Lords Chamber

Thursday 15th October 2026

(began 16 hours, 16 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:09
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Mills of Greenwich and Lord Sanders of Hallingdal
-

of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the Faith. To all, Lord, spiritual and temporal, and all other. Our subjects, whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we. Of our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act, 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved Barbara Mills, one of our counsel learned in the law to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Mills of Greenwich, of Greenwich in Greater London, and for us our heirs and successors do appoint, give, and to grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Mills of Greenwich, to have and to hold unto her for her life willing. And by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and public Assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or as they do at present, use and enjoy in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent. Witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 28th day of August. In the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign-manual. I, Barbara Baroness Mills of Greenwich. Do you swear by Almighty Greenwich. Do you swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles II, Charles II, by Charles II, by the Charles II, by the grace Charles II, by the grace of Charles II, by the grace of God

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles II, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the faith to all Lords, Defender of the faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other. Our subjects, whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we. Of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act, 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved Sir Patrick Nicholas Yardley, Monrad Sanders Knight, commander of our Most Honourable Order of the bath, commander of our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, companion of our Distinguished Service Order general in our Army to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Andrews of Hallingdal of Hallingdal in the Kingdom of Norway, and of East Knoyle in our county of Wiltshire, and for us our heirs and successors do appoint, give, and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title, and honour of Baroness Andrews of Hallingdal to have and to hold unto him for his life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and public Assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities, and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or as they do at present, use and enjoy in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent.

 Witness ourself at Westminster, the fourth day of September, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's warrant under the King's sign-manual. I, Patrick Lord Sanders of Hallingdal, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty. King Charles, his heirs and successors according to heirs and successors according to Lord Lord Vaizey Lord Vaizey of Didcot my Lords, I rise to ask the question.

Standing in the Order Paper in my name.
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:04
12:04
12:05
Lord Wood of Anfield Portrait Lord Wood of Anfield, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Well, thank. >> I thank the noble Lord for those questions, and he's right on Fairford to say that we are now highly confident. It's highly likely that this was an attack coordinated in Iran, was certainly directed by the IRGC. And he's also right that Iran's responsible not just for direct attacks on the UK in the region, but also on on citizens, on dissidents and citizens here in the UK. With regard to his question about the Foreign Secretary, my friend the Foreign Secretary meeting the Iranian Foreign Secretary, Araqchi, this is very much the standard practice of previous UK foreign secretaries for a number of years, including the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he was Foreign Secretary in the previous conservative government.

The purpose of the meeting was to convey extremely strong messages. And let me quote Ed Miliband, the Foreign Secretary. He communicated the message that the UK will not tolerate intimidation, threats or hostile activity on UK soil and he communicated our unwavering resolve to combat threats from Iranian linked groups on UK soil, including attacks on the British Jewish community. And I think that's the right role for the Foreign Secretary to play in this, in this context. In terms of further steps, the noble Lord is right.

We have taken further actions to proscribe, to impose more sanctions. We impose new sanctions. Earlier this week on two IRGC officers, which takes the total of a number of sanctions on individuals and entities from Iran up to 240. Under this government alone, 550 in total. We are. We have a new financial sanctions package introduced last month, which will make a serious dent in Iran's ability to conduct trade in materials for its nuclear program. And we will continue to keep more possible interventions sanctions under review, as is our responsibility.
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the triple lock was introduced by a conservative introduced by a conservative Chancellor to tackle the very serious problem of pensioner poverty. Its introduction reflected a fundamental principle that those who work hard, pay their taxes and contribute to our country throughout their working lives should be able to enjoy security and dignity in retirement. And indeed, many have planned on that basis. The Labour government are now abandoned. That commitment, although the existing triple lock will remain in place until April 2030, the government's plan would therefore, after remove the guarantee that pensioners received the full benefit of annual earnings growth whenever earnings are the highest of the three existing measures.

This is a material reduction in the protection currently afforded to pensioners. The government says that the savings generated by this change will contribute towards the cost of its proposed National Care Service. The numbers have already started to unravel. My Lords, can the noble Baroness, the Minister, say how much the government intends to raise from their plan to abandon the triple lock and how much they expect a national social care service to cost? Linking this decision to the National Care Service policy also raises a serious question about timing.

The government have cited savings of 15,000,000,000 in 20 39 to 2040 and 50,000,000,000 in 20 49 to 2050, but a national care service offering free personal care will require substantial expenditure much sooner than that. Those long term figures do not explain how government intends to meet the upfront transitional cost of introducing nationalised, free, personal personal care in the next parliament, particularly if removing charges leads, as one would expect, to increase demand.

What will happen to the huge amount of informal and family care that is currently provided? For example, I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, can explain in her response. My Lords, the wider reason for this decision is not difficult to discern. The government's appalling mismanagement of the economy, combined with its ever growing spending commitments, has placed our public finances under mounting and increasingly unsustainable pressure. These pressures are in turn compounding one another.

The rising cost of borrowing means that an ever greater proportion of public expenditure is being consumed simply by servicing our national debt, leaving less money available for the public services and priorities on which people depend. The government could choose to prioritise economic growth. It could abandon its unemployment bill and job killing national insurance hike. Instead, this government has chosen to pursue the same old tax and spend agenda. According to the Department for Work and Pensions own figures total welfare expenditure in the United Kingdom was forecast to reach 333.7 billion in the 2526 financial year, compared with approximately 315 billion in the preceding year.

By 2030 31, expenditure is projected to approach 409 billion. That represents an increase of almost £75 billion. When will Ministers have the courage to take the difficult decisions and tackle the unsustainable growth in welfare spending? The times has been reporting some shocking stories this week, which were referred to in oral questions from those on sickness benefits who want to come off of them, but have been told by the DWP they can't. And the more that the more.

More than 120,000 teenagers with autism, ADHD and depression who are claiming disability benefits at a cost to the taxpayer more than a billion a year. The welfare system is haemorrhaging money to people who do not want it, to people who do not need it, and to people who should be in work but aren't. Rather than confronting these fundamental problems and addressing the drivers of rising welfare expenditure, the government has chosen to revisit the protections afforded to those who've worked hard, paid into the system and contributed to our country throughout their lives.

My Lords, that is the choice which I find so difficult to understand. This is fundamentally a political choice, and following the deeply damaging decision to restrict winter fuel payments and the subsequent U-turn, it's difficult to see how this latest announcement can do anything other than further erode the confidence of pensioners in the government commitments to them. I want to conclude by putting several questions to the noble Baroness, the Minister. First, why has the government made a decision of this scale before the Pensions Commission has published its final recommendations on retirement adequacy? Was the Commission consulted before the decision was made, and will it now be required to revise its projections? Second, why has the Commission been given a clear role in designing a National care service? While the Pensions Commission appears not to have been given an equivalent role in assessing the effect of this decision on retirement adequacy, and will the Minister explain how the government will finance the upfront cost of a nationalised free personal care in the next Parliament, when the saving cited today will only build gradually over decades? Finally, the government describes this policy as an adjustment to the triple lock, while the Prime Minister says that the state pension will continue to track average earnings over time.

But if the new arrangement will produce substantial savings, it must necessarily leave future pensioners worse off than they would have been under the existing triple lock. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that this is correct? My Lords, pensioners deserve security in retirement. Many of them will feel profoundly disappointed and quite justifiably, decision.
12:21
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> Excellent. >> My Lords, first of all, I'd. >> Like to. >> Thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for setting out the Minister, for setting out the government's plans for the future of state pension. I've read it 2 or 3 times. I think I understand it. The triple lock is not simply an accounting method. It's a commitment to fairness between generations, to dignity in retirement, and ensuring that people who have worked hard and contributed throughout their lives can look forward to an old age without fear of poverty.

On these benches, we absolutely support and are proud to have been instrumental in introducing the triple lock and the impact it has had on reducing pensioner poverty and reducing inequality within pension pots. When it was first introduced, it was clear that the triple lock should not be around forever. Once it achieved its aim of undoing the erosion of the state pension that we've seen over 30 years, we should seriously, and I hope we will be discussing the alternatives.

 However, it is both uncertain whether the triple lock has ever achieved its aim, especially with 1.9 million UK pensioners living in relative poverty, and also is unclear as to what impact of Prime Minister Burnham's proposals would actually have. They sound good, but what will they actually mean? The government's estimate of savings from their new state pension system have been challenged by many groups, including the IFS, who said firstly, we should not expect this reform to save enough that it could fund universal social care in the next Parliament, and secondly, that the saving is very uncertain and therefore tax rises or other spending cuts will be needed to pay for social care.

I hope the Minister, when she replies, could deal with those comments made by the IFS and others. So, my Lords, we are open to discussing discussing how to make the state pension better and how we can improve the triple lock both in supporting pensioners and those saving for pensions and for affordability. However, changing such a significant part of the economic support we provide, the British people cannot be done on a whim and we therefore ask the government to publish far more evidence ahead of any changes and the comments made from the conservative frontbench as as to being a lot of unanswered questions, needs to be addressed before we make any fundamental changes which affect real people.
12:24
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Yes, there. Lords for their contributions. I'll respond to some of the more specific points in a moment, but I think it's important to set out the context behind what we're doing, because we are fulfilling our promise to keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. Because of that, the full new state pension is projected to be £2,000 higher by the end of it than it was at the start. That is forecast to be a record high, not only in cash terms, but also as a percentage of average earnings at around 30%.

And I hope that's the point the noble Lord Lord Farmer was raising just now about the job of the triple lock. I'll let the parties opposite argue about who is responsible for bringing it in. That's probably not for me to intrude on private grief, but I may listen in later, but we have been very pleased to support it for the duration of this Parliament. But from April 2030 we are proposing an adjusted triple lock. It will retain its current three elements.

That is because we believe in a universal state pension that protects pensioners against price rises, that rises materially every year, and which enables pensioners to share in the wealth of the nation as wages go up. So we are not abandoning the triple lock. To be clear, under the adjusted triple lock, not only will the state pension continue to rise each year by the higher of inflation, or 2.5%, but it will go up by more than that when needed to protect its value relative to earnings.

That ensures the gains made under the lifespan of the current triple lock are protected, but we will adjust the earnings element to avoid the ratchet effect that's baked into the current design. When the state pension increases faster than earnings, that becomes permanent. There's no mechanism through which wages can ever catch back up. That means that, left as it is, the state pension would continue to rise faster than earnings indefinitely. Our adjustment means a rise in the state pension above the level of earnings in one or more years will mean future increases will track inflation, or 2.5%, until wages catch up.

So the state pension will increase at a more sustainable rate, because it will rise in line with earnings over time instead of outpacing them. And as the noble Lady Baroness Stedman-Scott, we have been upfront about the fact that this means the state pension will rise more slowly over time than it would otherwise have done under the current triple lock, but for pensioners and their families, peace of mind comes not only from the state pension, but from knowing they'll be able to get the care that they need.

And this adjustment of the triple lock will help us as we build up a national Care service, with estimated savings of £15 billion a year by the end of the next decade, and £50 billion by 2050. This is a new settlement for older people, a better deal for them, for their families and indeed for the NHS, which too often bears the brunt of a social care system whose failures have been ignored for far too long. It's a state pension which still rises every year, but the gains of almost 20 years of the current triple lock will be locked in alongside free personal care through a national care service.

Let me turn to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords. Now, since I realise that noble Baroness Stedman-Scott has to have the has to land some punches, let me just push back gently. I understand that she. I've listened carefully to her opposition to our proposals. I would just remind her gently that many in her own party, of course, agree with the case for change. Let me just write a couple. The shadow Foreign Secretary has called the current system quotes simply not affordable and described it as a Ponzi system.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said we should unpick the triple lock. The noble Lord, Lord Lord Gove, told LBC, on which he was appearing with Stella Creasy, that if Andy Burnham changed the triple lock, he would quote, declare I'll be campaigning at the next general election exclusively for Stella Creasy. So, my Lords, I look forward to going to Walthamstow and watching the enjoyment of that particular bit of entertainment, the noble Lord Lord Hague said. The triple lock is, quote, ultimately unsustainable.

Somehow the main political parties have to give themselves and each other the space to amend it. I could go on for some time, but I won't. So my Lords, I think I will then want to make. The noble Lords will have to have. Noble Lady will have to reflect in her time as to how her party would fund their opposition to our plans, because would it be as previously they would fund it through ever rising state pension age people having to work into their 70s? How would they fund the future of social care? Or is it just another another of the many unfunded commitments that we're seeing, alongside everything from inheritance tax, stamp duties, National insurance, private schools, all funded from fantasy welfare savings, none of which they achieved when they were in office.

 OK, now I've got that off my chest. Let me look at some of the specifics. The Liberal lady asked about why we made the change before. The Pensions Commission has finished their final report, but also the government needed to act now to sort out one of the most difficult problems the country has faced for a long time the issue of social care, the introduction of a new national care service that provides older people with free personal care, and the adjustment of the triple lock are, as I have said, part of a new settlement for the older people, which puts the state pension on a sustainable footing.

But the Pensions Commission is there to do its job. It's been specifically asked to make recommendations on further support for lower income pensions, and we look forward to its report next year. The noble Lady asked specifically about about social care as to what the National Care Service will do. Well, I would encourage I'm not sure if it's on at the moment, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Care, Alison McGovern, is making a statement in the other place. It may indeed be right now.

If not, it will be very, very soon. So I commend the contents of that to noble Lords who want to know more about that. But let me just give some headlines on this. The costs of the National Care Service will be determined after the review from the noble Baroness Lloyd KC has reported, and that will make its recommendations next summer. And those recommendations will include how and when we build up the National Care Service as a. Savings from the triple lock will increase over time.

But of course, as we've indicated, the changes we've announced today will actually result in savings of £50 billion a year by 2050. I think on the other point on on that, I should also just say that we're not wasting simply to do nothing on social care. Now, we've also because staff are going to be the backbone of the National Care Service, we're already improving pay and conditions for K workers, care workers and introducing the first ever national collective pension scheme for care workers.

And later this year, we'll publish a social care workplace social care workforce plan. But we are building the foundations today for that service, which will be built up over time. And the key difference it will make is that it means that people will not only be able to get the support that they need, but crucially, they will get free personal care on top of the nursing care they're getting from the NHS at the moment. And that takes such a pressure of so many noble Lords.

 In terms of the detail of this, of course, we've committed to keeping the triple lock until until the end of this Parliament. So the new system will start from 2030. We will legislate, obviously, for changes to social care, and we will have detailed impact assessments at that point. And so before we get to that point, we will have answers to all of the questions. And indeed, the noble Lord answers the questions about the shape of that.

We deliberately set out to allow a careful and thorough examination of the options. We had really hoped this would be a cross-party conversation, and I know some parties have been willing to engage in conversations with the noble Lady Baroness Casey, and to look together at how we can try to build up a care service. This is one of those issues. It's easy for different parties to take lumps out of each other and never solve it, but we have to do it together and somehow the country needs us to get that right.

So we're happy to have those conversations once the report comes out. And indeed, in the run up to it. And I commend those parties who have been willing to engage in trying to do the right thing for the state of our country. But, my Lords, ultimately we need to make a difference to what's happening in this country. I would just I would only want to say one final thing, I suppose, is that if if noble Lords would would really believe that nothing should ever change, then I think it is incumbent upon them to come out and say, in future, how would they pay for it? We are determined to make the state pension sustainable.

We are determined to make sure we address the. The evils of lack of social care, the crisis that is creating for so many of our families, for individual carers and for our NHS. Can we all try to address the full range of those issues? And if noble Lords don't like what we are doing, I look forward to hearing their solutions to do it. In the meantime, I commend ours to them.
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Very grateful to my noble friend >> Very grateful to my noble friend that fine question, but I have I, I take I absolutely share her admiration for the Prime Minister admiration for the Prime Minister in this because these are difficult decisions and politicians, the country needs and deserves leadership and it needs and deserves leaders who are willing to look at the hard problems and make some hard choices. And in this case, what he has clearly said is as a government, we are committed to pensioners.

We are committed to making sure the state pension continues to rise and we are committed to making sure it maintains keeps pace with earnings in order that pension pensioners can not only see a material benefit each year, but also to to share in the wealth of the nation as, as, as alongside those people of working age. In terms of a question about about gender, the government of course, has published, for example, poverty projections, which came out on the 29th of September, and that that included the within that, of course, as the indications of a gender dimension of poverty, because there are there have been changes actually start again, sorry, we are projecting that poverty will fall from 14% in 2024, 5 to 8% by 2050, which will be a record low.

But also within that, there will be a significant shift as a range of reasons, including the impact of the new state pension and the number of people building up a full thing. That makes a significant difference to closing the gap between men and women in that. The final point on that is, of course, the Pensions Commission's job is to report on how we can deal with questions around low income pensioners, and there will be a gender dimension to that too.
12:39
12:39
12:40
Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> Can I echo the comments made by several noble. Lords commending the government and the Prime Minister government and the Prime Minister for the courage to suggest opening up this debate? It is timely and it's long overdue, not least because the primary purpose of the triple lock, which was to reverse the disproportionate decline in pensions and wages, has now been largely fulfilled. And I think it's therefore timely that this should be opened up, and I hope it will be a cross-party, a genuine cross-party discussion.

The one thing, I think, to cut to the chase, there will be many people who are worried about the stories that are being spread about this discussion. Will she confirm one? There will be no cuts to pensions over the next few years. Two, pensions will increase over the next few years and three by the year 2030. Today's pension will have increased by an average of £2,000 for every pensioners. I think it's absolutely essential we get that through.

