts of other benefits that trees deliver, which ought to be embraced within the scope of these schemes. I cannot support Amendments 15 and 26.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, because they are on to a good point. I also take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just mentioned. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify exactly how many extra people or units will be able to claim out of the same pot of money. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, made the good point that the current budget—the current amount that comes out of CAP in its two forms—goes to a set number of people. How many more people are likely to be eligible to get their hands on that pot of money? What will the effect therefore be on current farmers, who rely primarily on the basic farm payments system to exist and continue to farm their land? Of course times have to change, and farmers have to become more diverse, but it is important to know exactly what we are talking about, and I hope my noble friend can help us on that before a decision is made on whether to put this to the House or not.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Lord Rooker?
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am now unmuted; the order seemed to have changed.
As in Committee, I support the thrust of the amendments. I may have misread the technicalities of Amendment 15, compared with Amendment 26, but I do not see how Amendment 15 would ignore tenant farmers. It may be that I have misunderstood the effects of Part 6 of the Bill.
I remember farm visits as a Minister, at both MAFF and Defra, when on more than one occasion tenant farmers had a chat with me, out of earshot of others, to say that they were doing things with the land that encouraged other activities; maybe they had done something that encouraged its use as a set for a film or an advert. The landlord would then come chugging down the lane—on one occasion in the form of the National Trust, I remember—demanding a big slice of the extra money, which they had done nothing whatever to create the environment for. This is an important point.
As I say, I am not sure about the difference between the two amendments in that respect, but the Minister has to have a very good case for putting the view that those who take the risk—a point made quite strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—in farming the land and producing the produce should not be the recipients. I obviously agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that this covers producer organisations and others, but it does not cover external landlords who might own the land and receive money from tenants.
This is more or less exactly the same point I made in Committee, and I am glad this has come back. I am not sure whether there will be a Division—I know we are under instructions about various things—but there has to be a point at which, unless the Minister has a really good case, one or both of these amendments should be forced into the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I did not inform him that the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Greaves, had withdrawn.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, on one of the first amendments we discussed in Committee, I said that for all the other things—the environmental benefits, et cetera—farmers are “the delivery system”, and so you have to maintain farmers. This means that you have to define who the farmer is, in a way that has not happened in the Bill, so that we can go forward.
My question to the Minister is this: do we have a definition of what sort of activity is covered by government subsidy here? That is really what needs to come out. For example, forestry would almost certainly come into the same view as agriculture. It may be that I have missed it, so I am trying to get that clarification down; it might make everybody feel slightly more comfortable about this. Who are the people who are supposed to do the other interesting stuff—the access things we have already talked about and the environmental things that are coming to the fore? Who is the delivery system? I cannot see it being anyone other than the farmer and I cannot see any way of it happening other than if they are paid. There simply is not another delivery system for this. There may be a slightly different version of this, but the farmer or land manager seems to require assurance that they are the focus of the activity.
As for supporting the two amendments, I am afraid the Minister has his fate in his own hands on that one, as ever. The fact of the matter is that if we can get out of it only who the groups are, and the definition of why you are going to support them in this changed regime, that would be a useful thing to come out of this, if nothing else.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not here, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, we already know that our economy will be under pressure in the coming years from the effects and costs of coronavirus and the drop in GDP expected by almost all economists after Brexit, whatever form Brexit takes. The Bill does not spell out exactly how levels of funding will be sustained. As my noble friend Lord Greaves said at the beginning of our consideration of this Report stage, the Bill is permissive, allowing the Government to take action—which does not mean they will take action.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we welcome the tabling of these amendments, which will allow Ministers to go into more detail on the balance between direct support for agriculture, and other related purposes, and the emphasis that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, puts on the word “agriculture”. We understand that the National Farmers’ Union supports this amendment as a means of ensuring that the Agriculture Bill is truly agricultural in nature.
Following the first two groups, where there were amendments focusing on areas such as countryside access and public health, we understand the concerns of some that, with a limited pot available to Defra, it is important to ensure that the lion’s share delivers for farmers. We certainly want farmers to get the support they need, and to ensure the Government follow through with the many promises they have made to rural communities in recent years. However, as my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone so clearly noted, there will have to be a wider purpose for land, as it will have to work several times over to deliver its multiple objectives.
However, as we have all said during the Bill’s progress, our departure from the CAP is an opportunity to do things differently. Two of the biggest criticisms of the CAP are about its rigidity and the fact that it has not kept pace with real-world developments. Many concerns stem from the lack of detail and certainty regarding the new schemes that are due to come on stream in 2021. In this respect, my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s Amendment 41, which would require the Government to demonstrate the readiness of year 1 schemes before commencing the seven-year transition, may be of interest.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Wearing my farming hat, as I have declared my interests, I very much hope in promoting this Agriculture Bill that its essence is how we work with farmers and land managers on the quests that we have for food production and enhancing the environment. I repeat that it is about enhancing the environment and providing the ingredients for future agricultural production.
I take this opportunity to reiterate that this Government are committed to supporting the agricultural sector, not only with the promise that the budget for agriculture will remain the same during this Parliament but in supporting that sector through Clause 1 and many other elements of the Bill, which I started to outline in earlier debates today. Interestingly, my figures are that 69% of land in the United Kingdom is farmed and 10% of land is in woodland. As such, we will be relying on our farmers and land managers for the public goods which, in our view, they are so well placed to deliver.
As currently drafted, Clause 1 enables the Government to provide financial assistance to land managers—and I encourage noble Lords to look at the way it is crafted—in return for their delivery of public goods. Indeed, the new ELM scheme is a vehicle to provide such funding to those who manage land and water to deliver these environmental goods. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of participants in ELM will be farmers. It is proposed that tier 1 of the scheme will be aimed specifically at farmers and will pay for actions that the majority of farmers can take across their land, such as nutrient, pest and soil management.
However, the Government recognise that environmental benefits can be provided across a large variety of land or water types, including farms, rural properties and estates, woodland and other open or green spaces. Many landholdings and farms will embrace not only land that is farmed but wetlands and woodlands—all of which the farmer will, in the contribution of their own ELM scheme, bring forward in terms of land, woodland and water.
For the ELM scheme to be successful, it needs to work for a wide range of farmers, foresters and other land managers, as it will help us to maximise the environmental benefits that can be delivered. This will ensure that the ELM scheme acts as a powerful vehicle for the delivery of the 25-year environment plan goals and the Government’s commitment to net zero. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, mentioned that specific point.
It is also the case that the challenges we face will require landscape-scale change. That is why we have proposed that tier 3 of the ELM scheme could fund projects such as woodland creation, peatland restoration and flood mitigation. My view is that it will be overwhelmingly on land which is farmed by owners or tenants, and be a vital part of that landscape change that we all very much need. These are all examples of large collaborative projects which would allow us to improve the health of our environment, as set out in the 25-year environment plan, while helping us to deliver our commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that existing agri-environment schemes—such as special areas of conservation, sites of special scientific interest and land that supports priority species—are open to those not involved in agricultural production. We feel that accepting this amendment would significantly narrow the scope of future schemes and the benefits they deliver. I emphasise that I have no doubt that the catchment areas and landscape ranges in tier 3 will embrace many farmers. It may be that, as part of that, there is a woodland owner or land managers other than farmers. It is important that we look particularly at those in tier 3, which is why I emphasise it. I raised this specific point in discussion with the noble Earl, again emphasising my farming interests and understanding of the concerns that farmers have about change. In my view, we should not narrowly restrict the ability for financial assistance to go to those other than farmers, although obviously the overwhelming majority of the funding from the Bill will go to farmers and land managers.
On Amendment 26, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, it is intended that the ELM scheme will provide funding to those who carry out the management of the land or water to deliver environmental public goods being funded. This might be the tenant or landowner, depending on the specific activity carried out and the arrangements in place. I emphasise this important point to my noble friend: engagement is ongoing with a wide range of farmers and land managers, including landowners and tenants, to ensure that ELM is designed in a way that works for all to maximise the delivery of environmental outcomes, while ensuring effective use of public money.
Representatives of landowners and tenants sit on our core stakeholder group on ELM design. We recently ran a number of sessions looking at ELM for different sectors, including those with tenancy arrangements, common land and uplands. We have six tests and trials that are working with farmers to assess how ELM can work best on tenanted land. In the national pilot, we also plan to have participants from a range of tenancies to ensure that we test the scheme from different land tenure perspectives.
We will discuss this on other amendments, but we clearly see a very strong future for the tenancy sector of agriculture. We think it is often a way in which land can be successfully farmed, sometimes by new entrants. I emphasise the importance that the Government place, through the tests and trials, on finding the right way to have an ELM which is successful for tenants and landowners. That is how we will have more and more land coming forward for contemporary and modern tenancy arrangements.
The Government would find it very difficult to restrict the eligibility for financial assistance in the way that the noble Earl has outlined. This is specifically not because I am suggesting that the funding is going to move from farmers to many other resources but because, by tier 3, we are going to need to work with people beyond farmers: for instance, woodland owners. There needs to be that ability to work with those beyond what I would call “the farming community”, who are four-square at the core of this.
The construction of the Bill, in Clause 1(2), is also designed absolutely to ensure that those starting and improving agricultural, forestry and horticultural activity are supported. I have looked through the Bill, and at every turn its clauses are about how we best look after and improve the situation for farmers. Yes, it is in a period of change, and that is why there is a seven-year transition.
But with those points in mind—I am mindful that I have to work quite hard, as there is a suggestion that this may be a matter for consideration by the House—I hope that the noble Earl and my noble friend will understand why the Government wish to have that flexibility, being mindful of the importance of the farmers of this country. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, thank you for a fascinating and very conscious debate on this important topic. I heard what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I do not prefer her Amendment 26 because I think it is more limiting than Amendment 15. It requires only active farmers who take entrepreneurial risk to be recipients, which would unduly restrict applicants and fails to recognise that there are multiple different interests in farmland. Tenant farmers are not excluded from Amendment 15; it is crafted to cover the broad range of interests in land, which include tenant interests. It also recognises that often there are contractors, licensees and short-term tenants, who may have an interest in short-term profit, while landlords and those with a longer tenure may have an interest in the longer-term benefits to the land and the returns therefrom. Amendment 15 leaves it, quite rightly, to the marketplace to determine who gains the funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, need not be embarrassed at all; my support is never contingent and I understand her points regarding the multiple objectives that she lists. This just goes to show that this is not an agriculture Bill; it is an environmental land management Bill. I appreciate the support of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. His question on the dilution of farming support was entirely pertinent. It is disappointing that the Minister was unwilling to answer it. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is right: Amendment 15 does not exclude tenants, for the reasons I have discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, greatly assisted in revealing the inconsistencies in the Bill and the need to provide farmers with some proper assurances. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for re-emphasising the proper direction of funding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who reinforced the concerns that funding may go to a wider purpose than agriculture.
The Minister made clear that ELMS is designed to work with farmers and land managers. It is land managers who are the concern. The Minister accepted that there are land managers other than farmers, but he did not offer a definition. Are golf course owners included? Are airport owners? Is Network Rail a land manager that will get ELMS funding? The Minister did not exclude those as recipients of ELMS. He says that the budget for agriculture will remain the same. Is that the budget for farmers or for farmers and land managers? Will it therefore be diluted?
I appreciate the point about tier 3. I am excited about the landscape-scale ambitions of ELMS, but it is clear that such funding will definitely go to farming members of a tier 3 collaboration. As I do not wish to be responsible for narrowing the excellent environmental goals of ELMS and I trust that those designing it will be mindful of the very real concerns that your House has voiced today, I hope I do not regret this, but I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 18. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She is not responding.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I apologise—it is always bound to go wrong if I am on the Woolsack—but I have already said that Amendment 18 is not moved.
“(8) The Secretary of State must by regulations require specified information to be published about financial assistance under this Act.(9) Information which must be specified includes—(a) the full legal name of the recipient of financial assistance;(b) the amounts of payment corresponding to each measure financed by the funds received by each beneficiary in the financial year concerned;(c) the purposes of the payment corresponding to section 1(1);(d) the geographical boundaries of the land corresponding to the amounts and purposes under paragraphs (b) and (c);(e) any other information that in the view of the Secretary of State is appropriate to enable the public to evaluate whether the purposes in section 1(1) are met.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the public may evaluate whether the Act’s purposes in providing public goods are in fact being fulfilled.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I shall speak to Amendment 18, which has not been moved, and to my own Amendment 28. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, for signing it as well.
The common agricultural policy is a huge item in the EU’s budget, making up around one-third of all EU expenditure. The system of payments established under the Bill will be similarly huge, with large sums of public money being paid to private individuals and businesses in exchange for providing public goods. With such huge expenditure, it is, frankly, outrageous that the Bill is so lacking in measures for public scrutiny and accountability for that money. My Amendment 28 seeks to redress this huge accountability deficit by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information about expenditure under the Bill. That does not seem unreasonable to me. Probably every Peer in this House would expect that if they spend money then generally, they will understand where it goes.
That publication would include basic information such as who is receiving how much money and for what. Without that information, I do not see how taxpayers can be expected to trust that public money is being put to good use in fair and proper ways. In particular, I worry that the whole system of public money for public goods will be undermined, resulting in a rolling back of the progress that the Bill represents.
If the Conservative Party were in opposition, they would expect such information to be provided and would want it in the Bill—they would insist that basic accountability be included—so I am horribly disappointed that there is nothing to that effect. I eagerly await the Minister’s explanation as to why a prudent and fiscally responsible Government would avoid publishing such basic information, which would enable the public to ensure that their taxes are being spent properly and effectively.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their forbearance—I was sitting in a bus that had been slowed down due to the requirements of Transport for London. Amendment 18 concerns the lack of an impact assessment for the Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for their support. Both are distinguished experts in the field. I also thank the Minister for a very useful meeting and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for the support of the Opposition in Committee. Other amendments in this group look at various aspects of evaluation and financial assistance, including a welcome government amendment of plans relating to the latter.
Impact assessments are a vital vehicle for evaluation and scrutiny of government actions on a coherent, structured and quantitative basis. They provide good guides to how different groups and businesses will be affected by a Bill or a proposal. They are, rightly, a firmly established part of the landscape, with that on the Immigration Bill being the most recent useful example in our House. This Bill represents a huge change in farming and countryside management in the UK, as we have heard. This needs to be quantified. We need to look at the economic costs, benefits and risks that the new agricultural policies entail. That observation applies to the whole Bill but is most important in respect of Clause 1.
