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.