The final comment is it isn't just a matter of whether we can provide money from this for social care. Personally, I can't make the figures out, but we will see the outcome of the discussion. But it's it's more than that. It's a matter of fairness between the generations. It's a matter of being fair to the people who work and produce the surplus that's diverted towards our pensions, not just towards the pensioners themselves. So I wonder if the Minister can just clarify the three questions I asked.

I know she said it before, but it's absolutely essential to kill the scare stories.
12:42
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to my noble friend because there have indeed been scare stories, and some of been scare stories, and some of them have been downright dishonest, and I'm disappointed to have seen them. Not from anyone in this House, them. Not from anyone in this House, obviously, I hasten to add, and but I'm very happy to say yes to all of those things. There will be no cut to pensions, in fact, quite the reverse pensions. We will guarantee the triple lock for the rest of this Parliament and the agenda.

The adjusted triple lock pensions will continue to rise every single year by the higher of inflation, or 2.5%, and if necessary, by even more than that, if necessary, to keep pace with earnings. So I'm really clear about that. He's absolutely right about the fact that the state pension will be around £2,000 higher at the end of this Parliament than at the beginning. And the crucial point he made is about where it locks into average earnings. So by that, by the time we get to April 2030, the full new state pension is set to be around 30% of average earnings.

And that is a record high. And the adjusted triple lock will then look at maintaining a link with earnings from that point onwards. So it is really important that anyone who's out there. Talking to pensioners or pensioners talking, please do not believe scare stories. The state pension is not being cut, the triple lock is staying in place and the guy has put it well. There are three things. It's triple there. There are three things. They are inflation, 2.5% and maintaining the links with earnings.

The final point I'd make is that the link with earnings is really important because it has to be sustainable, and it's also got to be something that's fair across the country. Now, I've never believed in an intergenerational war. I think that young people and old people both want pensions, pensions to be appropriate. Young people want to know they'll have a pension when they come to retire, and they want the older members of their own families and their friends to be decently looked after, but they also want them to be cared for.

And our job is to give a new settlement to older people, which will give them a pension that will carry on going up, that they can live on, but also the guarantee of free personal care. So they need not be afraid of what happens when they get old and weak.
12:44
12:45
12:46
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
To the foundation of. virtually every estimate of costs was wildly out of line. The cost of the new proposed service for domiciliary care is going to be enormous. People. I've spoken to people at Addenbrooke's Hospital. They don't even know what it's going to cover, so I hope the Casey Report takes us some way forward. But can I also say that I regret the way in which we're drifting towards a very high tax economy? And I would ask particularly that the Treasury looks at ways of releasing some of the built up wealth of my generation, because at the moment, all the incentives are to sit on the money and not give it to the children.

I think if we could have a look at ways in which we could free up some of the capital that is already in the system, that is locked in by IHT rules and the like. And we could also look at exactly what is meant by a care service. What will it do? Will it come to your home and help you to dress? NHS does on occasions, yes. Will it feed you? What will it actually do? We need to go a long way further forward, but I do ask the government to keep in mind that the taxpayer and the.

Here I really do sound like Mrs. Thatcher. The taxpayer is not a bottomless pit. You know there is a limit. And when you get to positions like I regularly come across, where people who've worked extraordinarily hard at, say, an airline pilot and they can't afford to send their children to a private school, even though they're earning 120,000 a year. We've really got to look at the way in which we reward the people who work hard in this society, many of whom have come from quite humble backgrounds, but they do need to be looked after much better.
12:48
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
First of all, I want to thank >> First of all, I want to thank the Lord for the work he's done with airline pilots over the years in his trade union capacity, and I commend him for that. And and it's good to hear you still talking to people and hearing the stories he's just told. I'll do him a deal, which is that I'm very happy to pass on his representations on the tax front to the Treasury, if he would like to make representations to his own, the leader of his own party about the impact of the inheritance changes that they're planning at the moment, and what that might do to his concerns about people being locking in wealth and not leaving it on the point, just to be the one thing I can be clear about is that the National Care Service will provide free personal care for older people based on need, rather than ability to pay.

So that will cover help with things like eating or bathing and using the toilet. But that will come on top of the nursing care that the NHS already funds. They will continue to be means tested council contributions for the bed and board elements of that. So I think that's something that that's important to be clear about. Further detail will need to follow on from the Casey Review, as I've said, to the point of tedium, for which I apologise. But just the final point to say on this, I think there are one of the things it's easy to forget is that there are costs to a National Care service, but there are huge costs to not having a national care service.

The costs that are being driven inside the NHS, the cost to NHS provision and the cost to people who are waiting for NHS provision because of the consequences of a failure of our social care system on the NHS are really significant. What we have so be willing to do is take hard decisions like adjust the triple lock to make sure that we have the money to build the foundations of that. The
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:53
None Portrait Debate: Strengthening democratic accountability, participation and electoral reform in local government
-

and the benefits of electoral reform at a local level. But before
12:53
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I do move that, I just want to I do move that, I just want to thank colleagues from across the House for the privilege of working with them over the last 16 years in with them over the last 16 years in this chamber, on bills, on select this chamber, on bills, on select committees and in the general work of this House. But having reached the age of 80, I have decided that the age of 80, I have decided that the time has come to have a retirement. So may I thank all the staff of the House for their advice, for their efficiency, and for their constant good humour. I want to thank my own whip's office for their loyalty, for their help and for the command of their role. And may I thank my immediate colleagues, colleagues in the Liberal Democrat group, my friends, who have been such a support over the years and for their friendship. I know will continue in the years ahead. And can I thank my wife and all my family for their support in my time here? It is so appreciated. So can I thank all the speakers who are going to speak in this debate, and I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord McCabe, who brings a wealth of experience from his many years in local government. My Lords, in this debate, I want to praise the government for its commitment to devolving power out of Westminster and Whitehall into England, a country of 56 million people, and also for its commitment to electoral reform, at least at a parliamentary level. But there are, however, huge questions as to what all this means in practice for citizen participation and for democratic accountability. The new government has announced that it's going to strengthen accountability to balance the greater funding freedom for mayors, and I thank the library for its briefing on what the new government has has announced. It is that chief executives of mayoral strategic authorities will become a local accounting officers. There will be a stronger role for the local audit office. There will be streamlining of the outcomes framework for mayoral strategic authorities, and there will be reforms to support the financial sustainability of local authorities, including retention of business rates and reforms to the highest cost services, social care, homelessness and special educational needs and disabilities. And my Lords, I welcome all of all of those things. So, my Lords, I see this debate as an opportunity for us all to contribute at this important time to government thinking and to thinking at all levels of local government about how we should proceed now that the mayoral structure and strategic authorities are being put in place. Now, for myself, I want to talk about three issues. First, too often devolution is seen as just about the location of power. But my Lords, that's only part of it actually. It's about the effective use of power and about responsibilities, and whether the resources and the capacity are there to deliver those responsibilities. Secondly, I think we, together with government, have to define far better than we have what it is that we expect mayors to do in each of their areas. And my view is that mayors have responsibilities which are much too broad. They need to devolve as much as they can to local authorities. And those local authorities, in turn, need to devolve as much as they can to neighbourhoods and to town and parish councils. Too often people think in terms of devolution being about to themselves from somebody else. But true devolution comes from giving up power and transferring that power to others. Indeed, at the LGA Local Government Association annual conference in July, the then Secretary of State said that, and I quote, residents can feel just as shut out by the town hall as by Whitehall. I want to agree with what he said. It really is very important that if the government is going to reach every postcode, then citizens should have more involvement in matters affecting their everyday life. And my Lords, the third point I want to talk about is that we live in a representative democracy, and that means that votes cast. Should I ideally have equal weight with each other? And that system has worked pretty well when we had a two party system. But in local government in England now there are effectively six major groupings. And I think the time has come for a more proportional voting system to reflect citizens views adequately. However, it is also my view that we must ensure there is a connection between councillors and the people they represent, particularly in in rural areas. My Lords, the new government wants to rewire the state with all parts of England to have a strategic authority, and I commend its commitment to transfer powers over such matters as skills, employment support, transport, housing, innovation and I strongly welcome the likely announcement in the budget. Much trailed that a share of income tax, perhaps £21.5 billion, will be devolved as part of a new roadmap towards greater fiscal devolution. However, we should just note this will not be new money, but it will focus minds on what it is spent on and that funding will be more predictable for local government. But as the Local Government Association has emphasised very recently, a timetable is now necessary. Clarifying how devolution will be delivered because currently there are not plans for the whole of England to be covered by a strategic authority proposals. So we need to see the whole of England part of the devolution process, so that anything further the Minister can say about that today would be helpful. Now, we should note that most parts of England receive more in public spending than they raise in taxation. Only London and the South East generate more from taxation than they spend. There is a huge fiscal reliance in England on London and the South east, and this is why growth in areas outside London matter so much, and why mayors and strategic authorities must help achieve that as their primary aim. But resources are a problem. Just been talking about the triple lock and social care. It is the case now that there is a local authority in which social care can take 92% of their core funding. It used to be two thirds, but since 2015 there have been cuts in public services. As a social care has been loaded more and more and more onto council tax. There is a very serious financial problem in local government, which is the result of the failure over so many years to find solutions to growing demands for social care. And this does need urgent resolution for otherwise, we will continue to see heavy cuts in other services. My Lords, this is all about partnership working between mayors, town councils. And there has to be a willingness to deliver that partnership. Place based policy making matters. The British Chamber of Commerce has said that business should be at the heart of devolution, and it needs to be. You cannot solve the problem of youth unemployment and too many young people not in education, employment or training, unless a business is at the heart of that. And if that doesn't happen, government will not reach every postcode as it's promised to do. My Lords, I mentioned earlier the capacity of mayors. Mayors have huge range of responsibilities from police, fire, strategic planning, inward investment, culture, skills, transport. And now I see proposals that mayors may have a role in holding water companies to account. Well, I just ask the basic question how on earth does one person do all of these things? I used to serve on the Northeast Regional Development Agency, one North East. I was there for seven years. They had a lot of stuff. There was a government office. They had a lot of staff to bring Whitehall together in one place. And unfortunately, it is the case that in many parts of England, there are just not enough people to do some of the jobs that the government thinks rightly need to be done. One solution the government has, and we saw it in the passing of the English Devolution Act at Easter, is that there will be commissioners appointed. The commissioners are not elected. They are appointed by the mayors. There'll be. There'll be scrutiny of the appointments. But actually I have come to the conclusion that we need a more shared staffing between existing local authorities and the strategic authorities. Strategic strategic authorities need to have the resources to do the job the government expects of them. And may I add to this my conclusion that we need direct elections to mayoral strategic authorities for if the mayor is directly elected, I think that the members of the strategic authority need to be directly elected through a form of proportional representation. Now, Lord, that takes me briefly to electoral reform. But the National Commission is welcome. It's wise to press ahead. It doesn't yet include local government, and it should. I don't want to get involved myself with all the different systems you could have, but I do think that it is wrong that one party under first past the post can win control of a council with a very substantial minority of votes, and it's vital that voting systems keep up with changes in levels of voter support for different parties. So I hope the government will be willing to look at that. My Lords, I'm drawing towards a conclusion. I want to comment on the overnight visitor levy. I have many times in your Lordships House talked about the importance of a tourist tax. It's called an overnight visitor levy. I am strongly in favour of it, but some of the mood music that I'm hearing is not terribly helpful, because there's a real worry that the tourist areas, which are shorter, to say, of social housing because there are so many second homes, aren't being guaranteed that they're going to have the resources to build the social housing that is required in their areas. And they are frightened that the mayors are going to have big projects which will not be in their areas. And I think there needs to be clarity about this, because I see this as a good example of the problem we have with devolution, but it's also the opportunity. So who decides what will be raised by the levy? Who decides where it will be spent? And I think that there's, you know, so many examples in Manchester, a voluntary tourist tax which has been hugely successful, my Lords, towards a conclusion, I think that mayors have to be set targets, and I think they have to be assessed against those targets. One is, I think mayors should be made responsible for reductions in the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. It isn't just the government that does these things. It's not just the private sector. Let us make the mayors accountable for some of these things. And about local procurement. I think mayors should be measured on their ability to promote local procurement in every postcode. That is the objective. But I hope government will see the importance of doing these things. I growth mayors must be assessed by their success in growth, and I hope that mayors will be assessed against their ability to run authority and authority in which budgets are properly constructed and in which costs are properly controlled, and that that mayoral strategic authority doesn't then end up blaming the government of the day for everything that goes wrong. This is, my Lords, about sharing a great deal more. I would like to think that all MPs in the mayor or strategic authority area would have the right of being part of a select committee structure to talk with the mayor on the basis of an annual report produced by that mayor. I think we have to think much more in terms of doing things like this. But, my Lords, I'm really keen on what the government is doing. I want to congratulate the Minister and all her colleagues for the ambition that they have set. I think there is a danger that mayors and strategic authorities will end up being strong on strategy, but short on delivery. And yet we have to do far, far better than that. For that, my Lords, is what the general public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expects us to do. Yes. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I. The question is that this motion is agreed to my Lords. Lord Campbell-Savours is taking part Campbell-Savours is taking part remotely. I invite Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Campbell-Savours to speak. My. My Lords, as someone who watches most proceedings in the watches most proceedings in the House, albeit remotely, can I personally pay tribute to the Lord
13:08
Lord Campbell-Savours Portrait Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
-
-
Shipley as he leaves the house for his great service and I mean great his great service and I mean great service, particularly in the handling of legislation. You'll be surprised to know how often I've surprised to know how often I've agreed with his comments during his intervention over the years, and I intervention over the years, and I wish him well, as will the whole House. I wish to concentrate my House. I wish to concentrate my remarks on democratic accountability and the benefits of electoral reform.

With the comments of the Prime Minister at the party conference. This debate is well welcome. In 1989, during a number of rather heated discussions over dinner in the Commons amongst four former MP colleagues, Brian Sedgemore and Roland boys, all now sadly deceased and myself, I argued the case for electoral reform and in the absence of any agreement, I offered to go away and design a new electoral system which offered an element of greater proportionality.

 Over the following 12 months, I designed that new system and named it the supplementary vote. The original research papers are now archived in my son's office in the House of Commons. The system was subsequently adopted by the Nolan Commission in 1997 and introduced in both mayoral and Police Commissioner elections shortly after, to give the system academic credibility, credibility. I had been able to secure support for the work from an eminent former LSE academic, professor Patrick Dunleavy, who substantial reputation gave the work academic credibility.

He monitored the work as my researcher James Mahon and and Commons Library researchers carried the work forward. The supplementary vote, not to be confused with the contingency vote, survived two decades until Prime Minister Johnson declared decided to abolish it, believing it, believing mistakenly it damaged the conservative vote. A big mistake as conservative electoral number crunchers have increasingly realised. Added to that has been the widely held concerns of PR enthusiasts over alternative forms of PR, which destroy the constituency link.

Recently, the Prime Minister announced his wish to reopen the discussion on electoral reform and as I understand it, he has proposed that a working group be established to consider various options for reform. For obvious reasons, I would like to be considered as a member of that committee. But my disability working remotely rules me out. However, I would like I would like to think that the supplementary vote would be on that agenda, but would now, in the light of experience, perhaps go further with possible future amendments in a bid to secure an even greater proportionality? There is an argument that SV supplementary vote should be subject to a limited element of top up of of a list SV.

 Plus, I've been giving such an an arrangement considerable thought over recent weeks. A list member could be elected as an additional member on a regional basis to a group of perhaps ten directly elected MPs. That would give us a Commons of approximately 590 directly elected and 60 from the list. The list could be either regional or national. There are. There are, however, dangers primarily that of list members using their positions to displace individual directly elected members.

This would arise where list members in multi-member constituencies concentrate their efforts on targeting an individual constituency, their motive being to replace an existing directly elected member in a subsequent election. The answer is to introduce a restriction on movement from list membership to directly elected membership of the House. I'd like to see at least a five year block on movement that would kill the incentive to play the system and undermine directly elected constituency members.

 However, there's a problem with that. As a solution, it may raise questions of rights. I recognise that such a system is not challenging the right to stand for Parliament. However, it is applying a restriction on that right. It is to that issue that I'm having to give more thought, and to which I'm looking for further advice. I have to confess that over the years I too have flirted with wider systems of proportional representation, in particular multi-member constituencies.

But they all have fallen on the problem of breaking the constituency link and of duplication of unhealthy competition in the representation of constituents. I sense from colleagues across Europe and now our latest conversations in Scotland, who have experienced multi-member constituencies, that they are not always conducive to healthy inter-party inter member relationships. I suppose in truth, I'm fearful of any electoral system that breaks the vital link between the identifiable MP and the constituency direct individual MP.

Accountability is critical and any list system must be very small and built in such a way as to avoid conflict. I think that's all I need to say at this stage. This is no doubt the beginning of a long discussion, and I'm sure there'll be times in the future when I will no doubt wish to intervene as the. As the debate further develops, albeit remotely. Thank you.
13:15
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Beith Lord Shipley on securing this debate on crucial issues, and I wish him a long and issues, and I wish him a long and happy retirement and like the rest of the House, am grateful for all of the House, am grateful for all that he has done here. And to Lord Campbell-Savours. I have to say, I am in complete disagreement that we need to change the method of election to the House of Commons. I do think he is right that the single member constituency and the constituency link is fundamental.

 And I remember when I went to Brussels all too often as a negotiating Minister and met Ministers there, chosen or elected by other means. One of the big gaps between us was I was constantly saying this new law couldn't make any sense for my constituents. I'm meeting tomorrow in my surgery, and their response was, well, why do you bother? Because they didn't have to. Because they didn't have that single constituency link. But I also think it's the easiest and fairest to say that the person with the most votes wins, because as soon as you become the member of Parliament, you have to represent everybody to the best of your ability, and you need support from your constituents.