Impact assessments could have been invented with such a Bill in mind—I know because I headed the Cabinet Office deregulation unit that pioneered them. Yet on 20 February, the Regulatory Policy Committee, which independently assesses impact assessments, was forced to publish a little slap in the face to Defra. Having considered the matter, it came to the following stern conclusion:
“The RPC has considered the proposals in the Bills and believe that in both cases”
—they were also referring to another Bill—
“these could have significant impacts on business when they come into effect (as set out in the annex to this statement) and that therefore IAs should have been produced by the Department, submitted to the RPC for independent scrutiny, seen by ministers and presented to Parliament. We expect that, in future, government departments will submit IAs to the RPC before the relevant bill is laid before Parliament. We remain open to DEFRA submitting IAs for both of these bills to the RPC, in order to allow us to provide an opinion on whether or not each IA is fit for purpose.”
Matters have moved on a lot. Will the Minister consider making available the draft that was prepared for ministerial discussion? I suspect that much of the material was an updated version of the economic material he published and referred me to in Committee, but of course, in a much more useful and structured format. I would also welcome details of Defra’s plans for secondary legislation made under different parts of the Bill. We agree on the need for collaboration with the farming sector and others in developing the regulations, and I know that IAs can be useful in bringing out risks and opportunities for the wider economy—for example, businesses supplying the rural economy. This leads to better feedback. I always remember persuading the then DTI not to require the minimum wage to be shown on payslips, because of the cost to businesses of reprogramming all their IT systems to make this happen.
This is not a sexy amendment. It is one devoted to the cause of responsible and coherent government, and I suggest that it is none the worse for that. Allied to proper, timely consultation, impact assessments can identify important factors that have been overlooked in policy formation. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool)
It may help the House to understand what is going on if I clarify that the debate is now on Amendment 28. We will continue with the speakers’ list, as written down, for this group. At the end, after the Minister has spoken, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to respond to Amendment 28.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support everything that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has said in moving Amendment 18, so I shall be brief. I added my name to this amendment for reasons I outlined at Second Reading. It is irregular for a Bill—even for a framework enabling Bill—to be sent to Parliament without any sort of formal impact assessment. It is yet more irregular for a Bill of this consequence not to be accompanied by a primary stage impact assessment at the very least.
For well over a decade, successive Governments of different political hues, have for good reason seen the requirement for departments to produce impact assessments alongside proposals for new legislation as central to their commitment to better regulation. Accompanying impact assessments enable parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of proposed new legislation to be better informed. Parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny further benefits from impact assessments because of the role of the RPC, which my noble friend mentioned. The RPC is the government-appointed Regulatory Policy Committee which independently assesses the quality of a departmental impact assessment of the costs, benefits, risks and opportunities of a proposed new measure. It then publishes an opinion, which is available to Parliament and others, on whether the evidence and analysis contained in the impact assessment are sufficient to support whatever is being proposed. As my noble friend said, it is an essential and valuable discipline. It helps Parliament, Ministers and the departments themselves.
I am glad to say that it is rare nowadays for a department to produce legislation without an accompanying impact assessment, but it has happened in the case of the Agriculture Bill. This omission is especially regrettable, given the varying impacts of the wide-ranging measures that this Bill proposes to enable. That is why I have put my name to this amendment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as listed in the register. I should add in relation to Amendment 18, to which I wish to speak, that I am a former chair of the Better Regulation Executive and worked closely with the Regulatory Policy Committee which has been referred to already. I also worked closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has tabled this amendment, and with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey, who has supported it. I fully endorse their comments. I am particularly disappointed in Defra’s poor performance with regard to the impact assessment of this Bill or, more accurately, the lack of an adequate impact assessment. When I chaired the BRE, Defra was one of the better performing departments and regularly produced satisfactory IAs. As the Minister knows well, I fully support this Bill and the policy changes it will introduce. As has been stated numerous times, this is the most serious change in agricultural policy in a lifetime. We need fully to understand the implications of this fundamental change.
Of course, this amendment is a process issue. For many, it is rather tedious and not “sexy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, stated. However, it is a crucial part of understanding how new policies or changes in regulation will impact on those affected by it. As one well-known system is demolished and another unknown system is introduced, we have a huge void by not having an impact assessment better to understand of the economic costs and benefits of this change. I hope that the Minister will explore this further with his department and be able to reassure the House that this issue will be addressed as the Bill progresses on its journey through both Houses and into legislation.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as I feel it is important that we debate the question of what information will be published under the new farm payments scheme during the passage of this Bill. The provisions in the Bill currently lack detail and firm commitments, and that raises legitimate concerns that we might in fact go backwards from the status quo in terms of transparency around the common agricultural policy.
In supporting the amendment, I want to talk briefly about the value of publishing comprehensive data, as described in the list set out in the amendment. There are two core arguments for this. The first is the accountability that we want for any significant public expenditure, and this Bill will certainly usher in a great deal of such expenditure. The more insight that we have into how our money is being spent, the more effectively we can hold our Government to account for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, certainly made that point very forcefully, and it was echoed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who in his recent lecture at Ditchley Park talked very much about opening up government data precisely in the interests of other people being able to hold the Government to account.
There is a second benefit that might be even more significant: the innovation that can happen around public datasets. The Government do their best to devise good solutions for the farming community, and I would not for a second question their good faith in doing so, but nobody has a monopoly of good ideas, and there will be people outside of government who have ideas that could be of real benefit to the UK agricultural sector. The dataset described in this amendment would provide a foundation on which those ideas and innovative solutions could be built. I draw attention in particular to making associated geospatial data available—that is, data around the parcels of land that are being funded—as this is especially useful for developers who work in this area. I understand that Defra already collects much of this data. For example, it publishes geospatial data in respect of environmental stewardship payments. Therefore, my starting point is that I do not believe that the list of data described in the amendment would add to the burdens for the farming community as it is data that it produces for Defra, but we are asking that Defra releases it to the wider world.
I hope that in his response the Minister is able to put some more flesh on to the very bare bones of the text of the Bill and that, in particular, he can do two things. First, it would be helpful if he could describe the dataset that the Government are currently thinking of publishing. I understand that they have been engaged in a consultation exercise over the summer, so I hope that they have some idea of what they intend to publish under the secondary legislation that the Bill envisages. Secondly, it would be extremely helpful if they could indicate whether they have concerns about any of the items listed in Amendment 28, so that we can focus on them and discuss them further. With that, I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and, in particular, the response from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate all those who have tabled amendments in this group. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and her co-signatories to Amendment 18 which calls for an impact assessment. It would add a great deal to the Bill. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on moving her amendment.
I shall focus my remarks on Amendment 30 and, in particular, government Amendment 35. The latter amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Gardiner, concedes in new paragraph (a) that we need to know
“as soon as practicable before the beginning of the plan”
what the purpose of the plan will be. He sets out very neatly in new paragraph (b) that the plan should be published
“at least 12 months before the beginning of the plan period for the plan.”
I welcome the fact that my noble friend has conceded that we need 12 months’ notice. I do not know quite why my Amendment 36 is not included in this group. When we come on to discuss dates other noble Lords will press their favourite dates, whether it is five months, three months, seven years or five years.
My noble friend has conceded the principle that we need 12 months’ notice. I do not quite understand why we are not then agreeing to delay the start of the transition period in that regard, because we need greater clarification of what the plan will be. I am very uneasy that we do not have the results of the trials of the ELM schemes, which are still ongoing. So what I have set out here is very specifically that we have levels of expected expenditure set out and, equally, we can identify the outcomes for that expenditure as part of this multiannual financial planning. I shall not make the arguments in full, because we debated them quite fully in Committee, but I am deeply concerned that the role of the Office for Environmental Protection is still unclear in this regard. Can my noble friend come forward with a date for when we will be able to look in some detail at the environment Bill? I hope that it will be before the end of this year and of the transition period. It would be most helpful if my noble friend could give us a date.
What is lacking in the current provisions, and why Amendment 30 is required, is a framework that requires the Government to be clear about what they are planning to spend and what they will spend that money on. In Amendment 35, I think my noble friend concedes can and do change over time, but we need a clear direction of travel from the Government so we can judge how well the Government and Defra are doing in achieving these objectives and in targeting these public resources. We need to give farmers and land managers the clearest possible indication and assurance about the certainty of funding, if they are going to be able to enter into long-term relationships to deliver the outcomes for the public benefit and the improvement of productivity. So, in identifying specific levels of budgetary expenditure, we will also need to enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise government plans and policies in advance of them being implemented and by way of evaluating their performance. Both provisions would be an important part of good governance.
In summing up, can my noble friend say when he will bring forward a business plan that will impact and be effective for the first year after the transition period, which is next year?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seeks, as she explained, to increase the levels of accountability and ensure that Parliament can understand Her Majesty’s Government’s strategic priorities and the extent to which they are being met. We discussed this issue in Committee.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House have already expressed concerns about levels of financial accountability in this Bill, and we have a number of amendments that seek to address that. On page 4, line 15, the Bill specifies that the Secretary of State will be,
“monitoring the extent to which the purpose of financial assistance has been achieved.”
The amendment, dealing with the multiannual financial assistance plans, specifies that the Secretary of State will produce annual budgets for each strategic priority. There is a powerful argument that we need this so that the public can have confidence in the spending of public money. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s and indeed other noble Lords’ reflections and responses on the extent to which this amendment can strengthen transparency and accountability.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I particularly praise his work as president of the Rural Coalition. I know that he does really good work there. I declare my own interest as co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership.
I will speak to Amendment 32, which was not all that popular in Committee, in that it suggested and states that the transition period from the old funding system to the new should be not seven years but five. I will go through why that is so important and why I have bothered to bring it back and take up the House’s time—although I will not be putting it to a vote at this Report stage.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
In this grouping, I support various amendments on monitoring and analysis. First, Amendment 18, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, advises that impact assessments be published and that public responses to them be taken into account before financial schemes are themselves launched.
Secondly, and correspondingly, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s Amendment 30 would have the Government set out expenditure levels and their predicted outcomes as part of their multiannual financial plans. I am also in favour of Amendment 34, from noble Earl, Lord Devon, which would improve parliamentary scrutiny by insisting that multiannual financial assistance plans be considered for at least two months before coming into effect.
I also support Amendment 32, from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We have just heard him eloquently express the reasons why he advocates this. The five-year period, rather than seven, more accurately reflects how long developments arising from the Bill are likely to take. Thus, the amendment prevents an unnecessary delay or transition from the old payment system to the new one.
Finally, I support Amendment 47, from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which correctly points out that financial assistance to United Kingdom farmers should take into account how they are operating and competing within the international economy.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, is this weekend—Shanah Tovah.
The seven-year period cited in Amendment 33 is not accidental. We all know of the seven fat and seven thin cows of the pharaoh’s dream in Exodus. Jewish law prescribes a seven-year agricultural cycle, with a fallow year—the Shmita—every seventh year. What was good for Moses should be good for us, and we should set our agricultural policy in seven-year cycles.
The transition period is seven years and the period between multiannual financial assistance plans should be the same. This will allow farmers longer to plan and to commit resources to the published policy. It will permit farmers time to recover from any poor harvest, avoid the politicising of multiannual financial assistance plans and remove their coincidence with the five-year political cycle.
As to Amendment 34, along with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I note that the Government have published their own Amendment 35, under which they agree to publish the multiannual financial assistance plan at least 12 months before it comes into effect for all instances other than the first one. However, the first plan is by far the most important. It will make by far the greatest impact on farming and take by far the greatest effort to distribute within the farming community. My amendment seeks at least two months’ notice before January’s plan comes into effect, but even this will not be permitted, it appears. We are told the plan will be available this autumn, but I note that the autumn ends on 21 December.
Just this morning, I spoke with representatives of the Dartmoor hill farmers, who are hugely concerned. These small farmers see the Dartmoor National Park, the Duchy of Cornwall and other large commercial bodies secretly trialling ELM schemes about which these small farmers are wholly ignorant. They are really scared that the rules are changing for large wealthy land managers, who can afford professional assistance, while they—the actual farmers—remain wholly in the dark as to what is coming, as do we.
As to the compelling arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I fear that five years will only increase the negative impacts of what may be a chaotic transition. The noble Lord listed many species that he sees fewer of now. I would ask him to consider whether he sees more crows, magpies, buzzards, badgers and foxes than he used to. Their impacts on nesting farmland birds are well established.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Curry; I am sure that the Minister will take good note of them. I wish to speak to Amendment 47, which stands in my name; it has been grouped with these amendments but does not sit all that comfortably with them. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for his support for the amendment. I again draw the attention of noble Lords to my declaration of interests as a member of the Farmers’ Union of Wales, as well as owning a few acres of land in Wales.
This amendment addresses one of the issues that, I contend, any Minister exercising the powers in this Bill would have uppermost in his or her mind: the need to ensure a level playing field for farmers in the context of the financial support they may receive.
Yesterday, in the other place, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was given its Second Reading. When the White Paper that preceded the Bill was published in the spring, it referred to the dangers of diverging regulatory standards in each of the four home nations of the UK. From time to time, there will clearly be different approaches within the four nations, and there may well be policies to try to ensure that agricultural producers in one area receive different levels of assistance to compensate them for the negative effects of certain factors—in other words, to bring them up to a place where they can compete fairly, not secure unfair advantages over their competitors within these isles.
However, there is also a danger of which we have to be aware—especially those of us who advocate the freedom of our devolved Governments to pursue policies that help farmers within their territories, particularly hill farmers, as has been mentioned by several noble Lords during the passage of this Bill. There is all the difference in the world between securing a level playing field with common standards and securing unfair trading advantages. My party, Plaid Cymru, recognises the need for common standards but believes strongly that these should not be imposed by the centre regardless of the policies and aspirations of devolved Governments. These standards need to be developed and applied in an even-handed way that recognises the aspirations of all four nations and the policies they support.
The UK Government-led discussion on developing the internal market has largely revolved around the potential of regulatory divergence within the UK, but the reality within farming communities is surely a far greater concern about the dangers of unfair competition arising from the movement of agricultural produce across international borders into the UK, undermining farmers in all four home nations. There is widespread support for amending this Bill to safeguard agriculture throughout these islands against the importation of substandard produce from other parts of the world. Unfair competition does not arise solely from regulatory differences but also from differences in the level and type of state aid. That is reflected in the intense negotiations currently being held between the UK and the European Union in an attempt to define a level playing field.