And so it makes sense to give the job to the person who already commands the most votes of the group who came forward in election. It's obviously much easier if you win more than half the votes, as I often had the good fortune to do when I was a member of Parliament. But you need to build support and represent people, so I think it is the least bad way of electing the House of Commons to have the single member constituency.

Now, the Liberal Democrats would be wise to remember that when they were in the coalition government, one of the things they insisted on and conservatives agreed to was on their choice of system to have a referendum on whether we should change the voting system and the public, I think, from memory, voted 68% against in favour of keeping the current system more than two thirds. I was with the public on that. I am still with the public.

I think they were right. And I've always found the democracy bit in the Lib Dem name or description a bit odd, because whenever we have a public vote, they always seem to disagree with it and then they want to overturn it, not listening to the views of the people. So they they don't like the verdict that was given on their preferred system of changing voting system. And they don't like the outturn of the Brexit vote, where millions came out to say that we needed to restore our sovereignty so that we can have a debate like this to discuss how the powers of self-government should be administered and distributed, which the Liberal Democrats wish to be taken away from us to a much higher level of government by agreement between parties around a council table, with only the Commission allowed to write the laws and make most of the suggestions.

So I do think that the Lib Dems need to think very carefully about how they see democracy compared with the way the rest of us see democracy, because we think democracy is about the voice of the people, and that there is only one thing above the elected House of Commons, and that is the voice of the people in a referendum, and the House of Commons would be wise to accept the verdict of a referendum, because, of course, otherwise, then the people in the House of Commons can be changed at the subsequent general election.

Now, as a a former local government Minister and as a young man, a county councillor, who who chaired a committee and was therefore responsible for the conduct of various departments in the County Council. I have a great affection for local government and over my years as a Member of Parliament, I work very closely with leading councillors in my area and quite often the issues that most concerned my constituents were wholly or partially decided by the local council.

And what that taught me was that it is very disappointing that turnouts in local government elections are so low, and it is very disappointing that we don't get a good public debate through local media and even social media about the powers and the duties and the monies that the council does disburse, because I think if people knew more about what could be done by local government, there would be more interest in voting. But I'm afraid a lot of Labour, Liberal Democrat and councils are under no control.

 In particular do put people off because instead of being proud of their powers and telling people how they're going to spend their money, all we ever hear from these councils is that they don't have enough money and they don't have any power, because everything is really decided by the national government. And so people naturally conclude that there's no point in wasting their time with these councillors and councils, because the councils themselves say, well, don't blame me, we can't do anything.

It's all really sorted out by the national government. Now, that, of course, isn't true, but one of the further reasons why people are confused or put off is that I think we have far too many layers of government, too many layers of council, and I do think it's a huge mistake to introduce regional strategic government in a in a small, very unified country like England, and to have that in conflict with what should be truly local government through the local councils.

Now, my area did move over from county and district to unitary. I broadly welcome that because it removes some of the confusion and it meant that for local matters, we can say it is your problem. A unitary authority, instead of being told that there's some real going on between the county and the district, and that nobody was really to blame. But that still leaves us with quite a lot of government, and I'm very pleased we've knocked out the European level, because that was a mighty imposition of taxes and laws that we often didn't want.

And I'm glad we've gone to unitary, but you still got parish government, and now this government is trying to intrude regional government. So it's muddle, confusion and extra cost. Now, let's deal with this question about the money, because we always hear most councils don't have enough money. And yet every year the council tax goes up, usually by more than inflation. So that's what the public see. And every year government grants go up. Yes. Under conservative governments as well as Labour governments, grants usually go up and councils still say they're poor.

And then when you look at how they are spending, you can see why councils that went on a binge buying up commercial property because the debt was cheap or buy local area. Lib Dem council wasting money on road projects and destroying our road system that people don't want. So the answer rests with local government showing its powers and spending its money more wisely.
13:22
Lord Bishop of Newcastle Portrait The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Shipley for securing this debate and for the considerable experience he has brought to your Lordships House from his time in Lordships House from his time in local government and indeed, as a former leader of Newcastle City former leader of Newcastle City Council. I pay tribute to him. He leaves this house with. From these benches our warmest thanks and every good wish for the future. It's an honour to follow the noble Lord Lord Redwood, and I also congratulate the noble Lord Lord McCabe and look forward to his maiden speech as Bishop of Newcastle.

I serve communities across the city and Northumberland. The questions are consistent. Who listens to us? Who decides? And what can we do when those decisions fail us? These are questions about dignity, belonging and trust. My firm conviction is that every person has worth and something to contribute to our common life. Democratic institutions should give practical expression to that conviction. My Lords, I want to highlight three priorities accountable devolution, meaningful participation, and fair representation.

Firstly, accountable devolution. The North East Mayoral Authority offers an opportunity to bring decisions about transport, housing and skills closer to the communities they serve. Newcastle and Northumberland have connected economies, but distinct circumstances. Transport policy must serve both. Someone crossing Newcastle to work, and someone in rural Northumberland whose opportunities depend on whether a bus runs at all. The recent bus franchising consultation makes this concrete. Decisions about routes, timetables and fares determine whether people can reach work, college, healthcare and one another.

Greater control brings greater responsibility. The mayor's mandate must be accompanied by effective council scrutiny, accessible spending information and clear responsibility for delivery. There's also a legitimate concern about cost, as additional layers of representation and governance develop. Residents are entitled to ask whether these arrangements represent value for money, avoid duplication and genuinely improve decision making. Democratic accountability must be clear not lost between institutions, and I recognise the public service of councillors across parties and of independence.

Effective scrutiny requires time, resources and access to information. Secondly, meaningful participation. An invitation to participate does not by itself make participation possible. Someone working shifts, caring for children or living without reliable internet access may struggle to contribute. In rural Northumberland, an evening meeting is inaccessible if there is no return bus. Public bodies need to go where people already gather. Schools, libraries, community centres, churches and other faith communities. Newcastle's Pride in Place sessions at West End.

Women and girls in Elswick and War House in Walker offer examples of this approach. Town and parish councils connect regional decisions with local knowledge. Young people, too, must help shape decisions that will determine their futures. The noble Lord Lord Shipley referred to these points in his speech and I wholeheartedly agree. Such participation also strengthens community resilience, increasingly important amid global instability. When emergencies arise, trusted local relationships matter. Knowing who needs help, who can offer it, and how reliable information reaches people.

Local resilience forums have an important coordinating role. But preparedness must draw on the knowledge and networks of communities themselves, particularly in isolated rural areas. Participation is therefore not simply about consultation, it is about building relationships, sharing responsibility and enabling communities to shape their own futures. And thirdly, fair representation. Electoral reform should strengthen the relationship between people and those who govern them. There is a serious case for considering proportional representation in English local government, so that councils better reflect the range of views within their communities.

But changing electoral systems alone will not restore trust. At a time when polarisation is increasingly evident, building a culture of consensus and cooperation requires time and intentionality. And I remember this dynamic. My Lords, from my time living and working in New Zealand, which operates an MMR system, we need institutions capable of holding differences constructively and representatives willing to work across them. Further, devolution and electoral reform must be judged against the same principles transparency, accountability, accessibility and fairness.

My Lords, trust grows when people know their voice matters, can see the difference participation makes, and are confident that decisions can be challenged, and those entrusted with power remain answerable. That trust strengthens our capacity to face uncertainty together. Ultimately, local democracy is not simply about where power sits, but how it is exercised, who participates and whether it serves the common good.
13:28
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I wish. >> To agree strongly with the Bishop on the importance of community participation as community participation as fundamental to democracy. I shall fundamental to democracy. I shall miss my noble friend Lord Shipley, but I think he is entirely right to retire. I'm strongly in favour of retirement as a principle from this House, and I shall follow him next year. And I think it's correct that the House is close to agreement on a retirement age, on electoral reform.

I would simply say to the noble Lord Lord Redwood, I he probably missed the magnificent Liberal Democrat victory in a by election in Cornwall some months ago, in which the Liberal Democrats won 18.9% of the vote in an election in which six candidates got more than 10%. I think when we're in that sort of situation, one of the mayors elected last year got a quarter of the vote. The question of, of of the the acceptability of that sort of democratic representation is one that we all have to take on board.

 And that's why it is entirely correct. Now to open a national conversation where we go from here, and not, as Dominic Cummings in the 2011 referendum did say, argue that more elections is a dreadful cost, additional cost that you should avoid if you possibly could. I want to talk about democracy. Democracy, in a minimalist sense, is elections every five years and referendums every now and again. And the rest of the time, those who have had the money and campaigned the most effectively get on and do things.

The Liberal Democrat version of democracy is of active citizenship, of an educated electorate, trying with for government at all levels, to explain to them what the difficult choices are and engaging the citizens as far as possible in public life. Lord Redwood believes that we shouldn't have too many layers of government. We have fewer layers of government in England than in almost any other established democratic country. I've lived in the United States, I've worked in Germany and France.

If you want an active democracy, you have to engage the public with it, and that starts at the local level. In the last 40 years, we've seen local democracy in Britain shrunk in a number of different ways. Mrs. Thatcher deeply mistrusted local government, weakened it where she could. Central funding has become more and more important. Local taxation has shrunk to an unreformed council tax. And I have to say, living as I have for the last 40 years, both in Wandsworth and in Bradford, we had a council tax system which I have usually paid more council tax on our house and Saltaire than I have in our house in Wandsworth, which in any sort of thing is, is a crazy situation.

So counter-attacks is part of what needs to be reformed, but we've also moved away from the local. The idea that the most efficient way to have local government is to have at least half a million people in every council area is crazy. I see my noble friend. I do regard you as a friend. Baroness Eaton shake her head. Baroness Eaton is a neighbour of mine in Yorkshire, and I have long admired not only her position as a former leader of the Council, but as someone who represents a very large rural ward.

Previously a rural district council with five different substantial villages within it, which is a really difficult task for the councillor concerned and for those who live in the villages to get to know or even to remember the name of their councillor, we need to re-establish the idea of local government, and that clearly involves establishing parish and town councils wherever we have them. And what I see across Yorkshire is that wealthy areas, middle class areas, areas with lots of graduates have parish councils which are active.

Former council house areas, areas where there are a lot of unemployed people tend not to have parish councils. That means that they are disengaged from politics. And as council services shrink, many people hardly ever have any contact with government as such. That's a situation in which conspiracy theories grow. Mistrust of government festers, and that's very bad for democracy. So part of what I hope this government will do is, as it pushes through the previous Conservative government's insistence on single tier local government at this over size is to insist or to encourage the extension of town and parish councils all the way across the country, and to allow them to have some local powers and some local funding so that local people can feel that they are engaged with politics in one form or other.

When I was first involved in politics, the Conservative Party had several million members and that the the the structure, as I remember from the small towns in which I lived as a teenager, was that the local councillors were. That the fundamental structure of the local Conservative Party. And there was a period in which my own party had 300,000 members, neither the Conservative Party nor my own party has 100,000 members. Now, I am told that's a setback for democracy.

We have a very low level of public trust and public participation. The Strategic Defence Review last year talked about the need to re-engage the public in national security and homeland defence. We've heard a certain amount over the last year or two about the need to build, rebuild resilience within our society, which means local volunteers looking after each other, rebuilding local community and local engagement and rebuilding. Also local leadership. We've lost in the way in which local government has shrunk the the sense that politics, security community starts at the local level.

Devolution to mayors on their own is not enough. It works well in metropolitan areas. It works a great deal less well outside metropolitan areas. I was one of the many in Yorkshire who resisted the Conservative government's insistence that we should have a mayor for North Yorkshire and a mayor for East Yorkshire, each now with no more than two subsidiary authorities, to to be strategic over. We need, therefore, to rebuild the sense of local democracy.
13:36
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I too will miss Lord Shipley from the chamber and want Shipley from the chamber and want to thank him for all his commitment and long service to local and long service to local government. It has been a pleasure working with you, Lord Shipley. I declare an interest as a Vice President of the Local Government Association amid local government reorganisation and the ever changing decisions and guidance issued by government Ministers, local authorities across England continue to operate in a state of flux, uncertainty and instability. My noble friend Lord Redwood will be pleased to hear a positive note, however, that it should be recognised that this year's local elections saw one of the highest turnouts in recent years, with the Electoral Commission confirming a turnout of 42.40 5.2% for county council elections and 41.2% for metropolitan London borough. Unitary and district elections. In the context of local government reorganisation and on the matter of democratic accountability, the government needs to provide urgent clarity to a more than 20 local authorities currently operating under a committee based model. As my noble friend, the Minister will no doubt be aware, the English Devolution Act requires those local authorities to move to a leader and executive model by June 2027. However, where structural change orders exist in those areas, this deadline can be extended by the Secretary of State to June 2028. Given the uncertainty caused by the government's decision to review LGR. Can my noble friend the Minister, provide some clarity in her contribution to the approximately 20 local authorities in this situation? The thrust of my contribution this afternoon, however, will be about ensuring that the process for agreeing structural change orders, particularly interim awarding arrangements, is fair. Legal and democratic. To begin with, the government should provide legal advice given by officials to the former Secretary of State, Steve Reed MP, as part of his decision making process when deciding on proposed new local authority boundaries before the summer recess. It is important that the sector fully understands the facts presented to the former Secretary of State before he made his final decision on the subject of interim interim arrangements. We need a far more democratic and fair process to ensure that new awarding boundaries remain within tolerance, comply with the principles set out by the Local Government Boundary Commission, and are not used by political parties to create questionable boundaries that favour certain groups. As noble friends may be aware, interim warding arrangements for shadow authorities, which are confirmed through the Structural Change Order, must be submitted in advance by the constituent local authorities before being approved by the government. To be clear, the Local Government Boundary Commission will therefore have no formal role in creating interim warding arrangements. This is a far cry from the process, followed by the previous conservative government, where new unitary authorities such as Buckinghamshire had interim warding arrangements based on existing existing county council boundaries. These boundaries would have been created through a fair process overseen by the Local Government Boundary Commission. What we have seen over recent months are highly questionable submissions, which some may argue are incompatible with awarding principles set out by the Local Government Boundary Commission. Allow me to provide one example. Lincoln City Council submitted its option D proposals, which meant that areas of the city with higher levels of deprivation, according to the office for National Statistics, data, would receive more representation than residents living in more rural parts of the proposed unitary authority, specifically, under the proposed 65 member model. A resident of Minster Ward would be represented by one councillor for every 1849 electors. By contrast, a resident of Witham, Saint Hugh's would have the one councillor representing 4354 electors. My point, and what I hope will be understood as the central thrust of my contribution to this debate, is that I fear local government reorganisation is providing an excuse for some not to follow the established norms and processes that we have followed for decades. When bringing local authority wards together. In my view, this undermines the established democratic principles that have been set in stone for decades, and I hope the House will give serious consideration to this issue as local government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reorganisation advances. Yeah. My Lords. It's a privilege to address this House. For the first time, I have House. For the first time, I have been touched by the welcome that I've received from noble Lords and all sides of the House, and are particularly grateful to my noble particularly grateful to my noble friends who introduced me, lady Pinnock of Cleckheaton, a fellow citizen of Yorkshire, whose decades of local government experience we will hear later in this debate, and Lady Leaman of Chipping Sodbury, a friend and comrade through at least friend and comrade through at least four general elections and one of Britain's sharpest political minds.

 I'm grateful to to Black Rod team, the doorkeepers, the clerks and the attendants. However, I must warn them that over 24 years as a city councillor in Hull, I never quite learned to tell one side of the ground floor of Hull's Guildhall from the other, so I ask for their patience. If they occasionally find
13:43
Lord McCobb Portrait Lord McCobb (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
me lost in the even more labyrinthine layout of this place, my thanks to the Liberal Democrat whips office, who support advice. whips office, who support advice. I've relied on both since coming here and also in my working life for to declare an interest, I remain the Liberal Democrats campaigns and elections director and to declare another. I recently became a trustee of the Kingston became a trustee of the Kingston upon Hull William Wilberforce Lecture Trust, a small charity that seeks to keep alive the legacy of seeks to keep alive the legacy of one of my home city's most famous representatives.

I particularly welcome today's debate, brought by my noble friend Lord Shipley, in part because, like me, he's a citizen of a proud northern port city, but mostly because it is the power of local government and of my home city and its East Yorkshire surroundings that I wish to speak today. And I ask for forgiveness in advance from noble Lords. If these are themes to which I return with predictable frequency, my family finds itself in East Yorkshire because nearly 60 years ago my parents came to Hull University as students.

When my father became the head of the German department. As I was growing up, he served on both Beverley Borough and East Riding councils, and I feel today a particular sense of sadness that he missed my arrival here by just six months, even though, as a good Liberal, I think he would probably have strongly disapproved of the lack of an election involved in getting me here. I was born in Beverley and grew up nearby in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and it was near Beverley that my well, my wife Elspeth and I got married.

But for the last 26 years I've lived in Hull, where our son was born, and like. So, like many others who live in this part of the world, my family's lives run backwards and forwards across the border between Hull and the East Riding the Yorkshire coast from from Filey to Spurn Point and Holderness Plains share a really distinctive beauty. Here is unfenced existence, facing the sun untalkative out of reach, as Philip Larkin described it. Hull and East Yorkshire people have a warmth and wit all of their own, with a quirky and occasionally rebellious sense of independence.

It's a corner of Britain with a rich and fascinating history. Hull fair, Europe's largest travelling funfair, is one of the oldest events of its kind, dating back to 1279 via a royal charter granted by King Edward the First. As an aside, the 30 the 732nd Hull Fair is taking place this very week, so I'll be delighted to offer any noble Lords with a few hours to spare this coming weekend. The guided tour. Speaking of Hull's history, in 1642, Hull's governor, Sir John Hotham, turned away King Charles the First from the city's gates.

An act of defiance many historians count among the sparks of the Civil War. William Wilberforce, whom I alluded earlier, born in 1759 in Hull and elected as member of Parliament in 1780, spent 20 years pursuing the abolition of the slave trade at the peak of Britain's maritime power, hull was its third port. Its shipping line was for a time the largest privately owned in the world, and its distant water trawler fleet remained amongst the biggest on earth until the 1970s.

Hull's also had its fair share of challenges, some of the heaviest bombing of any British city in the Second World War, with the majority of homes damaged and thousands destroyed. The fishing industry that sustained it for a century collapsed in the 1970s with a fraction of the national attention and funding that followed similar economic challenges in other parts of the country. For a city so geographically isolated, connectivity is everything, and here there is much work to be done.

 Our motorway, the M62, simply ends 15 or so miles short of Hull. Our airport is in Lincolnshire, has no rail link and no bus on a Sunday. Unlike other comparable cities of its size, Hull has no tram and no metro system. Noble Lords may be surprised to learn that it is faster to travel by train from London to Paris, twice the distance than from Hull to Liverpool, via so many great cities of the North.

On this evidence, Hull City Region is a strong contender for one of the worst connected places of its size in Britain. The devolution deal, confirmed in September 2024, committed to integrating Hull into the Northern Powerhouse rail network. I'm determined to see that delivered because Hull has shown what it can do when given the chance. In 2017, Hull was the UK City of Culture. Over 5 million visits to Hull and East Yorkshire helped generate a new sense of pride and belonging in the area.

As a local councillor, I wholeheartedly backed first first, the sadly unsuccessful first bid for City of Culture status and the subsequent second successful one. This has helped put this part of Britain on the map for the right reasons, and a year ago, National Geographic ranked Hull as one of the top 20 global destinations to visit in its prestigious best of the world list. This transformation shows the difference that strong local government leadership, with proper backing from national government, can make.

For 24 years I represented the Beverley Road and Newland Avenue areas of Hull on Hull City Council, helping constituents on a daily basis. I bring to this House a strong conviction that good local government can enrich people's lives in ways that Westminster sometimes finds it too easy to overlook. So I look forward to making the case for Hull and East Yorkshire in this House, as well as the positive case for the impact of that strong and effective local government, with good national government backing to which I referred and many, many more worthwhile causes.

Besides, I hope to learn along the way from the wide range of wisdom and experience on offer from noble Lords on all sides of this chamber, who continue to champion their chosen causes with passion and with commitment.
13:49
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lord. >> It is a delight and privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Mccobb's eloquent maiden speech, Mccobb's eloquent maiden speech, the first of what I'm sure will be many thoughtful contributions to our house, and certainly the first our house, and certainly the first of many times we will hear him talking up the wonders of Hull. Now, for those of you who know us both, it will perhaps not surprise you that his first email to me many years ago after starting work for our party, was to seek some very detailed electoral statistics that he thought I might have. But that interest in using evidence and rigorously scrutinising assumptions will, I am sure, be of great benefit to this House in our scrutiny work, and although for many. The noble Lord is perhaps best known for his formidable campaigning experience,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He also, as we've heard, brings considerable historical knowledge and local government experience to our deliberations. Years of dealing with on the front line, the practical realities and consequences of decisions we so often make here in Parliament, and often make here in Parliament, and the breadth of that expertise accumulated in, at times very challenging and time consuming challenging and time consuming roles, has. Of course, as for so many, only been possible due to the support and forbearance of the noble Lords wife and son. And it was therefore such a pleasure to see them wearing two of the broadest smiles I have ever seen. On the day of the noble Lords introduction. Now, of course, one of the reasons why our decisions here are so relevant to local government is because so much power has been and continues to be centralised in Westminster, and that undermines local democratic accountability and indeed puts people off local participation. On the recent devolution bill that we considered, for example, I particularly highlighted the continued central control over cattle grids. A small but telling example of just how deep set that centralising micro-management culture can be at times. Now, of course, cattle grid regulation Aficionado's we had our hopes raised when the government's White Paper promised devolution of these powers. But alas, by the time we got to legislation, the Centralisers had won out, deciding that not even strategic authority mayors can be trusted with full bovine autonomy. I should also perhaps say that that bill was my first experience of working with the noble Lord Lord Shipley, and I greatly value the support, advice and mentoring that he provided myself. Just one of the many attributes that will be so missed later this year. To give a different example, the explanatory text which councils in England Wales put out to explain the business rate system is a text that is written by councils, or perhaps a shared text produced for convenience by the LGA or similar body for different councils to use, or even a helpful draft provided by civil servant in Whitehall. No, it specifically controlled and legislated for in detail by that culture once again of saying we can't really trust councils to do this themselves. And for all the talk on other topics, that legislative time is such a precious resource that this thing that the government really wants to do sadly can't quite be done yet. In this case, that centralising micro-management culture runs so deep. That time has been found in Parliament every other year, on average, for the last quarter of a century, to legislate time and time again as to how councils are allowed to describe that business rates system. Of course, we don't set such requirements for other taxes and other people or other organisations, and it's a reflection of how, unfortunately, at times Whitehall seems to treat local government as a sort of untrustworthy, all wayward young child. And then there is the problem of legislative time, so often not being found for other local government matters that really do need it. And let me give the House just two examples. Examples where good ideas have been proposed, consultations carried out, clear and strong consensus found for action. But then action hasn't followed. Example number one was highlighted by the Ethics and Integrity Commission in its annual letter to the Prime Minister earlier this year. In 2024, there was a consultation and then in 2025, proposals for a stronger and more accountable standard system for local government, something that the Committee on Standards in Public Life had first called for in 2019, a full seven years ago. But seven years on, we have no legislation. We have no slot promised in a King's speech for future legislation. We have no substantive progress, no substantive progress in seven years to secure the benefits that a proper, accountable standard system would bring for improving councillor and staff wellbeing. No substantive progress in seven years to secure the benefits of improving public trust in local government. No substantive progress in seven years on securing the benefits of more effective local government. Instead, it has just stalled for seven years and a similar tale with remote or proxy participation at council meetings. Both this House and the House of Commons, in our own different ways, allow some degree of remote or proxy participation, as indeed we have seen in this debate today. It's a sensible way to deal with, for example, illness that does not impair the brain but precludes mobility. It's something that was, of course, successfully done during Covid and since then is successfully done in different ways by local government in the UK, outside England, but in England that centralising, controlling micromanagement hand is at work again, banning councils from daring to decide for themselves how they wish to arrange their affairs. I do wonder how we would feel in this House if someone in Whitehall was to say, no, you cannot decide in this House how we will allow remote participation. We have to have someone in Whitehall tell us instead. And to be fair, to be fair to the government, there was an extensive consultation in 2025 on changing the rules, and it found overwhelming support for change, not a free for all, abolishing in-person meetings, but for the sort of sensible changes that we have now long since adopted in this House or in the House of Commons. But was legislative time found to implement the results of that consultation? No it wasn't. Was the devolution Bill used as an opportunity, therefore, to implement the results of that consultation once again? No it wasn't, and that's the problem. Whitehall is just too busy, too busy to find the time to relax that centralising grip. But that is exactly why it needs to. That is exactly why it needs to step back. That's exactly why it needs to trust local government more. So I very much hope when we hear from the noble Lady, the Minister, later we will hear not just the usual very sincere, I know, words about the importance of supporting local government, but maybe even a hint of some progress on allowing councils to decide for themselves how councillors participate in their business. A hint of some news, perhaps on progress, on putting in place a proper standards regime for local government. And just maybe, as Christmas is not that far away by now, just maybe a hint of some progress on finally devolving power

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over cattle grids. My Lords. Can I first of all declare my interest as a councillor declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire? And first of all, I'd like to thank the noble Lord Shipley for his contribution Lord Shipley for his contribution both to this House and to local government, which has a previous chair of the LGA. I can really chair of the LGA. I can really appreciate his introduction, illustrated both his knowledge and passion for local government, but I passion for local government, but I do have a curious question for him. How did a Sunderland supporter get to be elected as leader of Newcastle? I also congratulate the noble Lord McColl on his maiden speech and for his excellent position on Hull. I think I may have to take that difficult train journey and go and visit it. My Lords, for most people it is their local council that has the most immediate and visible impact on their daily lives. The pavements they walk on, the roads they drive on, their leisure centres, their waste collection, their parks and the planning decisions that shape their local communities. Council also deliver other vital services, particularly adult and children's social care. That is why local democracy is so important. Your local council delivering for you and I as a local council have seen what a difference a good local councillor can make at the personal level. In the grand scheme of things, getting a dropped kerb put in may seem minor, but for someone in a wheelchair, giving them access to their local village centre can be life changing or following up the complaints of a resident to ensure her frail husband has the care he needs. And at a bigger scale, influencing planning decisions so that schemes such as community centre meet local needs rather than that prescribed by official guidance. Yet over decades we have seen successive governments. Whitehall has treated councils as a delivery arm of central government rather than a truly independent, democratically elected body with the powers and resources to serve their communities and to be held accountable at the ballot box, not by Whitehall diktat. Councils are expected to deliver statutory services as been previously mentioned, including social care. While central government controls much of the funding for many councils, these services account for around 80% of their costs. Yet many of the levers needed to improve outcomes and efficiency are outside their control. Being in the NHS and in schools, leaving councils with the financial and delivery pressures, but without the powers to address them, the consequences fall on the non-statutory services, roads, youth services, parks and other facilities that communities value and see every day. That's not local democracy and unfortunately we see this situation worsening under this government and imposed top down reorganisation of government, local government. The decision making process, which is often appeared opaque while the stop start uncertainty has distracted councils from their core responsibilities. The government can't say it wasn't warned. I and many other colleagues in this House kept raising the issue. Just yesterday, a colleague pointed out that until the latest U-turn, there was a need for around 300 and 3500 candidates for next May's local elections. Now, with unitary councils being postponed, parties will need to find thousands of more candidates in less than six months. That is no way to treat a vital service for many residents, or the many councillors who were told that they were no longer needed. But then suddenly they are. That's right. Second, restricting councils ability to bring planning applications before committees removes an important opportunity for local people to make their voices heard and seek changes that can make a real difference. That's democracy in practice. Yet it is being weakened. And third, the move towards mayors. Now, I make no comment on the principle mayors. But three things matter. Boundaries must reflect local identity and service delivery networks. Devolved taxes must not become a back door means of funding unfunded statutory obligations and genuine devolution must transfer powers and money from central government, not merely shuffle the responsibilities within the local government arena. My Lords, we can only truly have devolution if the choices, power and funding are decided at the local level, be it mayoral or council, not dictated centrally with a begging bowl, culture of grants and government removing growth incentives. Finally, voting systems matter. First past the post is simple understandable. Voters choose their preferred candidate and the candidate with the most votes win. Yeah, alternative systems may have their advocates, but they weaken that direct relationship between voters and their local councillors. On average, there are around 3500 voters per councillor. A good councillor will be known by their residents with a direct relationships and in practice, many people vote for the person rather than the party. A popular councillor will often receive substantially more votes than colleagues on the back of that personal vote, demonstrating the importance of that personal connection. In conclusion, local democracy matters, but too much top down diktat, imposition of lgrt and emasculation of councils ability to deliver, and reducing the direct

**** Possible New Speaker ****

link between the councillor and voter all threaten local democracy. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. And that is why I am very supportive of the move of my noble. supportive of the move of my noble. Sorry my friend. In the other place, the Shadow Secretary of State, who the Shadow Secretary of State, who is proposing a review of what is the role of local government and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what should it be, because I think it is time we looked at that again. Yes.
14:04
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Portrait Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Very good. My Lords, the companion to our proceedings nowadays discourages backbench nowadays discourages backbench members from paying tribute to valedictory and to maiden speeches. And as a Deputy Speaker, I feel obliged to follow the rules, albeit somewhat reluctantly. To my noble friend Lord Shipley, I would simply like to say thank you for everything that you've done for local government over decades, and to let you know that to me and to others, you've been an inspiration. Thank you. And to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, you are very welcome. And you bring a wealth of experience from which I know we can benefit. I am very proud to be the president of the National Association of Local Councils, representing, as it does England's 10,000 parish and town councils and over 100,000 councillors, because it seems to me that if we're genuinely discussing democratic accountability and participation in local government, we have to talk about the level which is closest to the people and through neighbourhood planning, through community leadership and local participation. Parish and town councils are already strengthening democratic accountability and civic engagement. And for the government's ambitions on democratic renewal, devolution and community empowerment to succeed in parish and town, councils must be recognised as essential partners and not as an afterthought. And wherever we end up on local government review, it's likely that decisions will feel more remote to many residents. And that's why town and parish councils are so important. They meet locally. The councillors are more likely to be known by name, and they're not just administrative bodies, but they're rooted in the in their communities, and they provide local leadership. And my Lords, parish and town councils are already on the ground in communities. There's no need to invent new structures or to come up with some new system. Indeed, what we need to be doing, as my noble friend Lord Wallace said, is to encourage the creation of more town and parish councils where they don't currently exist. There's much discussion these days about democratic participation and about declining trust in institutions, and I think all of us are worried about that. But I think it would be easy to overlook one of the most successful examples of public participation that we already have. Take, for example, neighbourhood planning. There are more than 3500 neighbourhood plans which are have been made or are underway, overwhelmingly led by parish and town councils. Hundreds of thousands of people have participated and crucially, local people haven't simply been consulted or told. They have helped to shape the future development of their areas. And it's interesting that independent analysis shows that as a result of neighbourhood planning, more houses end up being built than were originally proposed by the local council. And it demonstrates a really important principle that people are willing to support change, but where they have genuine influence over it. So not when things are done to them, but when things are done with them. If we want local government that genuinely reflects the communities that they serve, then we need to look at how we remove the barriers that prevent people from taking part. And I think the right reverend Prelate covered this area very well. It means finding ways to encourage more young people to get involved. It means supporting more people from working backgrounds to stand for office. And it means removing barriers for those with caring responsibilities. Around 100,000 parish councillors volunteer more than 14,000,000 hours every year to their communities. These unpaid councillors, and they have to absorb the personal cost of participation in a way that no other tier of local government has to do. And for many, these are relatively modest costs. But for parents, people with other caring responsibilities, those looking after loved ones, these costs can be significant. And unlike councillors at every other level of local government in England and Wales, parish and town councillors are specifically excluded from claiming a dependent carer's allowance. Now, it cannot be right, my Lords, that a single parent should have to pay for childcare simply to attend a council meeting, or that a councillor caring for an elderly or disabled relative should be left out of pocket in order to serve their communities. Local democracy should not force people to choose between caring and serving. We need to ensure that local councils, indeed councils at every level benefit from the widest possible range of talents, experiences and perspectives. And that's also why Nalc has long campaigned for the return of remote and hybrid meetings. And I think my noble friend Lord pack described this very well, because what we learned during the pandemic is that technology can widen participation rather than weaken it. It can help councillors balance work, family and public service. It can help people with disabilities to participate alongside those of working age and with caring responsibilities. And we also know that more members of the public participated remotely than have ever turned up in person. And during the passage of recent bills, the government has said encouraging things about this. But we never seem to see positive action. My Lords, people are more likely to put themselves forward if they believe they will be treated with a certain amount of respect. But research shows that 88% of parish and town councils report having experienced abuse, intimidation or harassment. And this should be a concern for all of us, because local democracy depends on people being willing and able to serve. And there can be no democratic accountability if good people decide it's simply not worth it. Whatever view one takes about electoral reform, I hope there can be agreement on some broader principles. Democracy is strongest when people feel connected to it, when it's easy to participate, when governance is transparent and when institutions are trusted. And crucially, when decisions are made as close as possible to the people that they impact on. So, my Lords, I've enjoyed this debate. I look forward to carrying it on. And once again wish my noble friend Lord best.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords. It's a great.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure to be able to. Take part in this interesting and well-informed debate. And I and well-informed debate. And I would like to add my thanks to the noble Lord Shipley for bringing the debate to the House and wish him debate to the House and wish him well for his future beyond us. I'm sure. I'm sure many more exciting challenges lie ahead. I'm a relative newcomer here. I've only been here for 18 months, but I've listened to some of the Lord Shipley speeches, and he always brings a great deal of expertise and interest to our debates.

And he raises questions which are, I think are worthy of of our interest in this particular case. I think the point he raised was that there are questions to be asked around the effectiveness of devolution. Devolution is too often, I think, treated by politicians as a magic wand rather than as a tool, which it is, and it needs to be applied correctly for it to to get good
14:12
Lord Evans of Guisborough Portrait Lord Evans of Guisborough (Conservative)
-
-
results. I had the great pleasure to be one of the first members of the London Assembly to be elected the London Assembly to be elected back in 2000. And I remember there was a great expectation around devolution to London and a lot of lobbying in favour of it. Amongst the people who lobbied for it were the people who lobbied for it were the various public bodies that we were going to be in charge of. The Metropolitan Police wanted it.

Transport for London were very keen on devolution because principally they thought they would be able to get a mayor and a layer of politicians who would lobby for more resources for them than they were currently getting from the government. They weren't so enthusiastic about devolution. When it came down to the accountability bit I recall, and the police were reluctant at first when they had to appear in front of the Assembly's policing committee and the Metropolitan Police Authority.

We had people saying, who are these, these people, to be questioning what we do? Because they'd never had that sort of accountability from the Home Office, who had just given them the money and sent them away to spend it. And I remember transport for London also kicked up a bit of a fuss. The one of the directors of transport for London actually spoke to me after a meeting and said to me, you know, those audit reports that you keep asking to have sight of? Well, you do realise that if we made them public, we would have to write them differently in future, don't you? And and so, so devolution can shed light on all sorts of places.