There is of course an overwhelming wish across all parties in Parliament for a trade deal with the EU that maintains our access to European markets for agricultural producers, and that any deals with third countries or blocs of countries do not compromise our access to the massively important European market on our doorstep. There are two sides to the regulatory coin. One is the need to maintain standards and not have our farming industry undermined by a flood of substandard products from other parts of the world that undercut our own producers. The other is that our own farmers should not be unfairly penalised by the system of financial support operated in countries with which we compete, or the level at which such support is pitched. Such factors should not give farmers in other countries who compete in the UK market an advantage over producers in the countries of Britain.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, I reiterate my interest in our family farming and horticulture business. Although I no longer have an active managerial role, I retain a residual interest in it.
This group of amendments addresses a number of items which were discussed in Committee. Many noble Lords then, and again today, expressed their anxiety at the relatively short time that farmers, foresters and land managers would have to prepare their businesses for an incoming multiannual financial assistance plan, or, for that matter, where an existing plan is in place, to make any changes to it. The speeches thus far on this group of amendments share this common theme.
Noble Lords will remember the suggestions made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lucas of a two-year readiness period, and by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of a delay period of two months. I am sure noble Lords will welcome the Government’s amendment. This is an intelligent compromise which takes note of noble Lords’ concerns on the matter. I thank my noble friend the Minister for listening to the concerns of the House, as he has been exhorted to by a number of noble Lords this evening. I support the amendment he proposes.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn from this group of amendments. I call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 18, also in the names of my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. My noble friend is a great supporter of impact assessments and she is right. In framing the new financial assistance schemes, it is important for the Secretary of State to understand the likely effect of any new ways of remunerating farmers for their farming activities and for their stewardship of the countryside. Many farmers are presently bemused by the measures contained in this clause and would much appreciate greater clarity from the Government. The publication of impact assessments would improve their understanding and help them to plan for the future.
I do not think I can support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her Amendment 28, because she wishes the Government to publish more information than is appropriate. Farmers should be entitled to rather more privacy than the noble Baroness would allow.
In Amendment 32, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Dundee seek to shorten the period of the first plan to five years. However, payments under the new ELM schemes are not expected to commence until 2024, and I think the full seven years—which would mean only three years after those schemes start—would be the minimum time necessary for the Government to prepare their plan for the second period, based on their review of the use and effectiveness of the schemes during the initial period.
On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his Amendment 33, seeks to extend the length of each plan from five to seven years. However, as I said in Committee, I do not think the noble Earl’s reason is valid. Even if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is not quickly repealed, as I hope it will be, the noble Earl is surely aware that general elections have not taken place regularly every five years.
I think the noble Earl is being a little modest in seeking to ensure that plans are published at least two months before they come into effect, and I am delighted that, in Amendment 35, the Minister proposes that subsequent plans should be published at least 12 months before they come into effect. That is in line with what several noble Lords recommended in Committee.
I am not sure whether Amendments 47 and 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are helpful. The best thing the Government can do for British farmers is to ensure that unnecessary, unjustified red tape is removed, so that they can compete successfully at home and abroad. During our membership of the EU, as noble Lords should be aware, British farmers have not enjoyed a level playing field with their competitors: French livestock producers receive €1 billion a year of voluntary coupled support, as opposed to a mere €39 million available to Scottish crofters.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, since the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Rooker and Lord Addington, have withdrawn from this group, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
In connection with Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I admit that I do not understand much about impact assessments. However, I would hate impact assessments to further delay this whole process. As the details of ELM schemes may not come out for another couple of years, I find that quite worrying.
However, my main purpose in speaking is to support Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for all the reasons that he has given—although I cannot honestly claim that I have had time to study what either the Bible or the Koran say about the seven-year period. I would, however, add to the list of pests that he mentioned something that is now rather important: the prevalence of the grey squirrel and the muntjac, which are steadily gnawing through our trees. If they are not taken in hand, they will make a new forestry policy extremely difficult—but that is another matter.
From a business planning point of view, it is essential that the agricultural sector be given as much clarity as possible when making any important investment decisions. The sector does not have the luxury of either deep pockets or the same access to banks and capital markets as big business. The costs of farm machinery and other capital items continue to rise, as do running costs. The sector needs the security of being able to plan forward with a considerable degree of certainty if it is to thrive in terms of profits and employment.
There is also the issue of aligning ourselves with our competitors, in particular those in Europe, with its seven-year period. That is why I also support Amendments 47 and 106, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which relate to another aspect of business planning. We need to watch and learn from others, so that we can compete sensibly on this much-hyped level playing field. I fear that, as an industry that is unlikely ever to become entirely independent of taxpayer support, we will always be brought into the political arena. But this new Bill gives us a chance to rewrite the rules. Let us grasp the opportunity and instil as much sensible business practice into the industry as we can.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, we are in a mess on this group of amendments. I would like some clarification. I think that we were misled by the Deputy Speaker when she said that Amendment 18 was not moved. As I understood the situation, if an amendment is tabled, anyone can move it. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was not here, the next speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who was a signatory to that amendment, should have been invited to move it. We are now in a situation where we are told the amendment was not moved, but Members have been speaking to it. As I understand the rules, we are not allowed to speak to an amendment that has not been moved. What is happening? Could this be clarified? If I want to speak to Amendment 18, am I in order? If all the rules have been broken, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least reply to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and support her by getting this amendment tabled for Third Reading. I think that the House has broken lots of rules and I would like clarification before I continue.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I shall, of course. I shall start with Amendment 28, as it was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I will then discuss much about the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
What a wonderful thing flexibility is. I am grateful to the Minister for replying this way. That gets us out of the hole.
I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. There should be an impact assessment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I thank the Minister for his Amendment 35. As said by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, it is a sensible compromise. The Minister has moved some way. I congratulate the Government on having moved on at least one amendment. They refused to move on anything in the Fisheries Bill, but on the Agriculture Bill, we have a slight shift. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is as pleased as I am that we are making a little progress.
I must pick up on the little discussion between the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Carrington, about biodiversity. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right: the species that have thrived over the last 10 years have been the grey squirrel and the muntjac, as a result of which we are hardly able to grow any decent commercial deciduous woodland in this country. Until that problem is solved, we will be able to plant a lot of trees and take away a lot of empty tubes in 20 years’ time when the trees have all failed because they have been attacked by deer or grey squirrels.
I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on reducing the period from seven years to five in his Amendment 32. It will be difficult enough for farmers in the timescale they already have. That is for lots of reasons—we have talked about the age profile. Agriculture is a long-term business that needs a lot of careful planning. We need to know what ELMS will be. There will be such a learning curve for farmers, who will need a great deal of help—we will come to that when discussing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. By the time ELMS comes in, there will be little time for farmers to get acquainted with the system, particularly those of the older generation and those still suffering from lack of broadband connection. Without social media and broadband, they will not be able to operate the latest modern machinery, which is all digital and high-tech. This will cause them a lot of problems.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be very short. I was working from an old version of the Marshalled List when I signed up to speak on this group and I discover that the amendment I wished to speak to has been regrouped somewhere else, so I am not going to say anything. I am sure the House will be deeply grateful.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I simply want to say that I strongly support Amendment 30, because where the end is wished, the will must be provided. There is altogether too much hollow rhetoric and good intention in this area. We need firm commitments, and that involves the discipline of preparing the budgets that are necessary to deliver them. I congratulate the noble Lords concerned on having emphasised this vital point.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been another lengthy debate on how the financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State is to be properly assessed, including transparency of information to ensure that the public good principles of financial assistance are fulfilled, and on bringing the multiannual financial plan for consideration in Parliament before being brought into effect—quite a simple statement that has a wealth of detail behind it. The financial assistance scheme will have an impact on the farming community. It is, therefore, imperative that this impact should be assessed and that the outcomes and public responses are considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, said. It is important that there is transparency around payments for public good.
At first, I was not in favour of Amendment 28, as I am anxious that farmers are not subsumed in collecting information and data. However, I understand from my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam that the majority of this data is already collected by farmers, as he indicated this evening. It is therefore important that this information should be readily available and transparent, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans pressed for.
Again, transparency is at the root of amendments around the multiannual financial plans. Setting expectations around financial assistance is key. The farming community, like every other industry and household, needs to know what it can expect and plan accordingly. Will the Minister indicate how such strategic priorities will be funded if a budget for this annual expenditure is not set?
My noble friend Lord Teverson again returned to his wish to see the plan period brought forward from seven to five years. His amendment found little support in Committee, but I fully support him in his very powerful arguments. The Agriculture Bill is heralded as a new dawn for farming and land management, but it would seem that the Government are taking a very softly-softly approach. In many ways, this is to be welcomed, but it is not good for the environment, which is suffering now. We might previously have said that the environment was suffering badly; now, we say that it is suffering catastrophically. The environment can longer afford for us to take a softly-softly approach. We must act now and move the transition forward from seven to five years: that is part of the process of acting now. As my noble friend Lord Teverson so eloquently and passionately said, we have to do something now. Will the Minister indicate why he believes it is better to take a softly-softly approach and watch the environment deteriorate around us? I do not believe that this was pledged in the Conservative Party manifesto.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has amendments on the timings of the multiannual assistance plans, as has the Minister. I am encouraged that the Government have tabled Amendment 35, which says
“in the case of the first plan, as soon as practicable before the beginning of the plan period for the plan.”
Can the Minister say just how soon he imagines “as soon as practicable” might be? If he can give reassurances on this, I think the House would be satisfied.
The level playing fields sought in the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are essential so that farmers who are currently living close to the edge of financial viability can be reassured that financial assistance will be provided. This is a very important group of amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and all noble Lords who have raised important issues about the application and accountability of multiannual assistance plans. All noble Lords, quite rightly, are seeking to provide some rigour in the allocation of £3 billion a year or more which is being set aside by the Government to fund the farming sector for the future. We all have an interest in ensuring that the money is allocated fairly, in line with the strategic priorities, and is seen to be producing value for money.
At the moment, Clause 4 is remarkably light on detail as to how this will be achieved, so I agree with the noble Baroness that an impact assessment is very important and should be standard practice for a government project of this scale. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the public have the right to see how and where this money is being spent. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raises an important point, which I very much agree with, about the allocation of moneys to each of the strategic priorities. Underlying all of these contributions is a desire to ensure not only that the money is spent wisely but also that it is all spent, so that we are not left gifting unused moneys which could have been put to good use back to the Treasury.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, have raised issues about the timing of the plans and the need to ensure parliamentary oversight. In this regard, the Minister’s Amendment 35 is helpful as far as it goes, and the 12-month advance notice for future plans is welcome, but he will know that the proposal to lay the first plan before Parliament “as soon as practicable” before the start date is not going to reassure many in the sector whose livelihoods depend on the funding. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that it would be useful to have some clarity from the Minister as to what that phrase means. I would have thought that the proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of a two-month deadline, was eminently sensible; I hope the Minister addresses it in his response.
I also commend to noble Lords our Amendment 41, which is coming up in a later group and which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament about the progress of the tests and trials before the transition can begin, therefore allowing some parliamentary scrutiny of that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raises an important point about the internal market within the UK and the dire consequences for all of us if we do not get the balance right and create a level playing field. This is a huge challenge which is not going to be resolved in this Bill, but he is right to raise the consequences for the farming sector and to urge all parts of the UK to work together on this matter.
I said at the outset that there is a compelling case for more detail on how the multiannual financial assistance plans will work. I am very much hoping that the Minister will provide the reassurance we are all seeking that this work is in hand and that we will see more details in due course, and certainly well before the schemes are launched. I look forward to his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very interesting debate.
Turning first to Amendment 28, the Government believe that it is important that the public can see how financial assistance being provided under Clause 1 is being spent, as part of our ongoing commitment to openness, transparency and accountability. Clause 2(8) allows the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation to provide that specified information relating to the financial assistance given under Clause 1 is published. Clause 2(9) sets out the information which may be specified. This already includes information about the recipient of the financial assistance, the amount of the financial assistance and the purpose for which the financial assistance was given. Sufficient information will be published under the regulations that the Government are currently developing to underpin subsections (8) and (9).
To inform the development of these regulations, on 4 August the Government launched a public consultation on their proposals for financial and beneficiary information publication. Within the accompanying consultation document, the Government set out how they believe that beneficiary data should be published on a publicly available searchable database, and that details of the name of a beneficiary of financial assistance, postcode, amount of funding received and a high-level purpose of the funding payments should be recorded.
The consultation also proposed that the regulations require the publication of the land management plans—LMPs—which will be a key component and requirement of the environmental land management scheme pilot. The Government seek to strike the right balance between accountability and transparency, on the one hand, and the privacy of agreement holders on the other. On that final point, I assure your Lordships that the Government will publish only information that is relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which it is processed.
Turning to Amendment 18, this is a framework Bill. As a result, the powers in Clause 1 do not in themselves impose a regulatory burden. The Government believe that impact assessments are very important; where the Bill will introduce new regulatory provisions, the Government will produce and publish regulatory impact assessments in line with the Better Regulation Framework guidance. I have reflected on the points raised in Committee by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I assure your Lordships that I am fully cognisant of the important role that impact assessments play in providing a solid basis for scrutiny of government policy. With this in mind, I can confirm that the Government will publish the impact assessment narrative that has been prepared for this Bill. It summarises the measures in the Bill that will have a regulatory impact on business and sets out a clear plan for when more detailed, quantitative assessments will be produced for each of those individual measures. This impact assessment narrative will be published later in the autumn.
The Government continue to work closely with farmers, foresters, other land managers and key stakeholder groups to ensure that they have ample opportunities to inform the design of Clause 1 schemes. For example, the Government recently consulted on their proposals for regulations under Clause 2(8) and Clause 3, which will set out the Government’s approach to financial information publication and the enforcement regime to accompany Clause 1 financial assistance, respectively. The Government will also conduct a public consultation before finalising the design of the full ELM scheme, which is to be launched in 2024. This consultation will be accompanied by a full impact assessment.
Turning to Amendments 47 and 106, the Government are keen that we seize the opportunity of EU exit to remake England’s farming policy so that it is suited to the needs and demand of farmers, the environment and the public at large. Welsh Ministers have decided that it is not appropriate to take powers to allow Welsh Ministers to operate or transition to new schemes in this Bill. These powers will be provided for instead by the agriculture (Wales) Bill. We believe that Welsh Ministers must have the space to develop policy to suit the needs of Wales. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that in forming the agricultural framework, the Government of course considered other countries’ agricultural policy. As this Government develop these proposals further, we will continue to look across the United Kingdom and internationally to be aware of and learn from agricultural policy in other nations.
I turn to Amendment 32. I should note that Clause 4 was introduced following extensive feedback on the Agriculture Bill 2018, taking into careful consideration what would be a suitable timeframe for multiannual financial assistance plans. The first plan period was designed to match the entire agricultural transition period, providing the necessary details on how financial assistance powers in the Bill would be used. Following extensive consultation the Government have legislated for a seven-year transition, as set out in Clause 8. The Government believe that seven years strikes the right balance between signalling the end of area-based direct payments and giving farmers time to adjust. Certainty, in our view, is very important.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to ask a short question.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I ask my noble friend where the business plan that he says will be published in the autumn will be published. I am slightly concerned that “in the autumn” could be interpreted as 21 December, and that the plan could come out after both Houses have risen. Having served on the EFRA Committee for a number of years and looked very closely at the budgets, I am not quite sure which particular spending would be interrupted by Amendment 30.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I would love to give your Lordships a precise date. The Government understand the need to bring forward this information as soon as possible; I said autumn. We in Defra are seized of that importance. I will look at Amendment 30. All I can say is that our lawyers looked at it and advised me that that was the case but, if my noble friend would permit, it might help to have some legal expertise on why there was that interpretation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his summing up. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, have summed up extremely well, but there are a few points that I will add. First, I tried to move Amendment 18 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, because I supported it, but unfortunately I was too slow; that is not something you can often say about me. I was entranced by the argument between five and seven years. Honestly, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, swayed me with his wartime analogies; they were worthy of the ERG. I was lost slightly by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and Moses. I thank all Peers who have spoken. It was a slightly mixed group.
The Minister asks your Lordships to trust him and almost every Peer in this House does but, when he asks the House to trust the Government, it is a completely different matter. If it is not in the Bill, it does not exist. It is all very well to talk about what the Government will do later but, if they are not bound by the Bill, I do not trust them to do it. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 29. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 29
Lord Grantchester
“Financial assistance: duty to provide advice
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to secure the provision of training, guidance and advice to persons receiving financial assistance under this Act, for the purpose of enabling those persons to deliver the purpose or purposes for which the financial assistance is given.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision for advice on matters which include but are not limited to—(a) the impact of any practice upon the environment,(b) business management, including the development of business plans,(c) the health and welfare of livestock,(d) the safety and health of workers in any agricultural sector,(e) innovation, including alternative methods of pest, disease and weed control,(f) food safety, insofar as it relates to the production of food or any activity in, or in close connection with, an agri-food supply chain,(g) the operation of any mechanism for applying for, or receiving, financial assistance under this Act, and(h) marketing of any product falling within an agricultural sector under Schedule 1.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons receiving financial assistance.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I have retabled Amendment 29 from Committee, as it could be said to reflect very well on the wide-ranging debate we had on the many challenges and opportunities faced by the rural economy as the focus changes towards providing support for production to be recognised for its environmental and welfare impacts. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for adding their names to the amendment after tabling their amendments in Committee, and to my noble friend Lord Whitty, who has widespread experience of the sector from his excellent service as an Agriculture Minister in a previous Labour Government.
All sides of the House and all shades of opinion acknowledge that, as we move to new funding schemes, there will be a lot of new information, terminology and conditionality that farmers and land managers will need to become familiar with, all accompanied by complex administrative processes that will need to be complied with. Of course, it will be understood that there will be pilots and guidance available to participants but, given the relative speed of the transition proposed, it does not seem unreasonable to expect Defra to recognise the responsibilities it should perhaps take towards those wishing to take part in the schemes by playing a more active role in educating, clarifying, guiding, encouraging and assisting the sector.
Many pitfalls could be encountered. In Committee, discussion also covered the sometimes disproportionate punitive actions that can be taken against farmers when they act in good faith but fall short in some small regard. I was particularly struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who spoke of
“the importance of allowing failure”.—[Official Report, 14/7/20; col. 1654.]
The Government are well placed to step in, whatever the circumstances, should it be necessary. They can pick up on bad experiences and eliminate misconceptions that could quickly deter applicants through social media.
Of course, it is understood that participation in schemes is voluntary. However, we would wish to see the full participation of the agricultural community to enhance our environment and to benefit businesses.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his responses to my amendments in Committee, and for his kind words in the last group. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for bringing back this subject and for his equally kind words.
To my mind, this matter of advice is absolutely at the core of what is needed in the new system. We need it to be advice based, not rule based. We need it to have expertise, to be capable of being local and to be trusted. The adviser corps needs to be trusted by both Government and by farmers. We need to run the system so that it is objective based, not action based.
For instance, one of the objectives local to me should be restoring chalk grassland. No one has any real idea how to do that successfully in a modern agricultural system; we will have to try lots of different things, and a lot of people are going to fail. They need to be supported in that failure, and we need a system that helps us as a nation to learn from that failure and take people forward. That is what an advice-based system should be doing. It is a learning system, not a static system from some tablets of stone handed down but a system that learns from everything that is going on around the country and shares that learning. It is not centralised; centralised is utterly impossible, given the variety of the countryside and different agricultural situations.
We have had enough centralisation. I do not want the Environment Agency letting the Cuckmere flood disastrously because it is too small for it to be bothered with. I want once again to have curlews in the middle of Eastbourne—to have a local solution and not one imposed by the Environment Agency, such as what the water levels should be in the Langney Sewer, which, despite its name, is a pure chalk stream. I want the system to let us have a go at doing things differently—for instance, to have grass sledging on sheep walks. We need to have some way in which to raise money from our countryside to restore our SSSIs. Our local SSSIs are going back to bramble and scrub. We do not have the finance to bring them back as they should be—we need some greater way in which to earn money from the chalk uplands. We need to experiment and try things, and we need an environment where that is encouraged and supported. Trust, support and advice is what I hope we will get from the new system.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to put my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which we discussed in Committee. At Second Reading, I spent my allotted three minutes, or whatever I was allowed, talking about training. It is absolutely crucial; farmers are individuals and do not work in a uniform way, as businesses do in factories and offices. Soil varies across farms and varies over short spaces; what one farmer is doing in one place could be totally different from what another farmer is doing 200 yards away or half a mile away, where the soil, the criteria and the weather conditions are slightly different, because the soil is a bit colder in the spring. It makes farming a very localised and specialised industry. Also, farmers vary hugely, from those who have large estates with a large amount of land in hand to small farmers who are just managing to get by on almost a crofting basis. These are very different individuals, who will need help with these changes.
At the moment, we are talking in a slight bubble, because everything is going quite well. The Minister is having a peaceful time in introducing this Bill, but what happens when we start to get trade deals that start to cause problems with imports that are not up to our standards? What happens with the EU? Increasingly, I am concerned about its threats and actions with regard to farming in Northern Ireland and fishing. What happens when it takes retaliatory action that affects our farmers and fishermen? These people are going to need help and advice from the Government about how to be able to compete. It would be a very different climate in which we are discussing this Bill if it was in three months’ time when we were actually out of the EU and the EU had taken some of the measures that it has already threatened that it is going to take.
My noble friend and his department will have to respond very quickly to that—otherwise, in the famous words of the president of the NFU, Minette Batters, it will be game over for British farming. That is something that none of us who have been discussing this Bill in this House want. Without an amendment like this, or complete reassurance from my noble friend, it has to be put into the Bill to protect farming.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am extremely pleased to be able to speak in support of the previous three speakers and their amendment, which I briefly touched on in Committee. Everyone is agreed that the future is going to be very different from the past. Having talked to a number of farmers in the bit of England I come from, my first-hand feeling is that a significant number of them have no clear idea about how they should be approaching the future, and what they should do for the benefit of themselves, their families, their businesses, the landscape and the wider community and economy in which they are set. I do not think this is necessarily their fault. After all, a large number of the rules of engagement are being altered. One likely result of this is a large number of people, probably through no fault of their own, ending up going in the wrong direction because they did not know where the road they should follow was.
I personally have a very unusual land-use problem on the land that I farm. It is going to involve a significant amount of money just to discover the right way forward for me. I am not trying to make a point just about myself. There will be quite a number of people who, in completely different ways, find themselves with rather unusual problems which they will need to resolve. It is going to be in everyone’s best interests to try and make sure they get it right in the end. As I have previously raised with the Minister, it is a great pity that some of the money that is being taken off the basic payment scheme cannot be hypothecated to enable people to buy advice on dealing with the specific problems on their farms and holdings.
Finally, the amendment looks at this from the perspective of the farmers and land managers—the people on the land itself. However, I am prepared to hazard a guess that, from a Treasury perspective, if we can avoid making mistakes, we can end up saving public money.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have attached my name to my noble friend’s amendment. As other noble Lords have said, farmers will be faced with the most fundamental changes in the way that they operate—the biggest change for half a century. Although there is a seven-year transition, some decisions will have to be taken early. Decisions will have to be taken at different paces through the transition period and there are huge complexities. The old system of production subsidies and the current one of area payments are simplicity itself compared to what is being put forward in the Bill, which I broadly support. Most farmers, particularly smaller ones, will require guidance and support. Many will need bespoke help. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, it is up to the Government to ensure that they have the help and guidance to face up to these revolutionary changes. The Government and the agencies which will apply the changes have some responsibility here. It is reasonable for a modest slice of the savings from CAP to be used to ensure that that happens.
When I was a member of the first ministerial team in Defra, it was the habit of farmers to bemoan the disappearance of ADAS. I still find the odd farmer who complains about that. A very eminent Member of your Lordships’ House once confessed to me that he was the MAFF Minister who introduced the abolition and privatisation of ADAS. The theory at the time was perfectly respectable: that a large number of consultancies and specialist support for farmers would spring up if there was a competitive environment. It did happen in some specialisms but, in general, it did not.
I am not saying that we should go back to a state-run operation such as ADAS but that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that there is advice, not only on regulations and subsidies but on a lot of the technology, economics and accounting that will be required under the new system. The translation from fringe environmental systems to the new ELM system will be pretty complicated for most farmers. I am not really concerned whether private companies, the agencies or the Government themselves provide it. The amendment is designed to ensure that the Government take responsibility for that advice being there, because it will be a bumpy ride for a lot of farmers. There will be some failures and we need to ensure that those failures are not terminal—and that if necessary, that advice is backed by not only government support but government resources. I support Amendment 29.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, for the purposes of all of Report, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, and chair of the advisory board of the Government’s Global Food Security programme on research. In Amendment 29, we have the key to getting the whole new farming and environmental land management programme to work on the ground. It is exciting that we have a new approach to helping farmers produce our food and manage our countryside. But with some basic ELM schemes still being piloted, neither we nor even the Government know exactly where we are going.
The pilot stage of ELMS is, in a way, providing the Government with their own training. I hope they will learn from it, but one thing is certain: farmers and land managers will need all the help and training they can get if we are to make this new approach work on the ground. Because there is little time between now and the putting in place of thousands of ELMS contracts, we must get a training scheme in place as soon as possible—training a farmer not only in how he can best judge what he and his land can provide of value for the nation, but in how best to deliver that value. With proper training it will be better for farmers, better for our flora and fauna, better for visitors and above all, as others have said, better for the taxpayers, who might then get the best returns that their money can buy.
Farming is one of the most isolated jobs in the world. Farmers are not necessarily slow to change, but without some form of proper training scheme it will be hard for them to engage successfully with this brave new world. Without their successful engagement, not only will the brave new world not happen but farmers themselves will fail financially, in their droves.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. No? Then we will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, during the dinner break, I went for a brief walk and reflected then on what feels like ancient history: my honours thesis in 1983, which was on abomasal bloat in goat kids. Your Lordships can be reassured that I am aware it is dinner time, so I will not venture further into that subject. However, one thing that emerged during that year, as I was completing that honours thesis, was that the work had received some modest support from a milk manufacturer. It had donated the supplies for the goat kids, and in return got an awful lot of free student labour and the imprimatur of a university using its product. Soon, however, we found that there was a conflict between the commercial interest of the manufacturer and that of the science. It was private profit versus public good.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and I have been reflecting on that again and again today. Relying on the market rather than public service’s guidance and rules has led us to the society and countryside we have today. The market will, and by law our commercial companies have to, maximise private profit. All too often, that is at the cost of public good.
A seed company, fertiliser or pesticide manufacturer, or tractor company will want to sell more of their products, but moving in the direction we are talking about—agroecology, agroforestry, looking after the land—often means reducing, and using fewer, inputs: for example, using a local tree nursery for hedges and fruits rather than a multinational seed company. Yet, so much of the advice and information that farmers have been forced to rely on over recent decades has come from those commercial sources, which do not want to head in the direction provided by this Bill. So, we have to provide an alternative source of advice.
If we look at the history of this—to where we went backwards and went wrong—we go back to 1996 and the debate in your Lordships’ House on the privatisation of ADAS. Lord Mackie of Benshie said then that charging for its services had led to less advice being requested, a shift towards commercial suppliers’ advice and a concern about how public opinion of farmers had declined. In Committee on this Bill, I put forward a modest little amendment, 234, suggesting that a service be established by means of which farmers could associate, lead research and work with the experts we have now.
I ask the Minister at some point to look back to that discussion. One interesting, original contribution came from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who developed this proposal into something like a NICE for farming. Where otherwise is the advice and support in this clause to come from? It is clear that we need a duty to provide that advice, as so many other noble Lords have said in this debate. Farmers cannot be left on their own in this fast-changing, uncertain situation. This is not just about the Agriculture Bill; so many other aspects of the world are changing—the climate emergency, for example, and different markets and economic situations. We need to develop the expertise; we need the Government to do this. I would argue that this amendment is a crucial step in that direction, and I commend it to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the same amendment in Committee and I continue to support him. I will not repeat my previous remarks but emphasise that, without access to funding for advice, the take-up of the proposed environmental land management schemes will be more limited. I certainly agree with the interesting hypothecation idea of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
Farmers will be considering new ventures of which they may have no experience, so they need funding for advice. The average farmer is not a rich man; his success is likely to have come from concentrating on what he knows best. Our capricious climate has clearly demonstrated that sticking to what you do best is a sensible policy in farming. The farmer is therefore unlikely to rush into a new scheme without considerable thought and encouragement. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, he is also aware that under previous schemes, including BPS, the sanction regime has been tough. So, once again, he is unlikely to move swiftly into ELMS without a great deal of thought and advice.
I raised in Committee the issue of the digital divide, which was identified by the University of Sheffield and the Institute for Sustainable Food. For many in rural areas, access to good broadband may be limited. This, together with lack of time and, perhaps, age and social isolation, has made it difficult to follow developments on the ELM schemes. All this means that it is so important to provide financial advice to farmers for training and guidance so that they can be encouraged into ELMS on the basis of knowledge and confidence.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and his co-signatories on bringing this amendment forward. It is absolutely essential that farmers have the best advice available before they make a decision. I notice that the explanatory statement for the amendment given by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, refers to
“training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons receiving financial assistance.”