But sometimes it's not the panacea that people people believe it is. I'd also like to congratulate the noble Lord McCabe on his maiden speech, and I look forward to hearing from him much more often. As someone who grew up just up the coast in North Yorkshire, I can say I fully agree with his assessment of Filey and the East Coast. It's a wonderful part of the world and we would treasure our weekends that we spent there.

I also agree with him in his assessment of the railway between Hull and Liverpool. I only travel on the bit between Leeds and Manchester and that is is sufficiently slow. I do recall several months ago the Railways Minister here offered me a visit to that line and a trip from one end of the other to be able to see the work that was being done. Unfortunately, like so many things concerned with with our railways, that trip has yet to arrive.

But it might be that when it's finally arranged, Lord McCabe would would care to join us. And I can see maybe an alliance between parties to actually try and get something, something done there. My noble friend, Lord Redwood, I think, made a number of very striking points, very telling points, particularly he referred to the tendency for local government to blame national government for not having enough funds and vice versa. And I think devolution has led to a bit of that in this country.

If you look at Scotland, I don't think anyone would claim that the Scottish National Party is doing a particularly good job of running Scotland. Nobody in this room would claim that anyway. And yet quite often they say they want more powers and more money from government, and it's the government's fault. If it's any consolation to the Minister who has to preside over these disagreements, I can tell her I spent several years in the Middle East attempting to improve decentralisation in Arabic countries, and exactly the same problems arose there with mistrust of central government.

The people in the provinces would say, we're not getting enough money, we want more powers. And then central government would say, why would we give you the money and the powers when you don't make good use of them, when you have them? And it's a challenge everyone everywhere has to face. And I and I don't necessarily envy the government in trying to work to sort that out. And my, my noble colleague Baroness Eaton lamented the final removal of the committee system in so many local authorities.

I went through this process at the London borough of Waltham Forest after my first term, the committee process was changed to a leader and Cabinet process. And the thing is, committees weren't easy. You know, when we had a housing committee, we had to work through 40 papers in an evening. So it was fairly tough stuff. But we got to see the workings behind the decisions. Crucially before they were made. So we got to ask questions if we'd read the report.

Questions like, why doesn't this pie chart add up to 100%? Questions like why is the why is the average bus fare you quote in your press releases less than the cheapest bus fare ticket that you can buy? Questions like, why are you recommending we close the road to traffic? Turning left when your own traffic figures demonstrate that over 80% of the traffic is turning right? And I very much fear that without the committee system, the Cabinet member who is going to be responsible for those things will not ask those questions because they don't have any incentive to ask them.

They owe their position to their own party on the council and to their leader on the council, so they will not actually dig into those details. Why are they going to read through 40 reports by themselves? I almost think the opposition does them a favour sometimes. And I remember the council at Waltham Forest, despite being very strongly Labour actually sent back a number of of officers recommendations because it was demonstrated that the evidence they were based on was faulty.

I don't assume that the process has got any better with time. It's just become invisible. And I very much regret the changes that the government are making here. OK, my Lords.
14:18
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to place on record my thanks to. worthy sparring partner over the last two and a half years that I've been in your Lordships' House. But it is often the way. As one door it is often the way. As one door closes, another opens and Lord McCabe does appear to be another local government expert. One in, local government expert. One in, one out now at the Second Reading of the elections Bill last month, we were entertained by the noble Lord Lord Foulkes, who regaled us with a tale of a Scottish Government election where he was elected to Holyrood despite not having stood in that election himself. We laughed, but it wasn't funny. It's just another example of how the simple principle that the person who gets the most votes wins the election. It's been systematically eroded. In that debate, I enumerated all the different ways you can vote in this United Kingdom. First past the post alternative votes uniquely for the Scottish Crofting Association, apparently supplementary votes. We've heard about those this morning, this earlier in this debate, the hybrid lists, the closed party lists, changes in the franchise across the devolved nations. Only British citizens can vote in a general election in England, but elsewhere any resident, regardless of nationality, can vote even 16 year olds in Scotland. And of course, there are carve outs for EU citizens in English local elections, which may be all out or by thirds in either single or multi-member wards. Look, that's not a joke, but we need to guard against the democratic process from becoming a joke. The public had their say in the 2011 referendum when they expressed a clear and decisive preference for first past the post, but some people aren't paying attention. Anything that interferes with the simple idea that the person with the most votes wins is just funny. Business party lists cooked up in a smoke filled rooms don't provide the solid mandate that motivated community champion to serve only first past the post delivers the clear outcome at a local scale people recognise and relate to, so people know who they're getting. Perhaps that young mum they know from the school gate, or the chap who referees the youngsters football matches on the rec. So I agree with the Chancellor, he says. Our democracy has been built on the one person, one vote. The last thing we should do is throw it away in favour of an unfair, perverse election system. Quite, because we know what bad looks like on an election day in Cambridgeshire. In recent history, there were elections for five different levels of local government on the same day, with three different processes. No wonder the voters are confused. Only people within the system want this complexity and confusion. They're the only ones with a time, energy and self-interest to gain the system to their own ends by fiddling the franchise. That confusion breeds distrust. A lack of trust in the system leads to a lack of confidence, respect, and the affinity for the institutions these elections serve. And it's a fundamental premise of this debate that fiddling with the councils and the voting voting system is a good thing. It isn't. And I want to sound a warning because rather than bringing people together, proportional representation and party lists will lead to more campaigning in Urdu, greater sectarian prejudice along for incentives for the extreme single issue pressure groups to force their obsessive minority agendas on the rest of us, and more post-election rainbow alliances able to tear up the manifestos they stood on. It's a recipe for division, not pulling together. Those who are campaigning for change want to be careful what they wish for. Now, another core premise of this debate is that we need to view this through the lens of local government reorganisation. Let's just set aside for a moment that LGR should be dead and buried, given the Prime Minister has announced he's going to nationalise the care system and the provision of care is the local government's largest and most expensive budget line, consuming about two thirds of the 40 billion local spend. Although, as we heard from the noble Lord Shipley 92, in some cases 92% in some cases. Simply put, I can't see how LGR can proceed by law because if that biggest ticket item is uncertain, then the statutorily required value for money assessments can't be concluded until was in scope. In the care system, review is clarified, and until that's done in the next Parliament, those legal tests can't be completed. The law is clear on this, having been determined by the justices Cranston and Ouseley in 2009 and ten, respectively. So when is the Minister going to give us clarity on that point, or will we have to suffer another two years of pointless LGR navel gazing before it all gets thrown out again, humiliating her hapless department once more? But that said, this debate does ask whether democracy can be improved without pulling that lever marked electoral funny business. And, my Lords, before we blunder into another half baked proposal, can we just take a moment to think about maintaining the equality of the value of the vote? In the other place, a 5% divergence from the average prompts a boundary change within a council. If an electoral ward varies by more than 10%, the boundary Committee is called in. These are important safeguards, but I want to add flesh on Baroness Sugg eton's bones, so to speak, because across the whole of local government, there are 3108 electors per councillor in London, yet five times that quotient in other parts of the country. What the government tried to deliver in Lincoln was a shabby gerrymander that would disgrace a banana republic, a proposal that would have seen three councillors per ward in Labour voting areas, but only one per ward in the sticks. That was a 300% variance. Thank goodness we didn't have to test that obviously unlawful proposal in the court. If we contemplate reorganisation, we should at least have the approximate equality of voting power for each resident on a national basis. It seems to me that about 400,000 adult electors and 80 councillors per authority leads to about 5000 electors per councillor across the board. That seems about right there. There is an asymmetry and attempt at electoral equality that we should welcome. But ultimately, my Lords, we have more pressing matters to attend to than fiddling with the vote. Why can't the ministry get over their obsessive compulsive disorder on LGR and just stick to the day job, so that people who are grounded in their communities can serve on a geography and a canvas they recognise and can get about him. And we avoid the disaster in Yorkshire, home to the noble Lord Lord Shipley, where they put Scarborough, Selby and Skipton in the same local authority, an area it takes two hours to to to traverse and is the preserve solely of the rich and retired motorist. That's not the way we should go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. This has been a welcome and wide

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been a welcome and wide ranging debate which has enabled ranging debate which has enabled many different interpretations of a general debate about local general debate about local government and electoral reform. And, my Lords, the health of our And, my Lords, the health of our local governance structures is vital to our health, of our democracy. The two are inextricably entwined, and that is why this debate, initially initiated by my noble friend Lord Shipley, is so timely and so important, and it is no surprise that he has focussed his attention on devolution, its challenges and its failings.

Good governance is a balancing act between decision makers and accountability, but fundamentally it is about place. And my noble friend Lord Mccobb's love story two and of Hull demonstrates that to perfection. I hope we hear more about Hull in the in the months and years ahead. And decades. It's a fabulous city. So, my Lords, the decision makers in local government are made up, as we have heard from the noble Lord Evans of a Cabinet of up to ten councillors, and the discussion about the decisions they make is not taken in public, but taken behind closed doors in private with council officers, Cabinet meetings announce and confirm decisions.

Cabinet members are not required to make a sustained argument to support those decisions. Of course, some councils modify those procedures to make them more open, but there is no requirement to do so and many don't. Now, my noble friend Lord Shipley, in one of his many memorable statements, described how central government can feel like a closed shop, but so can town halls, and that it is up to all of us who love local democracy to enable more involvement.

And more involvement comes from the good governance test. And the good governance test is the effectiveness of accountability. The main formal root in governance structures is through scrutiny. Yet since the introduction of the Cabinet and Scrutiny model more than 25 years ago, the scrutiny half of this equation has struggled to be seen as and treated as an equal in cash strapped councils. Officer time and focus is on decision making and scrutiny.

 Committees attention is often on decisions that have already been made, and any recommendations to Cabinet are inevitably minor changes to improving those decisions, rather than in challenging their principle and purpose. Now the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Newcastle, also pointed to this as an area of concern. What can we do? She said, when local decisions fail us? Good question. An active democracy depends on engagement in layers of government that play that part.

Now the move towards unitary councils covering a large area inevitably lead to councillors representing as many as 5000 electors electors each. Noble Baroness Eaton pointed to this, and the noble Lord Fuller thought it would be. That would be doable. I have to tell him, as I represent more than 5000 electors in my council ward, that it is challenging and to be a really, truly local councillor. And the change this requires removes local decision making even further from the very local issues which create the greatest concern for people such as the state of the local roads, parks and waste collection among many.

Now. In addition, metro mayors representing subregions will be joined by combined county mayors and it is governments recognising the value of decision making at this level of transport, strategic planning, business and employment is so important. As my noble friend Lord Shipley so eloquently described and with which we on these benches wholeheartedly agree, these two fundamental changes have not been introduced alongside complementary enhancements to accountability structures. Indeed, in his excoriating analysis, my noble friend Lord Shipley has exposed the lack of good governance structure for mayoral authorities.

 The West Yorkshire Combined Authority serves over 2.5 million people, but has just a single scrutiny committee for a budget of £1.2 billion, which will increase. Of course, if ever there was a need to enhance accountability models, this is it. As my noble friend has said in these subregional mayoral governments. True devolution, we heard, is about giving up power to others, and that leads us to think about the consequences for democracy in this brave new world.

Governance structures. Are becoming more remote as councils cover increasingly wide areas, and the inability of ward councillors to get their area understood by centrally based decision makers becomes more difficult. Voters understand and wonder what difference their vote will make. Turnout falls except in those instances when a dramatic, though often implausible offer is being made, giving voters a chance to make their vote count is a vital ingredient of refreshing local democracy.

And we have had an interesting and widely varying debate on that aspect of electoral reform and those who espouse the first past the post. Method of voting, because it is the one who gets there first, and therefore that's what everybody wants. Well, my noble friend Lord Wallace used two examples. One, in recent local government elections in Cornwall, where a local councillor was elected with less than 20% of those who voted.

Of those who voted and and a mayor in the recent mayoral elections, elected with just 25% of those who voted. Now that is hardly a resounding vote of confidence in those folk who won those elections. And so the criticisms that we've heard from the conservative benches of first past the post, these means I think, they need to a blinkered look at how changes in the number of candidates in elections change the way people need to think about voting systems.

Now, there are other remedies to improving accountability and enhancing our democracy. And my noble friend Baroness Scott of Needham Market eloquently, I feel was does explain how town and parish councils can and should be the answer. And if they're not, if they're not able to have those there, then the other option is enacting the power passed in England. English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. The bit we haven't heard much about provisions for neighbourhood forums, and I hope perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us more about when the local authorities will be encouraged to do that.

Now, to end, my noble friend Lord Shipley has devoted his life to public service, and particularly to local public services and espousing the needs of others. He shared his wisdom, knowledge, experience and dedication to the enormous benefit of those of us on the Liberal Democrat benches, as well as to the House. And we will miss you. And we want to extend our very good wishes to Margaret and to John on this.

As he turns this final page in his parliamentary and public life, his his his introduction to this debate was a bravura performance. And that's why we'll miss him.
14:36
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I. >> Thank the noble. >> Lord Lord Shipley for this important debate on democratic accountability, public participation and electoral reform in local government. It's in local government. It's particularly poignant that you chose this. Your final speech should be on this particular subject, which is so important. So many of us in this chamber. There's no doubt that your presence will be missed. And I'd like to add our thanks for all you've done, and to wish you and your family all the best for the future.

I'd also like to congratulate the noble Lord McCabe on his maiden speech. Your experience will no doubt come in handy in this chamber, and it's nice to have yet another local government champion to join the pack. Already here, my Lords, many of the members who have spoken spoke about good local government and my noble friend Lord Jameson referenced some of the statutory services that we all delivered when we were councillors. Someone told me some years ago they referenced local government as being the fourth emergency service.

And actually, personally, I think that's a really good account of what good local government is about. I think members should, my Lord, should remember the things that local government done during the pandemic when there was no question about that's not our job. We stepped up to the plate. And indeed, in our own case, when the winter fuel allowance was withdrawn by the government to subsequently be brought back in some sort of lower level, we stepped up to the plate in looking after our vulnerable residents.

I really don't think we can afford to forget what the benefits of good local government and what it delivers. But my Lords, when it comes to democratic accountability, this government have made local government less local when it comes to public participation. They cancelled local elections and when it comes to electoral reform, their representation of people Bill risks weakening safeguards against voter fraud. For all the rhetoric, this is not a strong record. On the first point, the government promised community empowerment and continues to talk of further devolution.

Yet local government reorganisation aims to centralise local authorities, transfers more power to the hands of regional mayors, from local elected councillors, and schemes like the national scheme of delegation has sifted power into the hands of unelected officers from elected representatives. Moreover, local government reorganisation has now been paused due to, we're told, updated legal advice and new government priorities. I understand some of the leaders involved were told that there would be an announcement today, and now have subsequently been told that wouldn't be the case.

Major structural reforms to local government with changes to staffing, finance, public service delivery and yes, democratic accountability cannot be fleeting. What was described by the party opposite as a once in a generation opportunity has now been put on hold. I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, again, what is the estimated total cost of this review, both to national government as well as to the authorities affected? And when will those councils involved actually get the detail? As indeed, my noble friend Baroness Eaton asked earlier, my Lords, this is not to say on these benches we are opposed to devolution in principle, and as my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough reminded us in 2010, the only area in England with devolution settlement was Greater London.

By March 2024, thanks to the work of the previous government, over 64% of England was covered by devolution deal. This included over 90% of the North of England. Some 14 million people. It is clear that there must be a balance. Devolution to local government should not be used to outsource responsibilities which clearly lie with national government or as a disguise to make local government less local. As we've seen.

I now turn to public participation. Let us not forget that this government tried to cancel local elections without consulting political parties beforehand or informing the Electoral Commission about the May 2026 elections. The government then U-turned only in the face of a judicial review challenge. When those elections in May did take place, the Electoral Commission reported that public confidence in voter registration and awareness of voter ID requirements remains high. This brings me to the government's proposals for electoral reform in the Representation of People Bill, such as automatic voter registration.

My Lords, individual voter registration ensures there's proper checks concerning eligibility to vote with more accurate registers, which are updated when introduced. This system removed the concept that only a head of the household could decide who should be on the electoral roll. People are increasingly mobile. 1 in 3 private rented tenants will move every year, and we do not want registers relying on potentially outdated information or adding people to the electoral roll who may not have a residence, or who may have a residence, but who are not eligible to vote.

Moreover, we do not know how much automatic registration will cost. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, give us an estimate now? The Bill also seeks to water down voter ID requirements, such as allowing bank cards. Bank cards do not have a photograph yet. Photo ID is required to drive or to buy alcohol. If you're under the age of 25. Long, long time ago. For me, it's also worth noting that many young people don't actually use bank cards.

They have a banking app on their phone. We understand that we want more people are eligible to go out and vote, but why does the government not focus its efforts on increasing awareness of the Free Voter Authority certificate, for example, rather than weakening requirements? My Lords no doubt will discuss these proposals in greater detail at Committee stage of the Bill. But any further information? The noble Baroness the Minister could provide us with in this debate would be helpful.

My Lords, we all want local government to be simpler, with clearer lines of accountability and strong participation. We also want local government to be genuinely local, for it to be democratically accountable, and for the public to be inspired to participate. We should not be looking to centralise local government further, put more power in the hands of unelected officers,
14:44
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Or. electoral systems. I look forward to hearing the response from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Baroness Sater Minister. My Lords, I would like to begin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking the noble Lord Shipley for an excellent valedictory speech and for securing this debate as his final farewell and statement to this House. Lord Shipley was introduced, I believe, in 2010, to the House. But it's his service over many more years than that. Both in local and national government, that I think we should be celebrating with him today. I met Lord Shipley recently in Newcastle at the funeral of the noble Lord Beecham, my noble friend Lord Beecham.