I make a plea to the Minister that this advice should be given before they even apply for financial assistance to enable them to decide how best to seek that financial assistance and to put it to good use.
I urge the Minister, when she sums up this debate, to agree to the sentiments behind the amendment and to consider who would best give such advice. Agriculture societies, such as the Yorkshire Agricultural Society, and many farming charities are very well placed to do so, in addition to many government bodies such as Natural England and others that the Minister might have in mind. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my support for the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester on the provision of advice, training and guidance for those in receipt of financial assistance. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made a good point about there being a kind of free application need as well.
As a nation, we are asking farmers and land managers to make big changes in the way they manage the land —to deliver not only productive and efficient farm businesses but a whole range of public goods as well. Therefore, good advice covering all those issues will be really important.
It was delightful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reminisce about the demise of the publicly funded agricultural advisory system. It flourished after the war to get productivity up but got knocked on the head in the 1990s. Now, many farmers get advice solely from their commercial agronomists, which is altogether too narrow a focus. Advice and training will be particularly important for small farms.
I do not think that a publicly funded or publicly promoted advisory system needs to be top down and statist. Many noble Lords have made the point that local conditions are very important, and that is absolutely clear. We have experience in this country of a number of organisations that have set up county branches to give advice and support, and to bring together farmers around common issues on a local basis. I think that we could rapidly reinvent that. Therefore, the role of the Government needs to be to stump up some money and to give a modest amount of assurance on the quality of the advice being given. At the end of the day, farmers will take advice only from people whom they trust and feel comfortable with, so that has to be built into whatever system is introduced. It would also be beneficial to create some small local businesses in the advisory field to help boost the rural economy. There is a real role for government here.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a very sensible amendment. In everything that we have debated in session after session, the scope of responsibility that we now see lying with farmers and their families has been emphasised. The significance of that cannot be underestimated. Therefore, we must ensure that, particularly with all the new requirements that we are properly asking of them, there is proper preparation.
I cannot help smiling when I think back to a time in the 1960s after my and my wife’s graduations—I was at the LSE and she was at Exeter; I am surprised that this is not mentioned more often. Through our marriage, we had a very good friend who was in what was called the agricultural advisory service. Back then, I thought what a sensible, practical service it was, and he was an enthusiastic professional working with it. He brought a lot more to it than just a professional background and skills; he brought a great deal of commitment and imagination, and he formed a real relationship with the farming community. Incidentally, he also told us a good deal about the realities of farming.
I congratulate my noble friend on having introduced the amendment. I am just very sad that, after all these years, we are reinventing the wheel.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
I, too, would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for moving this amendment. He and other noble Lords are surely right that it will be vital to have training and guidance available in this way. We have heard a great deal about the changes that may be coming down the track and, of course, the ELM schemes will mean a lot of change. It is important that those receiving financial assistance are assisted in delivering the purposes identified, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said.
There has been some discussion today about tenant farmers. We must look in particular at the smaller players in this regard; they are far less likely to be able to access advice, and this will be an important contribution to what they will be able to do and to ensure that they are indeed acting in the public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly points out that the average farmer is not well-off—he or she. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, put it, almost all the rules of engagement will have changed. Both the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out how farms and local circumstances already vary, and now we have massive change added on top.
There can be various sources for guidance, not least from our outstanding agricultural colleges, Natural England, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, whom I owe much for advice, and experienced farmers in a local area. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly warns about taking advice from commercial sources with a vested interest, and we looked at that in detail when we looked at pesticides.
There will be a vital need for guidance from the Government because—as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said—they have a key responsibility here. ADAS did play an important role, as he said, whatever its shortcomings. We support this amendment and look forward to seeing what the Minister says in response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their almost universal acknowledgement tonight of the importance of advice in a time of significant change to the industry. The rules of engagement have, indeed, changed fundamentally.
I reiterate the Government’s view that expert advice and guidance is critical to the successful delivery of future schemes. As currently drafted, the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the necessary powers to fund the provision of advice, guidance and other means of support to recipients of financial assistance under Clause 1. The Government certainly intend to use this ability; advice and guidance is one of the priority areas in the 40 live tests and trials that are feeding into this theme.
I will give some examples of how this could be done. For future tree health schemes, we are looking to refresh and improve our offer of plant health advice to ensure that land managers have the information they need to manage and respond to tree health issues. For animal welfare grants, these one-off payments could cover investment in equipment, infrastructure, technology and training. For animal health schemes, we are also looking at ways to increase advice given to farmers, both from vets and other agricultural advisors, to help them improve animal health. We also want to increase peer learning between farmers through, for example, facilitated farmer groups. The Government have also stated their intention to offer advice to those applying for productivity grants to help them decide which investments would achieve the greatest improvements in business performance.
In Committee, reference was made to the ongoing ELM scheme tests and trials. We are using these to identify the most effective means of providing advice and guidance to farmers and land managers, which will enable them to deliver on their funding agreements with confidence. Since then, the number of ELM tests and trials looking at the provision of advice and guidance has increased to 40, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to designing a scheme that works for farmers and land managers. Evidence shows that, for advice to be effective, it must be trusted, consistent, credible and cost effective. The Government are considering how these principles can be embedded into advice for all schemes and working with farmers and other land managers to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, asked specifically about the availability of training schemes. The ELM trials are exploring ways in which skills and qualifications for environmental land management can be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also asked how agricultural colleges could be drawn upon to provide advice and dispense information. The Government are supporting the work of the skills leadership group in exploring ways to address the fragmented nature of the existing skills, education and advice landscape. Representatives of the agricultural colleges have been involved in these conversations.
Defra is currently running a £1 million grant funding project to explore how it could provide resilience support to farmers and land managers in England to help them prepare for reductions in direct payments in the transition period. The project, which is targeting some 1,700 farmers and land managers, aims to identify how, where and when they may need to adapt their business models and resilience as a result. Evidence coming from this project will help inform the design of a national scheme, which is currently in development for launch in early 2022.
I was asked about the availability of broadband in some areas. We are connecting some of the hardest-to reach places in the country, including through the SFB programme and the £200 million rural gigabit connectivity programme. We have also announced £5 billion of funding to close the digital divide.
I hope that I have managed to give some reassurance that advice and guidance are already considered in the scheme design, that the Government are committed to their provision and that we have the powers we need to deliver in this area. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, especially the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for their additional reasons for supporting this amendment. As everyone has expressed, this is a fundamental change to the rural landscape and agricultural industries support.
The possible lack of an impact assessment, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, could be identified as a challenge of detail for what may be required for the successful launch and promotion of this scheme not being fully appreciated. We would want the scheme to be a success.
The amendment is not prescriptive on how the Government may go ahead and deliver that advice. The Minister’s confidence need not be at the expense of caution. My noble friend Lord Whitty drew attention to the withdrawal of advice that, as I was reminded, has reduced the level of the UK’s agricultural productivity in comparison to other EU countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, emphasised the importance of training to achieve farmers’ engagement. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reflected on the quality of advice that could come from more commercial sources, which could be a further challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned the digital divide. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, emphasised, if I am interpreting correctly, that advice must be part of participating in schemes. My noble friends Lady Young and Lord Judd also spoke of the importance of advice in expressing their support.
With all this support, I could be tempted to press this amendment. The Minister assures us that the Government have the power, under Clause 1, to provide advice. This intention should perhaps be promoted more clearly to the agricultural sector. I thank her for her remarks and wider explanations. However, in agreeing to withdraw this amendment, I call on the Government to keep it in mind as the Bill is returned to the other place for further consideration.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 31. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions and elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 31
“( ) The Secretary of State must have regard to the current environmental improvement plan when setting out strategic priorities for giving financial assistance during the plan period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to environmental improvement plans when planning the provision of financial assistance for agriculture.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 31 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the Government’s environmental improvement plan when setting out their strategic priorities for financial assistance in the multiannual plans.
This amendment tackles an issue raised in previous debates in your Lordships’ House—the lack of joined-up policy across the different initiatives before us. It was an issue in the Fisheries Bill, and there is a similar issue in this Bill. It was a failing identified by this year’s report of the Natural Capital Committee, which criticised the silo approach to policies being adopted by Defra. It is a failing identified by the Committee on Climate Change, which wrote to the Minister, Victoria Prentis, in June this year, urging the department to develop a joined-up approach, stating:
“Defra has yet to set out how ELM”—
environmental land management—
“the Environment Bill, the 25 Year Environment Plan and various policies planned for trees, peatlands and nature will fit together.”
It is also a failing underlined by the latest progress report on the 25-year environment plan, which showed, for example, no progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from natural resources such as agriculture and forestry.
This amendment would forge a critical link between the Agriculture Bill, the Environment Bill and the 25-year environment plan. It would ensure that we avoid the mistakes of the past, where the common agricultural policy made decisions on farming which bore no relationship to the EU’s environmental policy.
We accept that the Government’s current intention is to base the new ELM scheme on the 25-year environment plan. This point was made by the Minister in Committee when we tabled a similar amendment. But this Bill is for the long term, and policy priorities change. Equally, the 25-year environment plan is a long-term document. It would be all too easy for these documents to diverge over time. Without the clear link to the environment improvement plan set out on the face of the Bill, it would be entirely possible for a future Secretary of State to set out strategic priorities for financial assistance under this Bill that bear no relationship to the key environmental strategy set out elsewhere. The amendment seeks to fill that structural deficit. It would provide stability and reassurance for the long term, and policy direction to address the many criticisms of a lack of joined-up government on these issues.
We were disappointed that the Government did not hear the sense of our argument at Committee and come back with their own version of an amendment which would address our concerns. I ask the Minister specifically to give a commitment to come back at Third Reading with a government amendment on this issue. If the noble Baroness feels unable to do so, I give notice now that I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to support this amendment. She set out the issues clearly, so I will be brief.
In Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already mentioned, the Government sought to reassure noble Lords that they were committed to achieving their aim of leaving the environment in a better state than they found it and that the environmental improvement plans involved in this strategy would be covered in the Environment Bill. We were also told that the office for environmental protection will monitor progress and make recommendations to the Government for further action. We do not yet know what sort of teeth the OEP will have and whether or not the Government will follow its recommendations.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have added my name to the amendment, which is now a cross-party amendment. While I will not repeat what other noble Lords have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on the state of nature, I will say that we have had another report only this week from the RSPB, which shows that over the last 10 years the Government have missed a number of key biodiversity targets.
We will turn our natural recovery around only by giving the right economic incentives to our farmers. I think the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was the first this evening to mention nature-friendly farming. We will not get the recovery we need for our nature unless we give the incentives to our farmers, who manage 69% of the land in our country. They are key to our nature recovery.
As it stands, the Bill gives the Secretary of State complete leeway between the allocations of funding for the different purposes in Clause 1 and Clause 2. Schemes with little environmental value might be supported; we could find that allocations are weighted towards productivity improvements or gobbled up by tier 1 options that add the least environmental value. We cannot afford to do that. We need to ensure that there is synergy between the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill. The Government’s own discussion paper on ELMS says that the outcomes in the 25-year environment plan are a key guide for this financial assistance. We need to turn that into a reality. The way to do that is to put this in the Bill.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my support to the thrust of this amendment, moved so excellently by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I support the idea that we need a joined-up approach to tackling environmental challenges. The aim of linking the Agriculture Bill, the Environment Bill and the 25-year environment plan by putting this into the Bill makes eminent sense, especially as I know that this Government are committed to real action and development on climate change and have already done significant amounts to make sure that this country is a world-leader in pushing forward with environmental protections and climate change planning.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure the House on this issue and, ideally, table the Government’s own proposals at the next stage, so that we are able to put this in the Bill. I know that we can be proud of the Government’s record on climate change and that there may well be significant desire to ensure that this is not a contentious issue and that there is cross-party support, as we have seen in the debates so far.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. It is certainly a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch—I wholeheartedly endorse her views—and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
As a number of speakers have already said, we are seeking to bring about the most profound change in the way agriculture is managed and focused. If ever we had any doubt about the importance of the situation we are in, those who had the pleasure of watching the BBC’s programme on Saturday, hosted by David Attenborough, who talked about extinction in a calm, measured and scientific way, were shown beyond any doubt the challenges that we face. This amendment, bringing home to the Government the importance of linking the environmental challenge to the Agriculture Bill, is absolutely well-founded and I am only too happy to endorse it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I also declare my interest as a member of the EU Environment Sub-Committee. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on bringing forth this amendment. As its co-signatories and others who have supported the thrust of the amendment have said, it very clearly demonstrates the link between this Agriculture Bill, establishing public benefit and financial assistance for public goods, with the provisions of the Environment Bill.
I understand the difficulty the Minister is in, having listened very carefully to the words of our noble friend and colleague, the Minister who replied to an early debate, saying that he would love to give a date when the Environment Bill might be coming but was unable to do so. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment on equating the two Bills.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those occasions when we have to try to reference across from another piece of legislation to make a coherent whole. Environmental considerations are key if we are to achieve half of the accepted objective. That is where we are: it is accepted as something that has to happen. We have to combine the two. The entire political class agrees that, since there must be environmental improvement, they are going to have to work with sectors such as agriculture, and just about every other sector, in order to achieve that. Unless something like this is written down, we know that departments and groups of officials and Ministers will tend to go their own way. They are not good at paying attention to people you “should” talk to; they pay attention to people you “have to” talk to. I suggest that something like this would actually be a very good thing to have in the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I too support this amendment and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling it again. Farmers have absolutely no idea what the future holds and what ELMS will contain—and we have none either. We have a blank canvas as far as that is concerned. Even on the last amendment, on training, my noble friend on the Front Bench said, “We are doing schemes—we still do not really know what we are doing, but we are doing tests at the moment to see what the best way forward is”.
Having heard the debates earlier on Clause 1, and having had support across the House for nature-friendly farming, it would seem to me utterly logical to include an amendment such as this, so that any potential farmer who reads this Bill will see that there is an immediate link to the environment. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
I would also point out that this amendment will not cost the taxpayer a penny. In that respect it is one of the great amendments: it merely links two bits of legislation, and in doing so might even save the taxpayer money, because farmers and land managers will have a much clearer idea of what they are supposed to be doing to try to achieve a better and healthier farming environment.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the value of the amendment is that it calls our bluff. The environment is something of which we are all in favour, like goodness and all the rest. But the question is: how do we turn our commitment in that sphere into action, and into substance? The amendment brings that home. We should not just get on with the task of agriculture and then add, “There’s an environmental concern, isn’t that nice?” We must relate the two, and this is the way to do it, so I am glad to support the amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, during the various debates on this Bill I have made the connection between it and the Environment Bill that is coming down the line. The environment improvement plans and the Government’s 25-year environment plan cannot be divorced from what is happening in the Bill that we are discussing. All speakers have supported the amendment, and have made very similar comments.
The Agriculture Bill provides for multi-annual financial assistance plans, including identification of strategic priorities for assistance, the regard to be had to these strategic priorities when setting the budget, and monitoring the impact of the financial assistance given. There is, however, currently no requirement to take the goals and ambitions of the 25-year environment plan and the Environment Bill into account when setting strategic objectives for financial assistance.
It would be possible for the Secretary of State to set these strategic priorities under the Agriculture Bill, and for that to have no relevance to the key environmental strategy that should be guiding all investment in the natural environment. This appears to be nonsense, and presents a risk to environmental recovery, since the financial assistance schemes created by the Bill, particularly the ELMS, will be one of the main mechanisms for funding and achieving the goals of the 25-year environment plan. The CAP similarly failed to make the structural link to wider objectives, which allowed it to undermine environmental ambitions. But moving away from the CAP presents a unique opportunity to rectify this failure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lady Parminter, along with noble Lord, Lord Krebs, have set out the case extremely clearly. Amendment 31 would give the Government a duty to consider the country’s environmental improvement plans when setting priorities for financial assistance schemes. This would ensure policy coherence. Environmental improvement plans will be created by the Environment Bill, and the first one will be the existing 25-year environment plan. But we do not yet have the Environment Bill.
The Government clearly intend to design the new environmental land management schemes, which are currently only in pilot stage, in such a way as to support delivery of the 25-year environment plan. However, over the years we have seen the failings of the CAP, highlighting the fact that good intentions do not always lead to the desired outcomes. How often that happens in life. I can hear my mother’s voice in my ear as I speak. Creating structural links between policy areas in law is not only important but vital, with the environment in its current state of catastrophic decline.
The Minister is aware of the concern on this issue, not only in this Chamber but in the whole country. I hope that he is in a position to give reassurance and commitments. If not, we will be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and others in the Lobby.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
On Amendment 31, I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government will fully take into account the proposed steps and goals of environmental improvement plans, including the 25-year environment plan, when they determine the strategic priorities that will sit within the multiannual financial assistance plans, so the amendment is simply not necessary.
The Government are absolutely committed to achieving their aim of leaving the environment in a better state than when they found it. That is why they are seeking to legislate for environmental improvement plans in the Environment Bill that is currently in the other place in order to drive forward long-term improvements to our natural environment. The 25-year environment plan will be adopted as the first statutory environmental improvement plan and the Government expect it to set the benchmark for future EIPs.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a characteristically cogent question about the lack of a proper system of measurement, as identified by the Natural Capital Committee. We are engaging with stakeholders, scientists, economists and environmentalists, including the Natural Capital Committee, to develop comprehensive indicators to measure progress towards the goals set out in the 25-year environment plan.
The planned introduction of the ELM scheme under Clause 1 of the Bill clearly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to look at wider environmental objectives when setting their strategic priorities for funding under their multiannual financial assistance plans. Indeed, the ELM scheme will be a key mechanism for delivering the environmental goal set out in the 25-year environment plan by providing farmers and other land managers with public money for the delivery of multiple public goods.
There are six key public goods that the ELM will help to deliver that correspond directly with goals set out in the 25-year environment plan: namely, clean air, clean and plentiful water, thriving plants and wildlife, a reduction in and protection from environmental hazards, mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, beauty, heritage and engagement with the environment. Defra’s ELM team is currently working on understanding the full range of actions that the scheme could pay for in order to deliver across all the goals in the 25-year environment plan.
Should there be any changes to the plan or a future environmental improvement plan, the Government will review the ELM scheme to ensure that the public goods that it is funding remain in line with delivering the priority goals and commitments that the Government have set out in the plan. The Government will be publicly accountable for the delivery of the strategic priorities in both its multiannual financial assistance plan and the environmental improvement plans. This House will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise the drafting of provisions for the environmental improvement plans when the Environment Bill reaches this House.
I had hoped that with this reassurance I would be able to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to withdraw her amendment. However, I cannot make the commitment that she seeks to table a government amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have added their support today. As the evening gets later, we seem to be finding more and more consensus around the Chamber, which is very welcome.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who rightly reminded us that, as the Natural Capital Committee flagged up, proper systems of measurement are absolutely crucial in terms of the future of environment plans and the crossover with our agricultural activities. We have to have proper measuring systems to measure outcomes and to measure success, but at the moment those links are not obviously made through legislation.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for reminding us of the State of Nature report and the RSPB report. They make very depressing reading but show the scale of the task ahead and why the sorts of measures that are in our amendment are so important.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. He is absolutely right that we do not know what the future holds, but we need to get farmers more guarantees and security for the future, and that is why we are attempting to build in those long-term connections. I am also grateful to him for pointing out that the amendment would not cost the Government anything; indeed, there is a very strong case for saying that the integrated policies that we are suggesting should be introduced might actually save the Government money. That should be a welcome outcome.
I say to the Minister that the Government can make commitments but, as noble Lords have often been reminded on other occasions and in other debates, the Government cannot commit future Governments. We are trying to build in a long-term connection between these two separate arms of Defra’s activity. Yes, I absolutely agree that ELMS will be a crucial part of delivering the 25-year environment plan, which is why it is important that that is in the Bill and that it has long-term resonance to it. The Minister was right to anticipate that I would not be happy with her response. I am sorry to say that I am not. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(a) in the case of the first plan, as soon as practicable before the beginning of the plan period for the plan, and(b) in the case of a subsequent plan, at least 12 months before the beginning of the plan period for the plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the first multiannual financial assistance plan under Clause 4 must be published as soon as practicable before the beginning of the applicable plan period, and that any subsequent plan must be published at least 12 months before such time.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 36. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of the amendment and the Minister may only speak once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 8: The agricultural transition period for England and the termination of relevant payments
Amendment 36
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will move the start of the seven-year transition away from direct payments from 2021 to 2022.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move and speak to Amendment 36. This group of amendments covers a range of activities relating to the transition period. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for their support in co-signing the amendment. The attraction of Amendment 36 is its clarity and straightforwardness: it calls for a simple deferral of commencement, moving the start of the seven-year transition period away from direct payments from 2021 to 2022.
Why is this necessary, given that the House has just agreed to government Amendment 35? I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He was clear that he could not give a precise date when the Environment Bill will reach this House—that is obviously not within his control, so I am grateful to him for that—and the department is keen to make progress. However, we owe farmers and other land managers a degree of certainty as they prepare for the biggest change in nigh on 50 years in farm support and agricultural policy.
I was disappointed that the Minister was unable to give a specific date, much as he would wish to, for the business plan setting out spending for the initial five-year period. We heard only that it will be published in the autumn. The autumn finishes on 30 November but potentially could run until 21 December. That could be after both Houses have risen—if we do rise—for the Christmas recess. That is very disappointing, although I know the Minister couched his remarks by saying he would like to see the spending and financial plan in place as soon as possible.
The difficulty I—and, I think, other signatories to this amendment—have is that I do not see any logic at all in why, for subsequent plans, a period of at least 12 months before the beginning of the plan period should take effect. My humble submission to the House this evening is that it is even more important for the Government to set out in their initial spending plan what the consequences for farmers will be. We are asking farmers, land managers, growers and others—I know my noble friend Lord Naseby takes great interest in horticulture—to take decisions for the forthcoming year without any of us knowing in any great detail what the terms of this financial assistance plan under Clause 4 will be. My noble friend helpfully points out in the explanatory statement to government Amendment 35 that
“the first multiannual financial assistance plan under Clause 4 must be published as soon as practicable before the beginning of the applicable plan period”,
but, as I have said, only subsequent plans would need 12 months’ notice.
I humbly submit that it is incumbent on the Government to bring forward this first plan, which—if my understanding is correct—will last for the whole transition period. I am not asking for the transition period to be reduced, as others have done. That would be quite wrong. We owe it to farmers, growers and others to have seven years to prepare, but for the life of me I simply cannot understand why we are not having a 12-month period and a delay. I therefore urge the House to look favourably on this simple delay of one year so that we all benefit from the results of the pilot schemes and the ELMS projects. I see newspaper reports that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, has been to visit local farms in his constituency in North Yorkshire, but other than the farmers themselves—and Defra, presumably—none of us has any detail whatever.
I shall listen carefully to what support there is for this amendment in the course of the debate on this group. I seek greater clarification from my noble friend the Minister. I would like to know why there is not a 12-month lead-in to this crucial first business plan and why we are not seeing the results of the trials. I express my concern at how little knowledge there is at grass-roots level about how any plan will affect decisions that, frankly, are being made as we speak. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as farmer, landowner and a recipient of BPS payments and their predecessors for many years. I will speak to Amendment 37, to which the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has kindly attached his name, and Amendment 40, to address the problem of the likely payment gap that will affect farmers as the direct payments are reduced in 2021, while the revenues from joining any new environmental land management scheme will not arrive until 2024.
I covered this in some detail in Committee and will not repeat that speech. However, the subsequent response from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and his office, together with the progress made on issues I identified at that time, has not made me rest any easier—indeed, the reverse, which is the reason this amendment has been tabled on Report.
First, we have no information on the cuts to BPS after 2021. Although promised for the autumn—which has arrived, of course—it might well be delayed until after the Bill comes into effect.
Secondly, we still have no real details on ELMS that would enable even elementary planning. Instead, during July Defra organised webinars for farmers to introduce ELMS. These were excellent and slick presentations of the concept but, when it came to the Q&A session with farmers afterwards, there were no answers to be had.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I am also a signatory. I also support Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has clearly articulated the purpose of Amendment 36. It is important that the Government provide a degree of certainty for farmers in relation to the new environmental land management schemes. We are simply asking for a deferral of the commencement date from 2021 to 2022.
As we all know, there is not a lot of detail yet on the ELMS pilots. It is generally felt that it is too soon to switch to this new scheme in 2021, without that background and concrete detail. While we wish to keep the seven years, we are asking for a deferral of one year for the commencement.
I feel that government Amendment 35, moved formally by the Minister, does not go far enough. We do not have enough information on how it will operate, or what the plan is for the next year. Therefore, I am very happy to support Amendment 36, because it provides that necessary deferral for a year to allow the plans to be worked up, to collect the statistical evidence from the ELMS pilots and to provide that much-needed certainty to farmers who are faced with a whole new funding framework after some 50 years. There is a whole new generation of farmers who never knew anything but the European framework that has been with us for such a long time.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I can be brief. Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, may appear very minor, but when you consider that we are in the last third of this year and that this is first day of the Report stage of the Bill, there is very little time left before the seven-year transition period is due to begin.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, both laid out the uncertainties facing landowners and farmers, not least until greater details of ELMS are clear. The Bill is going to make a huge change to both farmers and landowners, and it is much better that we take them with us. Indeed, I think it is only fair that we give them time to make the necessary adjustments, as there are still so many details to be worked out and the implications of the Bill are so significant. I hope the Minister will find a way that we can adopt this proposal.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am concerned that the mistreatment of and disrespect for farmers under the Bill is continuing. I speak to Amendment 36 and to support Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Amendment 41.
The 2022 harvest season has begun. Crops are being sown right now that are due to be harvested next year, and farmers just do not know what rules they will be harvested under. With respect to Amendment 29, the Government accepted that expert advice and guidance is a priority for these farmers, but there is nothing to advise and guide them on—they simply do not know what the rules are going to be. Similarly, in proposing Amendment 35, the Government have accepted that the minimum reasonable period is 12 months, but they are not giving the farmer those 12 months.
There were very reasonable objections raised, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that we do not want to delay the environmental achievements due to be delivered by ELMS. I agree; we do not want undue delay. However, it would be an environmental disaster to proceed with the transition period that will be stillborn at birth.
No farmers are going to adopt this if they do not know what it is or how it is going to work, so it will be useless from the outset. We need to take time; the Government need to get responses to their tests and trials and work out what they are going to do. Rushing this legislation and rushing the transition period into being is not going to deliver any benefit to farmers, the environment or the public.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. I fully support and I am very happy to attach my name to Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lord Carrington. I am delighted to support him in this debate.
I am very concerned indeed about the gap in support as the current basic payment scheme is unwound and access to the new ELM scheme becomes available as planned in 2024. As I chat to farming friends, it is very clear that they remain completely in the dark and unclear on what lies ahead, as has been stated many times in this debate—and just now by the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
Smooth transition should be a priority to ensure that we unlock the huge benefits that the new policy is capable of delivering. Farmers have been supported by the CAP, with all its weaknesses, for decades, and are familiar with the systems involved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, just mentioned. As we know, many, particularly those in livestock areas in the uplands, are currently very dependent on that support. To move at pace from where we are today to a satisfactory destination at the end of the transitional period when we have no information on the steps that are being considered by government is not only very worrying to farmers but a massive risk. Time is not on our side, as I stated in Committee. ELMS pilots are just under way and meaningful conclusions will take a couple of years or more to interpret. There will be only three years from the time the Bill becomes law to draw conclusions from the pilots and then launch the ELM scheme to the entire farming sector. There is at present no way that farmers can prepare for this change, because no information is available.
This change in policy is a unique opportunity to facilitate restructuring of the agricultural sector, but it cannot be rushed. It is reassuring that the Minister recognises that there is a gap and in an earlier debate outlined the various options that will be available to farmers from next year: new stewardship schemes, productivity grants, et cetera, to help with the transition. However, if he will forgive me, it all sounds rather last minute, a bit hasty, and an attempt to plug the gap to be seen to be doing something. I do not want to appear cynical but I am concerned that this will suck out capacity from the department and its agencies—capacity that should be devoted to developing the ELM scheme and assisting farmers with transition. It is regrettable that so far we have information only on the deduction from the BPS for the first year of transition. This amendment is important in that it is designed to smooth the process; to limit the dismantling of support from the BPS to a reduction in total of 25% until the ELM scheme is available is a sensible approach.
I restate what I said in Committee—that I
“genuinely believe that we can lead the world in delivering a wide range of crucial outcomes from the management of the countryside, provided that the policy is well designed and land managers”
have access to the advice recommended in an earlier debate and time to adapt. It would
“be a disaster if such an important change in policy was rushed through and we failed to engage appropriately”.—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2070.]