And it was interesting to have that that that connection between Sir Jeremy Beecham and the noble Lord. And I know that the noble Lord Shipley was the housing and planning spokesman for the Liberal Democrats from 2017 to 2019. So he's used, as many of us do in this House, from local government, all that experience, to bring to the work of this House. I would particularly like to thank him for the fantastic contribution he made with us recently on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

He was what every Minister, I'm not sure it's exactly a nightmare, but it's a welcome intervention. But he's both forensic and informed by his extensive experience in local government. And that was most welcome. And I'm sure that's been the tone of his contribution right through his career in this House. And I'm very grateful to him as the noble Lord, Jameson said the support for Sunderland Football Club was a bit of a surprise to me, but you know, that's the North East for you.

I wish him and Margaret all the best for the future. I thank him for his service to this House, and I hope he'll keep in touch with all of us in the future. But thank you very much. I also want to thank Lord McCabe for an excellent maiden speech. He too has long experience of local government. You join a very dedicated local government club here in the House of Lords. I know that you will be both a powerful advocate of local government and of Yorkshire, and I did hear a very interesting connection because my town to Stevenage has a charter fair which was granted to us by King Edward the First in, I think ours was 1281.

So you might have just picked up the post there. So we have a very long standing connection in that respect. I'm. I was very interested to hear about the transport issues in Hull, and I look forward to your support for the devolution programme that will change that, I hope, in the future. So I congratulate him and his council and partners on the City of Culture. Fantastic work that was done in Hull and I look forward to working with you in the future.

My Lords, this debate has been thoughtful and characteristically well informed around the topic that Lord Shipley placed before us. We've shown that across the House and regardless of our political differences, there is a shared purpose and ambition in strengthening our local democracy and local democratic participation. And the government shares that ambition. We heard similar contributions during the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, the representation of the people Bill and in other recent business and the strength of our local democracy and local democratic participation are more important than our party politics, and I think we all agree on that, which is precisely why the government values all the contributions made from across the House.

As we take forward measures to strengthen all of the democratic structures of our country. As noble Lords have heard, the government's ambitious devolution agenda will strengthen local democratic accountability and participation. We think that local accountability is strongest when it is closer to local people, and the full potential of devolution won't be met without the participation of those residents and communities. As I said, when we debated the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, the government is delivering the most significant transfer of power out of Whitehall and into communities in a century.

We know and have heard today the importance of proportionate and effective local democratic accountability in strengthening that local democracy and community voice. Of course, local authorities are independent and autonomous bodies with their own democratic mandate, primarily accountable to the local electorate, and central government wants to support local authorities in doing that. And we also have an important role to play in reducing the system risk that may exist in their, primarily by setting out the requirements and obligations for robust and effective internal governance and financial management, as well as the processes by which local communities can hold their local institutions to account.

Getting the balance right on local accountability is important. This government is reinforcing its commitment to ambitious devolution by making sure local accountability evolves at the same pace. Devolution is underpinned by the principle that decisions should be taken closer to communities, with local leaders empowered to shape priorities that deliver outcomes for their areas. And it follows that accountability should also be closer and accessible to the communities impacted by those decisions. We are simplifying and improving how to understand outcomes in the local area.

A noble Lord Shipley referred to mayoral accountability and this is a really important feature. The Local Outcomes framework will make outcomes based assessment more accessible. Commitments to streamlining the Integrated Settlement Outcomes Framework will make oversight of strategic authorities much more coherent. We are further strengthening local transparency and external scrutiny and assurance. The local audit Office will streamline, coordinate and oversee the local audit system and ensure there is timely and clear reporting of financial and governance risks in individual authorities.

More accessible and easier to understand information about how it is going in the local area will better inform local residents and communities, and enable them to more effectively engage in the democratic processes. And that is not about getting in the weeds of the spreadsheets. I know there are some people who love to do that, but it's about having an overall picture of how the authorities performing. We are making sure that local scrutiny arrangements match the greater powers and funding being granted to mayors.

As noble Lords know, we're introducing local scrutiny committees through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. As I said in that debate, I reiterate how important, how I appreciate now the important role they'll play in strengthening that local democratic accountability. I agree with the noble Baroness Pinnock. Good practice in scrutiny should be both pre and post decision making scrutiny, and I hope those local scrutiny committees will do that. And they're just the first step in strengthening the accountability system for strategic authorities.

Through the government's rewiring the state ambition, we have set out a suite of measures to ensure that increased autonomy and power for mayors are met with stronger accountability. Alongside this includes designating chief executives of mayoral strategic authorities as local accounting officers, providing a stronger role for the local audit office and streamlining the existing outcomes frameworks for those authorities. And we will set out more detail on these measures in due course. It's important that accountability and oversight arrangements are revisited to keep them effective, and the government is updating the English Devolution Accountability Framework and Scrutiny Protocol to provide greater clarity on roles, responsibilities and expectations across the devolved powers.

We know and have heard today the importance of empowered local community and the vital role that plays in local democracy. This government is introducing new powers for communities to provide a stronger voice for them in their place. I'll talk more about that a bit later. But we want to protect enable local people to protect treasured local assets and to create meaningful opportunities for people to participate in shaping local priorities beyond elections. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Newcastle has spoke powerfully about this and I agree with her.

We can't carry on thinking that engagement is sticking up a green notice on a lamp post and hoping that people will spot it and get engaged in it. And I saw for myself in Halifax when they suffered from the dreadful floods there. The importance of local networks can play in an emergency situation like that, and I do think it's important that we look at new ways of developing approaches to consultation. And our First Secretary of State has issued a press release recently where she confirmed that government will set out its vision for public participation and will issue new guidance, providing practical steps for modern, meaningful engagement in the autumn.

And as noble Lords know well, democratic participation goes beyond voting in elections, and this government is committed to encouraging broader and more inclusive participation in democracy by tackling the barriers that prevent people from getting involved. And that's why we're implementing the £2.5 million Democratic Engagement Fund, through which civil society organisations will deliver politically neutral, place based activities that help people understand, engage with and participate in democracy. We've had over 350 applications to that fund, and so we'll be announcing the results of that in January, and I look forward to monitoring those experiments as they go forward.

An essential part of local democratic participation is people feeling they can safely stand and hold public office free from intimidation or harassment. And I know this is a topic that the whole House and the Other place united on, and one that I and this government take very seriously. We outline proposals in the Strengthening Standards and Conduct framework, which we are taking forward, and these proposals will create a more robust, clearer and consistently applied conduct system, a system that will help locally elected members to hold themselves and their colleagues to account in meeting the high standards and conduct the roles demand and the public have a right to expect.

We're also changing the law to disqualify from elected office those convicted of intimidating or abusing electoral staff, and empowering courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates, campaigners, electric elected representatives and electoral staff. And we know and have heard the importance of effective local elections, both in encouraging greater democratic participation and turnout, and in holding safe and secure elections free from interference. The Prime Minister has been very clear about his commitment to electoral reform and indeed, a number of noble Lords.

I think everybody in the debate at some point raised this issue of electoral reform, and we recognise the strength of feeling about the operation of our democracy. That is why the Prime Minister has announced the establishment of a new National Commission on Electoral reform. So our voting system can better give people give power to people in every postcode. The commission will ensure that everyone can have their say on this important issue, everyone can have their say on this important issue, including political parties, community groups, trade unions, businesses, faith groups and voters of all parties, and none and even people that are the election geeks who look at all the systems and work on those.

And I think that's a very good thing, that they will have a chance to make their views known. We'll also work to create a more automated voter registration system, making it simpler and easier for those who are eligible to register to vote. And I do think it's important. I would say to Baroness O'Neill, I don't just don't think it's acceptable. We've got over 7 million people in this country who are eligible to vote but are not registered to vote. So we've got to do something about that and we will work on that.

This will involve enabling electoral registration officers to make better use of public sector data, and looking at ways to integrate voter registration into other services. My my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred to the link with constituency. I think that link with the local community is important, both at local level for councillors and at national level for MPs. The Bishop of Newcastle reminded us of principles by which any change must be judged. And I absolutely think we have to hold fast to those principles as we go through this process of a national conversation around electoral reform.

So I think we we do need to think very carefully about all these issues on electoral reform. And I do think a national commission on this is the right way to do it. We can go through all of the detail that people want to discuss. And I think we've heard in this House there are very strongly differing views on this. So it's important that all those views are heard. A number of noble Lords spoke about the issue around genuine devolution.

The noble Lord Shipley made this the centre of his speech. The right Reverend, the Bishop of Newcastle, Lord Wallace Lord Pack Lord Jamieson, Lord Evans and Baroness Pinnock all featured this in their contribution. Devolution is about moving decision making from Whitehall and bringing decisions closer to the communities they affect. It's giving local leaders greater priority, greater control over priorities such as transport, housing skills and economic growth. It's not about taking powers from local government and giving them to mayors.

It's about taking powers from Whitehall and Westminster and giving those to mayors and local government. The government recognises genuine devolution must do more than transferring power between institutions. It's got to give people and communities meaningful opportunities to shape decisions, services and investment that affect their lives. Our rewiring the state agenda sets an ambition to put power back into the hands of people and places where they live, work and invest. The noble Lord Shipley referred to our former Secretary of State's comments about devolution from government and Steve Reid, my right hon.

Friend Steve Reid and myself and my right hon. Friend Jim McMahon all worked together on the Co-operative Councils network, which was all about that. It was about transferring power and letting policy be made from from grassroots upwards. We had a number of contributions around participation in local democracy. A really important to show the noble Lord Shipley Lord Redwood, the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Newcastle, Lord Wallace and Baroness Scott and democratic participation is broader than voting.

It includes understanding democratic processes, discussing issues, engaging with representatives, campaigning, joining local or youth forums, contributing to decisions and supporting participation helps citizens to build the knowledge, skills and confidence to engage critically with information and democratic institutions, strengthening individual and community resilience and those democratic that democratic fund that we've set up, engagement fund will help to lead the way in saying what works in this regard in terms of participation, noble Lords have raised the issue around clear lines of accountability.

The noble Lord Redwood spoke about this. The Right Reverend, the Bishop of Newcastle, Lord Wallace, Lord Jamieson and Baroness Pinnock. And a key purpose of devolution is to create those clearer lines of accountability so residents know who's responsible for decisions affecting their area, where powers over transport, housing, planning and other strategic functions are devolved. Mayors and mayoral strategic authorities will be accountable for decisions and the outcomes they deliver, and then local councils will remain accountable for their services and responsibilities.

 Community level accountability will be maintained through local councillors, constituent councils and strengthened local scrutiny committees. Local people will be able to influence major decisions through elections, engagement with their representatives, public consultation and scrutiny arrangements and they will have the ability to petition those local scrutiny committees on matters of local concern. The purpose of devolution isn't to move decisions from one tier of government to another. It's to make responsibility more visible so that residents can clearly identify who is accountable for decisions and the outcomes they deliver on local government reorganisation.

A number of comments on this, particularly from the noble Baroness Eaton Lord Jamieson Lord Fuller Baroness O'Neill. I've spoken about this as the transfer of power out of Westminster. I would comment that I've heard repeatedly that this is a top down reorganisation. It absolutely was not. The proposals came from local government itself, and the government remains committed to reform and local government reorganisation. Achieving good growth requires a fundamental rewiring of the way the country works, local government structures and strong, sustainable local government are vital to devolution ambitions.

Single tier unitary local authorities are a more effective and efficient building block and unitary authorities are best placed to be partners with mayors and combined authorities. Now the Prime Minister promised he would listen to concerns raised by local people about local government reorganisation decisions. As a new administration, we want to pause and reflect and it's important that this is done properly and further announcements will be made on that once this work is done. The noble Baroness Eaton referred referred to warding and to structural changes because of the pause.

We can't answer those questions at the moment, but I will come back to as soon as we can, and I would comment on her question about legal advice. She knows that it's a long tradition, that legal advice is not published. I do think the preservation of the role of councillors is really vital. A number of noble Lords spoke about this Lord Shipley Lord Redwood and Lord Evans, and we want to strengthen, not weaken, the role of local councils. They remain the elected representatives closest to their communities, shaping local priorities and representing their residents.

So they will continue to have that strong role in new structures. I did want to comment on the I mentioned the local government standards reform already, but on the issue of enabling remote attendance for meetings, I agree that with Baroness Scott, it's important that we must enable that participation and encourage people and help them to to feel that they're safe in participating. Lord Pack, I am absolutely on a mission now to devolve cattle grids, and we are working on a.

Enabling councils to develop modern, accessible and locally appropriate remote and hybrid attendance policies. So we are on the case with that. I'm running out of time as I knew I would. So those things I haven't replied to, I will do in writing, but I do want to pick up the point on parish and town councils, which will continue to have a very strong role in this new system, and we are updating the guidelines on community governance review.

So those who want to set up new ones can do so. And we will also be publishing the neighbourhood governance framework this year. And that will set out high level principles on neighbourhood governance and how we're moving forward with that as well. I will reply to anybody I haven't replied to directly in writing, but my Lords, I'm very grateful for the very thoughtful contributions offered in this debate. Can I thank again Lord Shipley and Lord McCabe for their outstanding contributions, and I look forward to continuing to engage with noble Lords as the government takes forward work in these areas.
15:05
15:08
Lord Cameron of Dillington Portrait Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I must first. Sorry, my Lords, this is a debate which should take one hour. So if I could remind my Lords to keep to time as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is very precious today. Thank you. Thank you, my Lords. I must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, my Lords. I must first declare that I am a member of a Somerset farming family, albeit now retired and living in Cornwall. now retired and living in Cornwall. I have also in my time started various small businesses, some of various small businesses, some of which failed, but some not. Now, my Lords, there are those who view entrepreneurial capitalism in a entrepreneurial capitalism in a very bad light. They associate it with large, faceless corporations who pay the minimum of wages and treat their staff badly, and ensure that the directors and shareholders take as much money out of the company as possible in as quick as time as possible.

But of course, there are almost no companies like this, and if there were, they wouldn't last long. Nevertheless, it is true that both the stock market and the Treasury are most interested in those businesses that give the largest possible financial returns, and the Treasury even gives the impression that small businesses are expendable, and their long term survival through the generations is not relevant to the nation's economic growth. But I believe that these family businesses are actually the seed corn of our future economic growth.

They are our best hope and furthermore produce a range of wider benefits not recognised by the markets or policy makers. I remember Gordon Brown saying to me that New Labour was all about encouraging greater economic growth, but getting the businesses involved to give back more to society. And that is almost exactly what family businesses do. They are likely to treat their staff as family and even their customers. As such, the business's reputation is their reputation, and often they will go beyond the call of duty to protect it.

Furthermore, my Lords, think of the voluntary work these families put into their community through local round tables and rotary clubs, and serving on local charities or local councils. They really are the pillars that make their community a community. They are immensely hard working. In my rural world, there are farming and other family businesses where if you add up all the hours put into the business by the family, including the children, then it is possible that as a whole they are working for less than the minimum wage.

But it is these family businesses that make up 93% of all UK businesses. They generate trillions of pounds of turnover and provide 57% of private sector employment. That is some 15.8 million employees, and they contribute £425 billion per annum to the UK exchequer. They drive innovation, employment and, as I have said, community stability. We really are a nation of shopkeepers in its widest sense, which now includes highly technical businesses at the cutting edge of their fields.

Harnessing the science and research which we as a nation also excel at. Family enterprises are the lifeblood of our nation, more so than most of our competitors, and some of them employ less than five people. Some of them employ thousands, and it will be in how we enable more of the former to become the latter. That our financial success as a country will depend. So what do we have to do? Well, the first thing we have to do is to stop looking at these hard working families as a go to place to find money.

Whenever the Chancellor needs more funds for triple lock pensions or ever more generous social services, many of these family businesses have minimal spare revenue available, even if over the years and generations, by dint of borrowing and sheer hard work, they have built up considerable capital assets in their business, most of which have been paid for out of income already taxed. The government must also stop imposing extra costs on these businesses. They almost all say that they would employ more non-family staff if it didn't cost so much.

And while in 2020, employing a 21 year old cost £17,000 per annum, now in 2026, owing to a minimum wage changes, it cost £29,600 per annum. No small business can afford to employ an untrained 21 year old at that price. So who loses? Well, the 21 year old NEETs, of course. Their lives become hopeless just when they should be setting out on their career. And the other losers are the Treasury because they now have to pay benefits to these now unemployed 21 year olds, as opposed to receiving probably their lifelong payments of tax.

But what else can we do? Well, training and access to capital are two areas for improvement best served locally. It seems to me the self-employed, particularly the young and my knowledge comes from the rural young, are happy to pay for training. Simple stuff like drawing up budgets, cash flows and marketing campaigns, but which are really important if you want to earn your own money by mending bikes, motorbikes, computers or fitting routers into houses and businesses or just cleaning windows, I know from the Treasury point of view it sounds like small fry, but helping the next generation to pay taxes rather than drawing the dole must make a difference.

And who knows, some of them May 1st day turn into one of the 300 or so UK family businesses, with turnovers in excess of 500 million. But they will all have started small. My Lords, the other great stumbling block for these businesses is when they need capital to expand, employ more staff, buy new equipment, etc. unless you have the right contacts, it's difficult for these hard working heroes to know where to turn. Local bank managers no longer exist.

They need help and guidance and access to funding, preferably local funding, which could buy equity in these would be expanding businesses. Such local investment funds, allied to training, would be immensely helpful to our nation's growth. And who knows, these local growth funds may even end up being self-funding if the share values go up. Now, I realise that the government recently produced their SME strategy, which picks up on some of these issues, but I would hope that this debate will strengthen their resolve to pursue this agenda with a real sense of purpose, knowing that our whole economy and its future growth depends on how successful they are.