In response to the eloquent comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I say that the outcomes that he and we all desire will best be delivered through a well- managed transitional process. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the department will adopt the timetable proposed in this amendment.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register. I am speaking to two amendments in my name, both of which received support from across the House in Committee, and both of which relate to the period before the introduction of the environmental land management schemes.
The first is Amendment 38. I have never been a particular proponent of organic farming, but we should all be worried that the area of land farmed organically in the United Kingdom is down by over one-third in the last 10 years. In this same period, it is up by two-thirds or more in most other European countries. Our performance in this respect puts us in the same league as countries such as Bangladesh, Mali, Saudi Arabia and Syria, to mention just a few. Only 2.7% of our land is farmed organically. Surely a Government who are committed to improving the environment should be prepared to expend taxpayers’ money to encourage farmers to convert to organic systems.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Wrackleford Farms Ltd, a tenant farming enterprise. I shall speak to Amendment 42. The amendment, supported by the NFU, would ensure that farmers entitled to payments receive those payments within guaranteed timescales to help ensure certainty of cash flow. I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for his support.
I said in Committee that any farmer will tell you that cash flow is their number one consideration. As a farmer, it is one thing to know that financial support will be reduced, but quite a different thing to know when that financial support will be received. Regulations relating to the phasing out of BPS therefore need to include clarity on when a farmer will receive payments.
While it is true that the existing payment windows will come over under retained EU legislation, Clause 9 gives the Secretary of State the right to modify the BPS legislation, including potentially by removing the payment window in place at present. We cannot have a situation where no payment window is set.
Furthermore, it is arguably the case that the current payment window under the CAP rules provides little recourse to farmers if the RPA fails to meet its payment obligations. This leaves farmers waiting an unsatisfactory length of time and in great uncertainty as to when payments will be made. The impact of these delayed payments cannot be overestimated. There is the financial impact: greater borrowing costs, lost business opportunities and less attractive prices for farm produce or inputs. But it also has a substantial impact on the well-being of farmers, their families and their relationships with their farm suppliers, which—importantly—filter down through the wider rural economy.
The payment window for direct payments is seven months: 1 December to 30 June of the following calendar year. Current rules state that payments have to be made only to the value of 95.24% of funds by that time. We all know that farming revenue and costs are both volatile; nothing remains the same month to month or year to year. The overwhelming message from farmers is that they need certainty over the timing of payments.
There need to be payment windows—or dates that Defra has to meet—either fixed in schemes or set out in individual agreements. This will allow holders of agri-environmental schemes to plan with great certainty and to manage their cash flow. It is not acceptable to ask farmers to undertake work at their own cost and to comply with associated strict time limits but then provide them with no certainty on payments associated with those works.
The government department BEIS has a prompt-payment policy that requires payments within a certain number of days: 30. I would welcome a similarly prompt-payment policy approach for agricultural schemes with guaranteed timescales. I hope the Minister will provide reassurance on this matter.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, while I thoroughly support the aims of this Bill and the direction in which the Government are taking us, I have to say that I get more and more concerned as we delve into the detail of the Bill and the experts who are farmers—such as the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Carrington, my noble friend Lady Rock and others—expose the concerns that farmers face. It is for that reason that I support many of these amendments.
I tried to put my name to Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, but there was already a full house of supporters. However, I supported this amendment in Committee and would do so again now. The argument is very compelling that the pilot schemes have only just started and it is going to take a long time for them to report and for the department to go through them, gestate them and work out what the future is. There would be very little time for the farmers to implement the results. Therefore, putting the whole thing back by a year would be a sensible, pragmatic and welcome solution to one of the many problems that the farmers face.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some very good points when he moved Amendment 37, which also deserves support. On the points made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on Amendment 38, I reiterate that you do not have to be an organic farmer to protect the environment. You can farm in a perfectly normal way and bolster it. My main concern is Amendment 42, to which I have put my name and which has just been so well introduced by my noble friend Lady Rock.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, put it very succinctly when he spoke of sucking out the good of the department—I think those were his words. My concern is that as we move to ELMS, inevitably the department will move the good people into the new scheme and the less good people will remain with the old scheme. I hate to categorise the department in that way because all the members of Defra are good, but inevitably the really bright ones will be with the more attractive new scheme, and as the old scheme runs out, there will be an inevitable tendency for it not to receive the same attention that it gets now.
My noble friend Lady Rock was absolutely right to say that the one thing farmers need is certainty. As that support is reduced, so it is imperative that the payments are made promptly and on time. What recourse does a farmer have if he or she is made bankrupt because the Government, using taxpayers’ money, do not pay as they should? The area of financial support is hugely concerning and we must get it right. As the Bill stands, I am not convinced that we have got it right, which is why I support Amendments 36 and 42.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I call this group of amendments “Mind the Gap”, as I did in Committee—although I note that others have called it “The Valley of Death”.
The Minister has shown some flexibility over Clause 4, on the multiannual plans. He has listened well to the views of this House and adapted the Government’s position on Clause 17, on reports to Parliament on food security, but it seems strange that here, where there is every excuse in the world for delay, there has been no shift in the Government’s position—as yet. I am always hopeful.
It is a good two years since this Bill was first published, and since then there have been numerous delays in the implementation of what I have already called the “brave new world” of ELMS. The long, drawn-out shenanigans over Brexit froze everything in its tracks for a good 18 months, with this Bill being withdrawn from its parliamentary passage more than once during that time. Then of course there was this year’s lockdown, which paralysed the system and slowed everything up even more.
Above all, since my first meeting with the ELMS team at Defra early last year, there has been a gradual realisation that the introduction of ELMS is not going to be quite so simple as was first thought. We now know that it will take several years to get ELM schemes up and running across all the country, yet in the Government’s transitional timings there appears to be no allowance for the fact that the brave new world will not be a firm reality until 2024 at the earliest.
All the farmers that I have spoken to are very worried about their future. How are they going to survive, when no one really knows how things are going to work in future? Even the Government do not yet know, and yet, in spite of all the delays—mostly not the fault of Defra, as I said—we still seem to be stuck with the 2021 start of the transition period. This cannot be right. With the rug of the old world being pulled out from under them, and the new rug unlikely to arrive for some time, more farmers than necessary are going to fall down that gap.
So Defra has every reason to take this one back and think again. I do not care how it does it, but we need something to close the horrible gap that is looming. Amendment 37 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Curry, gives everyone the best chance of survival, while giving the Government the greatest room for manoeuvre. A 25% cut in the single farm payment will be enough of a shock to force farmers to throw themselves into the new training for the brave new world that we are assured will be available, but it will not be so much of a shock that they drown before they get there.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on why I cannot support Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Leaving the EU, and now dealing with the pandemic, has led to farmers feeling that they are in a more uncertain place than ever before. They are under pressure to feed the nation now more than ever. Therefore, support to them is vitally important, and introducing new schemes that reward farmers for producing that which they do best should not be delayed.
The present system will be simplified. It was in Committee that we heard that Defra is on track and organised for implementation for 2021, and, even more importantly, that the money is in the piggy bank and oven-ready to go to those who will benefit most from the payments. New and existing countryside stewardship agreements can still be applied for up to 2023. Delay appears unnecessary and possibly harmful, and instead of bringing certainty, allows for another year of possible uncertainty. The farmers where I live appear content with the 2021 start.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will resist Amendment 36, which would delay the start of the agricultural transition. Climate change and the biodiversity challenge are urgent, and we need to provide the financial support and the advice and guidance as soon as possible to equip farmers and land managers to tackle these challenges.
On Amendment 38, in his name, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, admitted that he was not a great fan of organic farming in the past. I have not exactly waved a flag for it either—but he, like me, is concerned about the decline in the area of land farmed organically in the UK compared with most other developed countries. Organic production accounts for only about 2.5% of agricultural land in the UK; the EU average is 7.5%, and Austria has a whacking great 24%. Yet the UK organic market is growing like a mushroom—far faster—and we are sucking in imports as a result. UK farmers are basically missing out on the growth in the organic market.
The public benefits of organic production are well attested in things like biodiversity, environmental performance and animal welfare, so growth in the organic acreage would be a good thing. What is needed is not only support for the organic transition to be enhanced into the future; it needs to be coupled with the provision of advice. It is a big step change for farmers and to do the transition well they need support. There used to be something called the Organic Conversion Information Service, but support for peer-to-peer learning would be a help.
We also need to see help with ongoing market development, as other countries have done. Using public procurement to increase the amount of organic food consumed in public settings would be an excellent thing. Copenhagen, for example, can now boast of over 80% of food consumed in public settings being organic. What support can the Minister give to organic growth?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I support Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. There is really no doubt that UK performance in the area of organic conversion has been astonishingly poor, and we have not seen a will or determination from the Government to make the progress that we might have hoped for in the past but can now hope for in the future. This amendment is a very modest step in that direction.
We can only look with envy at what is happening across the channel. The EU’s farm to fork strategy aims to see a 50% reduction in the use of pesticides by 2030 and a 50% reduction in the use of antimicrobials for farmed animals and aquaculture, as well as 25% of farmland being used for organic farming—roughly 10 times as much as we have now—by 2030. We are being horribly left behind. We look at countries around the EU and see that Austria is already at 24% and Italy at 15%.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, one of the things our failure to support this conversion means is that we are seeing more imported food. It is often food of higher value and it is being denied to our farmers—that is, farmers do not have access to that market because they are not growing organic food.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that other forms of farming can be environmentally friendly and sensitive. I would certainly say that of course you do not have to be organically certified to be environmentally sensitive, but this is the only system of registration, recognition and guidance that we have for agroecology. Organic systems by definition are agroecological. Anything else is just making a claim or suggesting that it is happening. Many of us probably feel we know it when we see it when we walk into a field, but that is not the same as something that immediately pushes in that direction.
I encourage the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to consider pushing this issue forward if we do not hear a satisfactory answer from the Minister. We need to take at least this modest step forward.
I also want briefly to express support for Amendment 42. We know that farmers, like many other small and medium-sized enterprises, can have huge problems with payments from the large companies they supply, such as multinational manufacturers and supermarkets, but they really should not be waiting for payment from the Government; they should be able to rely on that.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the proposed legislation will inevitably cause a great deal of extra work for not only Whitehall but many farmers on the front line. They have a lot of burden and a lot of challenges; their time is scarce.
In recent years, but particularly in the context of Covid-19, we have seen the consequences of ill planning, of the rushed implementation of new measures and of promises unfulfilled, including the consequent maximum disruption. Rationalisations after the event are no substitute for all the promises at the beginning. For those reasons, there must be time for civil servants and others, and particularly farmers themselves, to prepare properly. In that context, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has insight and sensitivity and realises the practicalities of what is involved.
When it comes to Amendment 41, in the name of my noble friend, the same arguments that I have just applied are highly relevant. What is important about this amendment is that it sets out in detail the things that must be in place and tested. That means not just uttering words off the back of an envelope or making a press statement from No. 10 Downing Street, but ensuring that these things are tested and proven. At stake is the success of the new arrangements. That will be very important, as we do not want disruption of agriculture and total chaos for farmers. From that standpoint, I believe that Parliament has an overriding duty to make sure that it is convinced about what is proposed and that we are able to vet it and give, or withhold, our approval. This is an important amendment and I am glad to be able to support it.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landowner, an arable farmer and a recipient of payments from the BPS and its predecessor schemes. I will be brief, as the arguments have been well rehearsed on most of the amendments, which I support.
I support the reasons given by my noble friend Lady McIntosh for seeking to delay the start of the seven-year transition rule, having heard her concerns about farmers not knowing about the first plan, mentioned in Amendment 35, until after the Bill has become law.
I also support Amendment 37, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his well-judged comments on the countryside stewardship and production grants. This amendment seems entirely sensible, in that it would stop any further reduction beyond 25% until the ELMS was available.
I also back Amendment 39, tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, the aim of which is to support small hill farmers. I wonder whether he might consider extending it to small lowland livestock farmers.
I am also sympathetic to Amendment 42, tabled by my noble friend Lady Rock. I would just like to say how good the RPA’s performance has been in recent years, and I am sure that that will be extended to the new regime.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, listening to this debate, it is quite clear that the one thing not available here is any degree of certainty or confidence regarding the future. My name appears on Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I do not know whether he saw it, as I added it at the last moment, but it is there. For me, this amendment offers the preferred option in providing a degree of certainty. A year’s trial is probably the option that I like best. However, I am not a farmer and am not in the system.
I hope that when the Minister responds he will try to address some of the many concerns that have been expressed. The central theme running through them is that people are worried about the change and the transition. When there is that degree of concern running through a system and people feel that they cannot buy into it because they are uncertain, I suggest that something has gone fundamentally wrong. Without a degree of buy-in, it will not work.
I have already said today that the Minister is facing a challenge, but I believe that he is facing a slightly bigger one here. People in and around this industry really need to know what is going on. We have also heard people say that they do not want delays because of other schemes coming in, but if the fundamental group—the farmers—are concerned, we need something that gives them a solid basis for confidence. At the moment, it just is not there.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, a transition period of seven years is quite a long period in which to phase out old policies under the CAP and bring in new policies under the Agriculture Bill. The transition is currently planned to begin in 2021, and it will be vital for Defra to put in place the necessary support to enable a stable and just transition for the farming community. There is currently much unease in this community about just how it will be affected in the future—a point made by many noble Lords.
Farming is not something that can be changed overnight. Time is needed to adjust farming plans and to secure the necessary capital investment to make some of the changes required. A key part will be support for business advice and skills training, time-limited support for capital investment to improve productivity sustainably, and wider improvements to connectivity in rural areas, such as rural broadband.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 36, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others was subject to much debate in Committee. There were many alternative proposals for the transition period between the present system and the full implementation of ELMS being separated from landholdings. This amendment would delay its start for one year. I thank her for her amendment, as she has foreshadowed many of my remarks.
I will speak to my Amendment 41 in this group. However, before I do so I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for their Amendment 37. Further amendments to it have been tabled, in Amendments 38 and 39 by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and Amendment 40 by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
I understand the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his anxieties concerning cuts in direct payments. I appreciate the emphasis given by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to the organic sector by doubling conversion payments, and to the hill-farming sector in the less favoured areas by freezing their reductions below £30,000 per hill farm.
Amendment 40 specifies that the regulations in this amended clause are subject to the affirmative procedure. However, we could not consider supporting these amendments without extensive further information being available to apprise us of their merits.
I would also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her amendment concerning the importance of cash flow and grants to the viability of farming businesses in today’s increasingly volatile business circumstances.