 Above all, we need politicians from all parties to start worrying less about how we spend government money, and worry more about how we can earn it. For some reason, this seems a hard ask amongst politicians, but they should all bear in mind that apart from government borrowings, which must be nearing its limits, every penny spent by government has first to be earned by a business. Every Chancellor before a budget should have to write that out 100 times.

 Every penny spent by government has first to be earned by a business. And I will just add that we should treat these families running their own businesses as national heroes and value them accordingly. If we are going to kick start our nation and its economy out of its current doldrums, then these are the people we need. Their effort should make us proud that they do need all the support we can give them. And I look forward to to the maiden speech of Lord Mctague.

And meanwhile I beg to move.
15:15
Lord McTague Portrait Lord McTague (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Firstly, let me start with my thanks to the clerk of the parliaments Black Rod, the parliaments Black Rod, the doorkeepers, and the officials for their invaluable support and their invaluable support and guidance over the last few weeks. I would also like to thank the members on all sides of the House for the warm welcome. This welcome is especially true of my noble friends Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and the Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top.

Thanks again. But most of all, I would like to thank my wife, Sue, and my entire family for all their love and support that makes this possible. I think this surreal experience was best summed up by Lord Cromwell when he said to me on the entrance to the house, Welcome to Hogwarts. Growing up in Birmingham, I never thought this moment was even remotely possible. I didn't start life with the proverbial silver spoon.

Both my mother and father spent their childhoods in orphanages, but together they created a loving, secure home. Like many baby boomers, I was the first member of my family to go to university, but by the time I was 30 and fed up with the sort of corporate world, I hungered sort of corporate world, I hungered for more purpose and freedom. So in 1987, I started my first business and moved to a village in County Durham.

It was there I met my new MP for the constituency one, Tony Blair. This was the start of the revolution in the Labour Party, and as a small business owner and a member of that party, I fitted right in. A few years later I was introduced to a quirky business organisation called the Federation of Small Businesses. Although it had more than 200,000 members, it was struggling to influence government policy. I wanted to change this.

So 30 years later I was then national chair and they are now a brilliant advocate for the nearly 6 million people running small businesses in the UK. They've decided to follow an evidence led, solution focussed approach, which I think a lot of members of this House will appreciate. Now, all of this means that I feel well placed to contribute to the substance of today's debate. It's a debate I feel privileged to be part of, and I'd like to thank the noble Lord Cameron of Darlington for moving it, because I think I would share almost all his views on this subject.

I passionately believe that small businesses are the key to generating growth in the UK. But within that group there is a vast range of businesses that could be defined as family businesses, but with widely different needs. The biggest issue is that I think, and it's been mentioned on several occasions, is that for large, wealthy family businesses, it is the £2.5 million per estate limit on the value of assets eligible for the 100% property relief, but this is a very small group.

Most small businesses will no feel no impact from this change, although I do sympathise with the families that run asset rich, but cash poor businesses. This is not the most important issue that affects small businesses. I think there are many more issues and you touched on several of them, Lord Cameron, which would be things like business rates, access to finance, the regulation of labour in particular. And I think we need to focus on those much more, much bigger issues.

But just coming back to the fact that some businesses are effectively feel that they are, that the changes in inheritance tax rules out generation succession, I think we should look at what happens in Germany. They offer special relief for family business succession. If their heirs continue to run the business for a continuous level of seven years and maintain payroll levels. Given the healthy state of the German middle stand, I think the Minister should look at this as an option for the UK.
15:21
Lord Bishop of Newcastle Portrait The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, it's a great pleasure >> My Lords, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mctague, and to offer him the warm congratulations of the House and of these benches, in particular on his excellent maiden speech. Although Birmingham has the honour of being his birthplace, the North East has benefited from his commitment for nearly 40 years. As a fellow Northerner, I am delighted to welcome another passionate champion of our region. He remains a long suffering supporter of Birmingham City and as a follower of Newcastle United, I can certainly share something of the footballing challenge in the current landscape. We share a mutual friend in John McCabe, chief executive of the North East Chamber of Commerce, and a conviction that our region has much to contribute to the nation's future. An engineering graduate of Aston University, the noble Lord brings practical understanding and extensive business experience through a decade in senior leadership at the Federation of Small Businesses, including his service as national Chair, a role from which he stood down and joined. Joining this house, he has championed entrepreneurs across the country. His OBE for services to small businesses recognised that considerable contribution at a time when growth is firmly on the agenda, he brings wisdom about the people whose enterprise, determination and occasional sleepless nights help make it possible. His commitment to the North East extends through his work with the FSB, the CBI and the Legacy Learning Trust in Middlesbrough. He brings valuable experience of the connections between education, opportunity and economic flourishing. I particularly welcome his recognition of the contribution SMEs can make to tackling the climate crisis, amid competing demands. That recognition offers a prophetic witness. Caring for our planet belongs at the heart of our economic future. With his wife Sue, four children and nine grandchildren, the noble Lord also has plenty of experience of listening to different views. Excellent preparation for your Lordships House. We warmly welcome him and look forward to the practical wisdom, insight and concern for the common good that he will bring to our deliberations. My Lords, turning to the debate and I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for bringing it to your Lordships House. The North East has always had an entrepreneurial spirit. Greggs began as a family business just around the corner from where I live. Ringtons Barber Fenwick are enduring examples of family ownership, two rooted in Newcastle upon Tyne, the third in South Shields, all founded over a century ago in Newcastle City Centre's Grainger Market. Robinsons has served customers since 1929. Britain's longest established family pet store, now run by the third generation, has combined continuity with innovation in pet nutrition and care, including the first commercially available cat scratching posts in Britain. These businesses remind us that enterprise is woven into the life of a place alongside familiar names other farms, builders, cafes, shops and manufacturers whose work sustains our communities and helps build resilience. My Lords, in that vein, I'm particularly interested in the contribution family businesses make to the common good. The business provides livelihoods but can also offer belonging and opportunity. A first job, an apprenticeship or an employer willing to recognise someone's potential family. Businesses are resilient and creative but face considerable pressures as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron said in his speech, higher employment costs, including employer National Insurance contributions, energy bills and uncertainty over succession, all affect their capacity to invest and recruit. Public services need to be funded fairly. A business's value may lie in premises, machinery or land with limited cash. Available changes affecting succession should be assessed against their consequences for employment, investment and continuity. I welcome His Majesty's Government's Trade and industrial strategies. Their implementation should explicitly recognise the distinctive contribution of family businesses, including those outside the sectors usually associated with high growth. As devolution develops, we have an opportunity to encourage new family enterprises and strengthen existing ones, opening opportunities closer to home in rural Northumberland that requires reliable connectivity, affordable housing and transport and apprenticeship offers little opportunity if a young person cannot reach the workplace. And this brings me to young people outside education, employment or training. Behind each statistic is someone whose gifts we risk overlooking and the social. The centre for Social Justice brought together more than 120 frontline organisations, charities and employers through a Newcastle Big listen to. Consider this challenge. The resulting report calls for dedicated youth and employment support within the region's devolution arrangements. Here is a family business using its convening power to address a social concern. On November the 17th, the National Apprenticeship and Education Event Skills North East takes place at Newcastle Civic Centre. It will connect young people with employers, colleges and training providers. Such connections can make an unfamiliar career field possible. Could the noble Lord, the Minister, explain how Skills England is working with family businesses to expand apprenticeship opportunities, particularly for smaller employers who lack dedicated recruitment teams? Practical support must also be accessible, and I welcome the Business Growth Service and Neil Davies membership of the Small Business Regulatory Task Force, bringing the experience of Family Business UK into that work. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, update us on progress in reducing administrative burdens while maintaining essential protections, and on whether the Growth Service will offer tailored support for family firms, including succession planning. My Lords, I think a clear working definition of family businesses would also help His Majesty's Government understand who is using its services and whether support reaches those who need it. My Lords family businesses are part of our economic lifeblood and an enduring source of civic pride. As the budget approaches, I hope Ministers will recognise their potential to drive innovation, create opportunities and sustain communities. Promoting family businesses means investing in the people and places they serve, and giving the next generation the confidence to build upon what it receives.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'd like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mctague, on his excellent maiden Mctague, on his excellent maiden speech. I was particularly interested to hear about his time as chairman of the Federation of as chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses. As president of a much newer business organisation, much newer business organisation, the Choctaw Nation, as the Register. I look forward to discussing these and other matters over many years to come.

I'd also like to congratulate the noble Lord Lord Cameron of Dillington for opening this debate for an excellent speech.
15:29
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Portrait Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Conservative)
-
-
As we've already heard articulated powerfully, the family businesses powerfully, the family businesses occupy a special place at the heart of our economy, some of the most trusted brands in our high streets, trusted brands in our high streets, such as Marks and Spencer, began as family businesses. As our largest family businesses. As our largest private sector employer, Tesco, which my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe is well acquainted Neville-Rolfe is well acquainted with. In my role at the Jobs Foundation, I visit businesses across the country on a weekly basis.

As a charity focussed on helping people into meaningful work, we see how family businesses care particularly deeply about how they look after their employees and their families, and how they support their local communities. At the beginning of the year, the job formation released a poll of family business owners conducted by white Stone insight. The findings show that they share many similar concerns to other businesses high energy costs, high employment costs and high levels of taxation, to name just three.

I've spoken on all of these issues many times your Lordships' House, and they remain key issues, but not the one I want to focus on this afternoon. The same polling also identified how family businesses are finding it increasingly challenging to pass on their business to future generations, a point made by Lord Mctague in his opening speech. And this concern is also borne out with all the conversations I have across the country, the business property relief changes in the 2024 budget have impacted family businesses in three main ways.

First, they make them look short term rather than long term. Second, they risk breaking up asset rich family businesses. And third, they force many heirs to sell up, impacting the very soul of the company. On the first point, the change of focus from long term to short term. Of all the companies in the UK, family businesses undoubtedly have the longest time horizon. They are literally the most patient capital we have. They aren't fixated on the next quarter's results.

They have a decades long time horizon which reinforces their sustainability as organisations and ensures they're not transient parts of their local communities. With the BPR changes, family businesses are forced to divert their focus to short term profit over long term investment. In the words of Christopher Leaper, the CEO of David Nieper, the fashion company, I quote the incentive to build for the long term has gone, forcing family businesses to focus on short term profit undermines the very long term patient capital, represent equality.

So rightly extolled in your Lordships House. Second, the BPR changes risk, forcing them to sell assets, lowering investment. There are many asset rich but cash poor family businesses. Take the example of a port. There are many family owned ports in the UK. Most of their businesses asset based. So like farms, they will probably not have the cash to pay a large inheritance tax bill. If the owner of a port dies. How their children meant to pay the tax bill.

If they meant to sell the land, the cranes, the warehouses, other assets, the whole business. This conundrum will face family businesses of all shapes and sizes over the coming years. Now, the BPR changes have come into effect. Which brings me on to my third and final point. Many heirs will be forced to sell their family's business, with all the consequences that has. In the words of one owner I spoke to recently, they said, speaking frankly, it won't affect me when my family, my family, when I die, my family will have the money to pay the inheritance tax bill from the sale and still live a very good life.

But what I worry about is my team and how the new owners will treat them. They're the ones who will lose out from the BPR changes. Many family businesses will be sold under new ownership. They risk becoming a profit line, which can be axed if it's not performing. Rather than a labour of love to be nurtured, cared for through good times and bad. To quote Andrew Lynas, the group managing director of Lynas Food Service in Northern Ireland, I quote family businesses care more deeply about their staff.

People aren't just a number on a payroll. They're known by name. My Lords, surely we have a duty to protect family businesses so they can continue to support their employees and their local communities. In the words of the Chancellor in Liverpool just a few weeks ago, if businesses that will create the country's jobs and wealth and growth, that's very true. And it's doubly true for family businesses. My Lords.
15:34
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
If this country is to get the. >> It craves, it needs to recognise that allocating that patient capital, combined with a special long term alignment of interests, long term alignment of interests, comes from the application of generational talent, and entrepreneurial zip is the place to start. Now, of course, we're lucky to have the FTSE 100, but increasingly they flatter us as global companies just lodge in London that generate their revenues elsewhere. Yes, they employ lawyers and accountants and we're grateful for that particular tax gusher. But the stock market is no longer a barometer of the British economy, and that's why family businesses out there in the real economy are so important. There are nearly 5 million of them. They employ over 15 million workers, about half the total number of people in employment. And these companies aren't focussed on EBITDA, next quarter's profits or Mollifying. Investors know family businesses are actually interested in their customers and their staff, and they're able to innovate and test ideas precisely because they don't need to speak to the lawyers or accountants first. These businesses are sticky. That's good. They pay their taxes. Their management participates in local civic society. They should be cherished, not demonised. They've grown by being handed down in trust over the generations, improving society with every turn of that handle. And the Prime Minister wants growth in every postcode. And I've got news for him. Family businesses exist in every postcode, each driving prosperity, creating opportunities and empowering communities in their own special way in regional cities, market towns, coastal communities and the countryside. They just don't contribute to the economy. They are the local economy for the corner shop and convenience store up one end. Others have grown to be household names. JCB Rics from Hull, which would have featured in the previous debate, and and the Rigby Group, O'Rourke's and Boodles and Swire's. It would be nice if we could encourage a few more to grow and do likewise, but instead of encouraging small firms to become big ones, Labour's taxing them to death, new employment taxes on family restaurants, new steel and cement, taxes on family builders, new tourism, taxes on family run hotels, crippling increases in rates for family run pubs, inheritance taxes that consume cash and divert to less productive assets like life insurance. But there are more insults double taxation of dividends, which can only be paid on profits to to to pay for things like life insurance, which I mentioned. New pension taxes are damaging the long term stability of mid-range businesses, where the proprietors own the buildings in their fund. Jeremy Clarkson hit the nail on the head. You'd need to be mad to set up a business in this country. Nowadays, all the risk and none of the reward. And worse, our family businesses are being taxed to death in a discriminatory way that no other sector has to suffer. Make them, making them vulnerable for acquisition by debt fuelled private equity, a point that was made powerfully in the Financial Times only this morning. Because APR and BPR isn't visited on hedge funds, pension funds, sovereign wealth, private equity or private companies. Why is the government so prejudiced against this particular type of business in our nation of shopkeepers, because we need the entrepreneurs amongst the cohort of 90% of all private businesses in our nation, entrepreneurs is a good thing. It doesn't happen by itself. It must be nurtured, cherished, and encouraged. And here's a thing, as in my own case, learned from a young age. As I sat around the kitchen table and also from printing fertiliser bags in the holidays, a job that nobody else in the family wanted to do. We all need to start at the bottom, and that's because I'm a member of several businesses owned by a remarkable group of unrelated families in Great Yarmouth. Our team works hard. We play an important part in feeding our nation in a rags to riches story hewn from three generations of effort, our business traces its roots back to over 200 years to 181815. My grandfather joined as the office boy. My father succeeded him as chairman, and now I hold the reins as an Olympic sprinter. Grandpa told me I needed to run 110 yards to everybody else's 100 because I was in the family. So that's what I've done. Like so many family owned businesses, it's what we do hard work, dedication, commitment and leadership. We're the ones who risk it all to make our birthright a success or go bankrupt. That's the reality of what we all do in our ways. Does the government encourage these qualities? Of course it doesn't. We've just got the entitled politics of envy and grievance. Youngsters who might want to get on and become entrepreneurs are not even starting worst. Our brightest and best are going to Dubai, Milan or Sydney. That's why we're seeing the fire sale of businesses and properties with overseas firms engaged in an industrial hoovering up of some of our best firms, damaging future tax revenues. It sets the wrong tone. It's inexplicable, it's irrational. It's an act of self-harm. Now, as chairman of our business, I was proud to award two long service awards medals last month to Steven Paterson and Simon Beales for 45 and 40 years. Service to our family businesses. But where's the ministerial? Thanks to people like this, for the most part, out in the provinces, nimble, industrious and innovative. So in this debate, I want to talk for the 15 million people who are employed by family craft, including that butchers in Devon, Britain's oldest established family business, which has been going for 400 years. We need them to grow. Government should incentivise them to grow and to me feel to be, feel loved. Our family businesses are the solution, not the problem to our growth. And if only the government could see it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for themselves, we'd all be richer for it. I congratulate the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Carey Lord Cameron of Dillington for. Securing this debate and on his rousing speech. Like him, I come from a farming background, but following the difficult period in following the difficult period in the 60s, our farm was sold and my father retrained and set up a new business as an agricultural
15:40
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
economist, mainly in Brussels, working there until he was well past 70. So you could see that small business and enterprise are in my DNA. And indeed, during my 15 years at Tesco, I worked hard to encourage the small supply base with special procurement arrangements to assist dairy farmers and small suppliers in Cornwall, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in Wales so that they could get their products listed. Now, noble Lords will be familiar with the importance I've consistently placed on supporting small and medium sized enterprises, sometimes with the help of the Federation of Small Businesses, whether through our debates, our scrutiny of government policy or our consideration of legislation and my recent amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill are one example, and I was delighted that the government accepted the importance of supporting smaller operators by agreeing to proportionality to as a principle in that bill. Now many businesses start as family businesses, and there is a good reason for this. Starting out in business requires trust, and it is often easier to trust family. Family members are more likely to provide a loan or even take a stake in the business. There is less risk of the business being torn apart if it runs into trouble, reflecting the benefit of familial links. And my belief is that this is true of all ethnicities. And even more important, driver of trust is the involvement of one's children in one's business. It's natural to train one's children, to teach them one's trade, and to want them to take over one's business on retirement or death. The parent can be more secure in the knowledge that his or her heir knows the business. Every good or boggy field on a farm, different customers in a retail or restaurant business, good beer service and ambience in a pub and processes and design in an engineering or architecture business. So it's against this background that this government's assault on families through IHT the farm and family business taxes are so troubling. These have generated a dangerous gloom. Concessions made earlier this year do not solve the problem, and the sums raised will be small. The Reeves policy on this was profoundly mistaken, for reasons that my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell has set out so well today. And it's not as though this is in isolation. These businesses are being hit by the treble whammy of the Reeves increases in National insurance, the jobs tax, the hike in the minimum wage, especially for the young, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron's example and the Employment Rights Act, the full horror of which is beginning to emerge. As we heard yesterday in the debate on the implementing Sis on trade union involvement, business rates are also rising for all but the smallest, with a double hit arising from a rate rise on top of a revaluation. There are also wider cost pressures and regulation affecting family firms. The worst of these is high energy prices in the UK, four times those in the US, and, according to some estimates, up to six times those in China with trouble in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe, increasing the pressure every day. This is closely followed by our Planning and building regulation system. The government's attempted reforms seem to be failing, at least for small house builders, often family firms who share of the construction market has plummeted in recent years and resulted in insolvencies like Devonshire homes in the South west. However, I do not want to end on a depressing note. We have an extraordinary capacity for enterprise, for innovation and ambition in this country. As an example, consider the stories behind some of our most well-known businesses involving Michael Marks and Tom Spencer, John and Mary Ann Sainsbury, and more recently, William Morrison of Morrisons and Jack Cohen of Tesco. By chance, the mention of the nation of shopkeepers by Lord Cameron and indeed by my noble friend Lord Fuller chimed with this. These all had the confidence, from modest beginnings, to take risks, to invest their own resources and build some of the most successful businesses in the world, providing good jobs for literally hundreds of thousands of people. As the budget approaches, the government needs to consider how it can kick start the enterprise lurking in family firms. They need to cancel the IHT death taxes. They need to re-examine plans for business rates, which are hitting hospitality particularly hard. They need to halve NICs for under 25 seconds, and they need to ease the ever growing burden of regulation, especially on housing and the countryside. Above all, given the limits imposed by the troubling fiscal situation, they must try to do no harm. Avoiding new taxes on family businesses and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the inevitable impact on growth. Yes. My Lords, if I can first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if I can first congratulate Lord Mctague and welcome his contributions to the House, which we look forward to House, which we look forward to very much and thank. As a number of speakers have said, the noble Lord Cameron, for introducing this topic because there is no doubt of the significance of family businesses, significance of family businesses, the economy of the UK, as I think Lord Fuller indicated, there are probably over 5 million family businesses currently, and I believe, according to the library, that 93% of all private sector firms in the UK are family businesses.