However, I propose an alternative approach to these amendments. Amendment 41 disapplies Clause 8. In Committee, amendments around a transition period and the multiannual plans were spread between groupings. This has been reflected today with the consideration of Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 33 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, being in a previous group. This has meant that the debate has been at cross-purposes with Amendment 41, as these other amendments concern the length of multiannual plans only. However, I recognise that multiannual plans were subject to extensive consultation in the 2018 Bill and set for seven years in conclusion then. This has possibly overshadowed the merits of my Amendment 41. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for adding his name to this amendment and for his recent remarks. I also thank my noble friend Lord Judd for his remarks in support.
How the changes to the ELM system and the nature of each seven-year period between plans and a transition period interact can indeed be very confusing. This is why I have tabled my Committee amendment with a few changes. Having reflected on the debate, as well as on evidence both formal and anecdotal from recent trials and pilot schemes, we have revised our approach in a fair, common-sense way that is also flexible to circumstances. This is because so much is unknown and the results of any trials have yet to be considered. This appears to be recognised to some extent by the Government’s own Amendment 35.
Amendment 41 removes from the Bill the previous start date of the transition period and gives the Government a degree of flexibility by having a start date set in regulations. There is no need for the Government to define a start date in primary legislation which they could later regret, and which would set the legislation off into a period of uncertainty should ELMS not be adequately ready for implementation—as their Amendment 35 partially recognises. The amendment states that the start date would be set once the Government have confirmed that any scheme to operate in the first year of the transition was fully operable.
Everyone can agree that it is important to get started on the transition phase, but so much preparatory work is yet to be done. There is anxiety already that countryside stewardship schemes starting in 2021 can be withdrawn, yet schemes started this year, in 2020, cannot be withdrawn without penalty. There are also very considerable concerns being highlighted and heightened in relation to Covid-19 and the potential onset of any phase 2 consequences this winter.
I highlight that Defra’s plans are themselves being reconsidered in relation to the transition period. I understand that the department is now planning a new interim or stepping-stone scheme to bridge the gap that may appear between the BPS and the ELM scheme. The sustainable farming incentive, or SFI, will bring in limited elements of ELM tier 1, while avoiding the funding gap that will arise from the Government’s ill-considered cutbacks before full schemes are available. This is some- thing we drew attention to as early as Second Reading.
I understand that claimants are expected by Defra to have lost half of their payments by 2024, when full pilot schemes are expected to be rolled out. Can the Minister be transparent on this new scheme and the amount of cutbacks being envisaged? It is important to the credibility of the Government’s plans, so forcibly expressed by the Minister.
Is this SFI scheme under serious consideration, and where will the funding come from if funding cuts to BPS are to finance ELMS, as repeatedly expressed? Will the Countryside Stewardship entrants be excluded once again, as already mentioned? Surely Amendment 41 is preferable to the uncertainty, complexity and confusion that will arise if these reports are confirmed. I understand that the announcement is held up with the Treasury’s comprehensive spending review. It would be more than unfortunate if the Minister could not be forthcoming tonight when the House is considering this Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will be the first to say, coming from a farming background and being a farmer myself, that I know that change can present these great concerns, and that is why the Government are clear that they want to work with farmers to ensure we get the schemes right. I think we are doing that properly, and I would like to explain why.
On Amendment 36, with which I will also address Amendments 37, 39, 40 and 41, the Government are committed to introducing new schemes that will reward farmers for producing goods that are valued by the public. Our planned reductions for 2021 are intended to send a clear signal of reform. It is important that farmers have certainty about when the agricultural transition will begin. There may be some in this House who do not agree with this. But many people, including those in the farming community, will feel that direct payments are poorly targeted and offer poor value for money. This is something that I have been very seized of, as have many of us farmers who seek to farm well and look after our land. This is a conclusion we all have to draw from the current regime. Therefore, applying appropriate progressive reductions to these payments will free up money that can be used to support farmers better—I repeat, “to support farmers better”—and deliver public goods.
We believe it is important that this process is not delayed. The Government are on track to introduce new schemes from 2021 while continuing to fund new and existing Countryside Stewardship agreements which farmers can apply for until 2023. Signing a Countryside Stewardship agreement gives a viable, long-term source of income for providing environmental benefits. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and other noble Lords that no one in a Countryside Stewardship agreement will be unfairly disadvantaged when they move to new arrangements under ELM. I should also say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that the Countryside Stewardship scheme includes a specific uplands wildlife offer.
We will also provide productivity grants to farmers for investments in equipment, technology and infrastructure, which will help their businesses to prosper while improving their productivity and enhancing the environment. These grants will be available from 2021. In addition, the national pilot of the future ELM scheme will also begin in 2021 and will be funded from the reductions in direct payments. The national pilot will be informed by the engagement with farmers, land managers and other stakeholders which is already well under way, including tests and trials.
I have to say again that I think we may sometimes be attending different webinars or whatever, because the impression I have been given is that many farmers have found it stimulating, particularly the younger ones, who have found talking about such matters, and the innovation of the new way forward, refreshing. As I have said before, they will be able to look the taxpayer in the eye and show that we are producing better for the public and better for farmers.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed, unless I have misunderstood, that my noble friend did not reply to the basic question of why we cannot have a 12-month notification of the first plan. I am no farmer myself—the closest I got was having two fields on which we claimed a tiny amount, which I have now left my brother to get on with.
I understand that, according to the Companion, I can take this opportunity to put another question to the Minister. The Government have spoken about easing access: how do they imagine easing access to the existing countryside stewardship scheme and new measures to assist improvements in productivity through the transition period? That would go some way to allaying the fears. I have to say that this is a key concern of both the Tenant Farmers Association and the NFU in the briefings I have had from them. Obviously, they represent the lion’s share of farmers.
The Government have talked about a new interim scheme, called the sustainable farming initiative, but surely this would just add to the complexity of an already busy policy space, particularly when existing schemes are available and just need to be improved. Might not such a sustainable farming initiative take Defra’s eye off the ball in properly developing what we all want to see—a good ELM scheme? Will my noble friend reply to that and to my original question as to why we are not having 12 months’ notice of the original business plan?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I think I have been very clear that we will be announcing the funding for the early years of the agricultural transition period, including direct payments, later in the autumn—I hope as soon as possible. I cannot say any more than that. As I said, that announcement will provide much of the reassurance that I suspect noble Lords and farmers are looking for about those early years. I have set out the maximum reductions for 2021. Those are all designed, as I said, to enable the Government, at the beginning of the transition and the reforms, to provide extra countryside stewardship agreements and productivity grants to farmers, which I think will be very desirable to start next year, and the national pilot for the future ELM schemes.
All this is designed to combine all that we want to do in enhancing food production and the environment. It is sensible to start these schemes next year, and the resources, through the reductions, will be there to work on this. It is a seven-year transition and the Government are very mindful of the manifesto pledges about the resources that will be available to this agricultural budget. We intend to support and work with farmers to make a better scheme, with a public return for it. I do not think there is much more I can say to my noble friend, other than that this Government have shown by our commitments to funding that we are four-square behind the farmer, but I say candidly that the current system is poor value for money.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, wishes to ask a short question for elucidation.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for asking the Minister a follow-up question. I listened carefully to his remarks but, by the time the communication channels had reached the Deputy Speaker, she had already intimated to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that she could have her consideration of the amendments. I had not heard any reference in the Minister’s remarks to the sustainable farming incentive, but the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, repeated that question to him. I understand now and am very grateful to him for the fullness of the reply that he can give tonight.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I have been very clear that the Government are bringing forward schemes of a countryside and environmental aspect, which will be funded through reductions in the direct payments. This is what we want: to start sustainable environmental and countryside stewardship schemes. This is all about what we want to do with farmers, as part of a major plank of this legislation. I am beginning to wonder whether it is me or whether noble Lords do not want to press the receive button for what I am seeking to say.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have to express disappointment that I have not received the assurances I sought, but I do not wish to test the opinion of the House. I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Carrington
“(1A) Where any business is in receipt of direct payments under the basic payment scheme, any financial assistance from the Secretary of State may not be reduced by more than 25% of the specified amount in subsection (1B) prior to a scheme providing financial assistance under section 1(1) being introduced.(1B) The specified amount is an amount to be determined by the Secretary of State by regulations, and may be based on—(a) the amount a business received under the basic payment scheme for a specified year, or(b) the average amount a business received under the basic payment scheme over specified years before 2021 determined by the Secretary of State.(1C) Regulations under subsection (1B) must provide for a right of appeal if a business believes that any financial assistance they receive will be reduced by more than 25% of the specified amount prior to a scheme providing financial assistance under section 1(1) being introduced.”Member’s explanatory statement
This will ensure that cuts in direct payments for 2021, together with the currently unknown cuts in the following years, do not inadvertently damage the viability of farming businesses before they can adapt their business plans to benefit from the productivity grant schemes due to uncertainties regarding trade agreements and the proposed agri-environment schemes.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. Frankly, none of the responses added any further light, other than the very last response, which was achieved by questions from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the sustainable farming initiative. That appears to be the only new news we have had all evening. I talked about the inadequacy of the old countryside stewardship schemes and productivity grants. So I must say that I am extremely disappointed.
Having said that, I cannot find great consensus around the House to combine on one of the three proposed amendments that broadly cover this issue. I certainly would not want to divide the House without seeing that sort of consensus so, with great reluctance, I move and withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 43. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak once only and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 16: Support for rural development
Amendment 43
“( ) providing new socioeconomic support programmes to help farming households”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Defra has the ability to assist farming households through a variety of non-production related schemes, so these households can continue to farm and manage their land.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 43 is a very harmless amendment, which merely gives Defra powers to introduce schemes to boost the rural economy. It does not force anyone, including Defra, to do anything, but merely enables them to ensure that as many as possible of the farming families, who are the backbone of rural England, will be able to survive on their land in years to come—particularly in the next five years, through the dramatic changes being introduced by the Bill. The fact that such powers also allow Defra to support the wider rural economy, and thus justify the rural affairs bit of its title, is incidental to the Bill, but it is hugely important to the majority of the people who live in our countryside. We should never forget that all the UK farmers and foresters together represent only about 4.5% of the rural population.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 44, which is the last of the day in my name. It is complementary to Amendment 43 from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and I adopt everything that he has just said on rural development. It permits provision for future contributions to existing socio-economic schemes, which provide essential capital investment and support for rural businesses and have been warmly adopted in the south-west. I declare my direct interest as the recipient of a RDPE grant, albeit that the project in question has been delayed—as has so much—by coronavirus.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, the need for this amendment arises from the ongoing uncertainty around the scope and timing of the UK’s Shared Prosperity Fund. This may or may not come into effect in 2022. If the last few years have shown us anything, it is that the best-laid plans often go awry. This amendment aims to provide some confidence to recipients of existing RDPE schemes that they will be supported going forwards, whatever lies ahead.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support both amendments. In the case of Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I believe that, with our existing knowledge of the precarious existence of farmers—particularly in upland areas—and their importance to the physical and social landscape of their localities, it is important to be able to support them through non-production-related schemes, as many of the existing and proposed schemes may not work for them. I hate to bang on about this, but it is particularly relevant in the light of the proposed cuts to BPS—even if it is only 5% in the first year, although some of us argue about how important 5% is. There is a lack of detail about what will follow in subsequent years, and also a lack of detail on ELMS.
I see no reason why Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, cannot be adopted, as it should cost the Government nothing since contributions to the RDP should already have been budgeted and, as I understand it, are expected to be rolled into the new proposed UK Shared Prosperity Fund. It is therefore just a timing issue, and correctly gives the necessary reassurances to the current RDPs.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am in favour of both these amendments. I was just reflecting on a visit I made to a small town in south Shropshire called Clun, which was then home to what was said to be the food bank in the smallest community anywhere in the UK. I am glad that both noble Lords introducing these amendments have focused not just on the individual situations, as pressing as they often are, but on the need for communities to be assured that money is coming in. On that basis, we want a Britain where there is no need for any food banks; we should not rest until the last food bank closes due to lack of demand. In the meantime, we have to find other ways to make sure that money is going into communities that sometimes are, and have for some time been, really struggling.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington. He is godfather to my daughter and one of my oldest friends. When I say that, I mean that I have known him forever, not that he is old in age, obviously.
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from: the needs of farmers and their households, along with rural communities, must be supported through the challenges they face. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to drive enterprise and jobs by re-energising our rural areas and those who live and work in them, and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund will do just that. It will cut out bureaucracy and create a fund that invests in UK priorities and is easier for local areas to access. To that end, I know that departments are working closely together to address the challenges faced by our rural communities. I hope that the Minister can elaborate on how that will pan out, with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund being very much part of dealing with those challenges.
Importantly, the problem with the support programme suggested by my noble friend is, I believe, that it would bring unintended consequences, taking money away from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and therefore muddying the waters—which, I am sure, is not what was intended by this amendment.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
As the noble Baroness who has just spoken said, we all have huge admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington—but, alas, I cannot support his amendment either. The whole point of the Bill is to move farming subsidies away from simply supporting farmers to exist as farmers, and the amendment seems to try to reverse that. I believe we should be giving support and advice to farmers to innovate and transform, and to provide the public goods that the public want and be paid for it.
I fully recognise how upland farmers in particular have had their whole livelihoods dependent on subsidy. The whole point of these agricultural support changes is to show how such marginal farmers, whose pure farming enterprise is likely to be insufficiently profitable, can earn a living by diversifying into producing a range of public goods.
Similarly, Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has a very worthwhile objective, the continuity of socioeconomic programmes currently funded under the EU rural development programme. These have been very important for many of our most underprivileged and remote rural areas in the UK, but I do not think the continuity of socioeconomic support should be gained by kidnapping the limited funding that will exist for ELMS and under the previous CAP budget.
Instead, we really have to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to move forward more rapidly on clarifying the role, operation and size of the UK shared prosperity fund so that there is no delay or gap. My worry is that when the shared prosperity fund fully emerges, it may be neither shared with the rural areas, in that it is showing signs of being very urban focused, nor indeed terrifically prosperous, not having much money behind it. I hope the Minister can allay my fears.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate those taking part in this group of amendments on their stamina. Given the late hour, I will be brief. These two amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, deal with assisting farming families through wider rural economy means. I have listened carefully to the interesting and informative debate we have had, and can agree with the majority of the comments made.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said during his contribution on the first group of amendments, this is the Agriculture Bill and should be primarily about land cultivation and management. This is a view shared by many, but not all, noble Lords who have spoken during the first day of Report.
I believe that the shared prosperity fund should support those in very rural areas and provide for them through RDPs, but wish that this should be confined to the transition period. I look forward to the comments on this group by both the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, and the Minister.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that we adjourn the debate on Amendment 43.