The estimate in 2020 3rd May have been
15:47
Lord Razzall Portrait Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
updated since then. Was that total gross value added by family gross value added by family businesses was £985 billion, and as Lord Cameron indicated, the total Lord Cameron indicated, the total taxes paid then were over 400 billion. So there is no doubt of the significance of these businesses. Now, family businesses have obviously got many have obviously got many characteristics that are similar to all SMEs in the challenges that are posed by the government, except for one which a number of your Lordships have mentioned.

Because of the structure of family businesses, where assets are often passed from generation to generation, particularly, they are particularly vulnerable to changes in inheritance tax. As both Lord Mctague and Lord Elliott have indicated. The introduction of the £2.5 million per estate limit on the value of assets eligible for 100% agricultural business property relief has hit large family farming businesses particularly hard. But of course, recent activities by the government have materially affected all SMEs, particularly in the service and hospitality sectors.

I think Baroness Neville-Rolfe mentioned three key decisions by this government which have had an obvious impact. First, the increase in the minimum wage which from these benches we support but has had a significant input on when combined with the other two. The second decision, which was the increase in employer NICs from 13.8% to 15%. And the third decision, which was the proposed restrictions on zero hours contracts, which are so vital for young people, particularly in the hospitality sector.

Now, if I can take the example of my local pub in Wiltshire, owned by two locals and often frequented by me and, dare I disclose Baroness Neville-Rolfe, this is the sort of small pub the. Countryside really requires, I. When these three measures were brought in by the government, I asked the management what they thought the costs were. The effect of those three increases and. It came to £75,000 per annum. Now we multiply those costs across the country and you can see what an own goal Rachel Reeves scored.

Now, I don't go as far as the hyperbole of Lord Fuller over the tax increases by this government, but I would say that avoiding the increase in PAYPAYE payments ignored the. Dumped by Rachel Reeves ignored the damaging effect of these increases. Finally, you wouldn't expect me not to bring up Europe. I like Baroness Neville-Rolfe laughing. She can. Many small family businesses have stopped trying to sell into Europe due to the problems of negotiating the required paperwork, so any progress by this government in breaking down our trade barriers to Europe would disproportionately affect small businesses?
15:50
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm also very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Cameron of Dillington for securing this debate, Dillington for securing this debate, and I congratulate Lord Mctague on his excellent maiden speech, much of which I think deserves further of which I think deserves further consideration. If I may say, my Lords, I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on family businesses, and I feel at the outset that I should declare my small business interests as set out in the register.

My Lords family businesses are not simply another category on a Treasury spreadsheet. As my noble friend Lord Fuller eloquently explained, they are farms passed from one generation to another. They're the pub that has served the same village for decades the family run hotel, the shop, the manufacturer or engineering company. They're businesses in which people have invested not simply their money but their lives. Yet one of the first major economic decisions this government took was to go after precisely those businesses through the family business tax.

For farmers in particular, as we've heard from around the House, this was an extraordinary decision at a time when we should have been strengthening domestic food production and improving our food security, the government instead created enormous uncertainty for the people producing our food. Now, eventually, after months of protests and pressure, Ministers were forced into a partial U-turn. The original £1 million allowance for 100% APR and BPR, was increased to 2.5 million per individual. But as the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell eloquently explained, farmers had already changed investment decisions.

Families had already paid accountants, tax advisers and lawyers significant sums to reorganise their affairs. Some had considered selling land or other assets, others had accelerated lifetime gifts and succession planning that they might otherwise never have undertaken. Last week, My Lords polling by the Country, Land and Business Association CLA that 89% of 700 rural family businesses had paused investment, with more than a third holding back investment of more than £150,000. That has an enormous trickle through effect on the wider economy.

But, my Lords, the attack has not stopped with inheritance tax. Family businesses have also had to absorb the government's enormous increase in employer national insurance, raising the employer rate and dramatically lowering the threshold amounts to a tax increase on employers running to around £25 billion a year. And who does the government imagine pays that? My Lords, it is paid through fewer vacancies, lower wages, reduced investment and higher prices, and it falls particularly heavily on labour intensive family businesses.

Pubs, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, just pointed out, restaurants, hotels, shops and farms which can't simply automate every job or relocate their operations overseas. And as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron eloquently pointed out during his introduction, in disproportionately falls on those not in education, employment or training. My Lords, then we come to the Employment Rights Act. Now, the government's own latest assessments suggest that its measures will impose around £1 billion of additional costs on businesses every year, every year, and there remains considerable uncertainty surrounding guaranteed hours, zero hours arrangements and flexible working.

But the government has to recognise that businesses do not all operate in the same way. My Lords, farming is seasonal hospitality. Demand changes from week to week, tourism is seasonal and many small, small family businesses depend upon flexibility simply to remain viable. There is another approach. We on these benches have made clear that the next conservative government will repeal the family farm tax and family business tax, and restore the protections that allow viable businesses to pass between generations.

We have committed to removing business rates from thousands of high street businesses, and our cheap Power plan is designed to tackle one of the great greatest structural disadvantages facing British businesses the extraordinarily high cost of energy. As my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe pointed out, that is the difference between seeing business as something to tax and regulate and seeing business as the source of the investment, employment and prosperity on which everything else ultimately depends. And my Lords, the new Prime Minister himself acknowledged the problem.

Before entering Downing Street, he promised to look again at the government's APR and BPR reforms. Farming organisations are now quite reasonably asking him to honour that commitment. However, the Prime Minister also championed a substantial VAT reduction for hospitality before entering number ten. More than 800 hospitality businesses have since asked him to deliver on that position, but when he has the opportunity, he has refused to commit to it. So, my Lords, the forthcoming budget presents an opportunity.

After two years of higher employment taxes, new employment regulation, inheritance tax changes and continuing continuing pressure on business costs, Britain needs to take a chainsaw to the taxes and regulatory burdens that are holding family businesses back. My Lords, the Labour Party conspired to remove Keir Starmer. Surely the purpose of removing him was to change direction as well as personnel. So can I ask the noble Lord the Minister? Will the forthcoming budget mark a genuine change, of course, by reversing the damaging taxes imposed on family farms and family businesses, by reducing the burden on employers and allowing these businesses once again to invest, employ and grow? Or will this simply be the same Minister?
15:56
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, let me thank the noble Lord Lord Cameron of Dillington for securing this debate and to all noble Lords for their contributions. May I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Mackay on his maiden speech. With 30 years of running his own businesses and a former chair of the Federation of Small Business, he will bring an enormous contribution to our debates in this House, and we look forward to hearing much more from him. My Lord, this is a time debate, so I'll try to endeavour to answer as many questions as I can. And if I'm not, I will write to all noble Lords and place a copy in the library. My Lords family businesses touch our lives every single day. The milk in our tea, the bread on our table, the shop on our high street. My Lords, consider how many family businesses might touch our lives before we have even stepped outside our front door. The Harrison Springs mattress will wake up on the Baylis and Harding handwash in the bathroom, the Yorkshire tea in our cup, the moon flake porridge in our bowl, and the warburtons bread in our toaster that perhaps a pair of Crockett and Jones shoes and a Barbour jacket before we leave the house. So behind. Behind each family product are families who have invested, taken risks, created jobs and built reputations over generations. Their businesses are woven in our daily lives. They are future matter matters in every community they employ, supply and serve. Behind each is a family that has taken a risk, built a reputation and accepted responsibility for other people's livelihoods. When a manufacturer. When a family manufacturer invests in a market town or a village business takes on an apprentice, the benefits remain in that community for many years to come. These businesses often measure success in generations, having spent more than 45 years building businesses and running businesses. Understand something of that outlook. I know the satisfaction of running, of winning a customer and seeing an employee develop. I also know the pressure of meeting payroll when an invoice remains unpaid, when your family savings, livelihood and reputation are invested in the business, those pressures follow you home. So I recognise why owners worry about energy bills, borrowing costs, business rates and employment costs, including National Insurance. They experience those pressures together alongside the time required to understand changing rules. So for a small firm without a finance department or a HR team, the owner bears the burden directly. Government must understand that reality. Our support must be assessed, accessible, our record requirements proportionate and our implementation workable. That is the purpose behind our small business plan, helping firms manage today's pressures while building. Building the confidence and capacity to grow. Let me set out what that means in practice. First, getting paid a business can have a healthy order book and still face a cash flow crisis. An overdue invoice can mean postponing equipment, turning down work, or abandoning plans to recruit. So through our Commercial Payments Bill have the support of the noble Lord opposite. We are pursuing a maximum payment period of 60 days for contracts within scope. Stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner and a ban on construction retentions. A small family supplier should be able to challenge poor payment practices with confidence. Work delivered should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mean payment received. Secondly, access to finance and advice. access to finance and advice. Family owners may want to expand while retaining control of the enterprise they have built. Finance enterprise they have built. Finance must respond to that ambition. The British Business Bank five year British Business Bank five year strategy includes 85,000 new start up for established smaller firms. The Growth Guarantee Scheme The Growth Guarantee Scheme supports access to lending for investment and growth through the business growth service and the growth hubs throughout the country.

We are also making advice easier to find. Mid-Market businesses face their own challenges around investment management and exporting. The northern 500 initiative will bring ambitious mid-sized northern businesses together with mayors, government and private sector partners to support their growth. Thirdly, investing in people and productivity. Succession requires preparation. Developing future leaders, bringing in expertise and giving the next generation room to contribute. The Government's Help to Grow Management Programme provides eligible leaders with training and mentoring backed by 90% government subsidy.

Our digital adoption work helps business access how technology and AI can improve productivity. Family firms also give many young people their first chance. Many noble Lords have asked point about skills. So in England, apprenticeship training is fully funded for. Eligible for eligible under 25 at Non-levy pay paying employers with a £2,000 hiring payment to. For eligible new apprentices from this month. These measures help small employers develop the skills they need. Fourthly, opportunities to win business.

Departmental procurement targets are intended to deliver more than £7.4 billion in annual direct spending, with small and medium sized businesses. By 2028, the Procurement Act and the central digital platform are designed to reduce barriers to participation. The test is whether a capable family business can compete fairly without the bidding process consuming resources it cannot spare. Place matters to a successful high street brings customers to the family cafe, retailer and service business.

Our £210 million high streets package will help bring neglected buildings back into use, and support community assets and businesses. Alongside the forthcoming High Street Strategy. My Lords, let me now turn to inheritance and succession. I understand why this matters so much. A business value may be tied up in premises, machinery or land that is not the same as having cash available. Although an estate can, where appropriate, pay its tax liability from other assets, some families are asking what a potential future liability means for today's investment and how it affects succession succession planning.

Recognising that business owners have a range of options, including making lifetime gifts, the government has to balance support for enterprise with fair taxation and sustainable public services. We have also listened and changed the arrangements. The allowance for assets eligible for 100% agricultural and business property relief is £2.5 million and any unused allowance can be transferred between spouses and and civil partners. This means a couple can pass on up to £5 million in qualifying assets tax free, alongside existing allowances and exemptions.

Qualifying as above, the allowance received 50% relief and tax attributes attributed to property eligible for these reliefs can be paid over ten years in interest free instalments. However, I will ensure the concerns raised today are conveyed to my Treasury colleagues. Now, Family Business UK also contributes to our work on small business growth and mid-market and regulation, and I and my team and my colleagues meet with them regularly. That dialogue matters and I look forward to taking part in Family Business Week coming up very soon.

My Lords, families and families who build businesses invest far more than money. They invest their time, their hopes, and often a lifetime work. They deserve a government that understands that commitment and takes their concerns seriously. Our task is to help turn them. Our task is to help turn ambition into investment, investment into good jobs and years of hard work, into a business that the next generation can carry forward. When family businesses succeed, employees, suppliers and the whole communities share in that particular success.

 That is why their future matters to us all.
16:06
16:06
Baroness Teather Portrait Baroness Teather (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
population. The question is how we can best prepare as a nation and make our food system more resilient. Planning effective interventions on food security requires us to think systemically across silos, from farming and the environment to foreign and defence policy, foreign and defence policy, international trade, public health, local government planning regulations, business logistics, regulations, business logistics, behavioural science and much more besides. Now, I certainly am no expert in all these areas, but one thing I have learned as a new member here is that breadth of expertise is something this House has in spades.

The reason I suggested this title for debate is because this kind of urgent, vital and knotty challenge plays to the strengths of this house. I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have given their time and experience to participate today, and I look forward very much to hearing what they have to say as the topic is huge. I want to focus my remarks on three areas. First, the threats to our food system and our national response.

Second, efforts to build resilience for the longer term. And three, the need to involve the whole of society in the effort. Noble Lords, multiple reports in recent years have warned that the UK is dangerously unprepared for potentially catastrophic shocks to our food system. Professor Tim Lang's impressive report for the National Preparedness Commission last year paints a comprehensive picture of current vulnerabilities. The National Audit Office warned last month that the sector's ability to withstand events has not been tested.

Farmers tell us that climate change is already a reality, creating huge unpredictability. Crops this year have been affected by drought, flooding, excessive rain and extreme heat, which has sometimes, of course made it too hot to harvest. While some yields have held up, we've seen the worst cereal harvest on record. And with a supercharged El Nino, that's only likely to get worse. The Joint Intelligence Committee has given stark warnings about the potential for the collapse of ecosystems within five years, and the threat to national security and food supply.

In addition, there are new crises emerging. Attacks on international shipping in the Straits of Hormuz have sharply increased the cost of diesel and fertiliser for UK farmers, and threatened critical shortages in fertiliser in Africa and Asia, from whom we import. Of course, farmers is not the only international choke point we should worry about. We've seen cyber attacks on supermarkets and distributors this week. The director general of MI5 warned about the risk of AI enabled drone attacks on UK soil, a real concern when almost 95% of retail food moves through just 131 distribution centres.

In this new reality, it is naive to assume that private sector switching of supply chains alone will be enough to keep food flowing. Now, it is certainly the case that supermarkets responded with impressive speed to maintain supplies during Covid. But Covid also exposed structural failings in our system that we haven't yet addressed. First, adequate food supply does not equate to all the people being fed. The Food Foundation estimates that 1 in 8 households are already insecure for food.

I saw during Covid, during while I was running a charity for people facing destitution, that global food shocks fall unequally and they can have devastating health impacts. Second, none of the national food security assessments consider how the public might actually behave in a food shock scenario. The flip side of highly optimised, just in time logistics is that very small changes in consumer behaviour can quickly empty shelves. Third, the same efficient logistics have all but eliminated the need for storage.

We could have just a few days of food available in the face of a catastrophic interruption to supply. We import around 40% of our food and more than 80% of our fruit. It's vital we increase the proportion of food we grow in the UK, but this is only part of the story. Food ingredients are often passed along lengthy, tortuous supply chains before the end upon the plate, with processing, manufacturing and distribution happening in different locations. Disruptions anywhere can cascade and amplify along the route.

Given this context, our national assessment of risks risk looks dangerously complacent. The National Risk Register, for example, has very little on the food system. And where it does consider food, the focus is on risk of contamination rather than interruptions to supply or access. So what is needed? Well, first, the Cabinet Office frankly needs to up its game and update the way we assess and think about food security in the light of the new threats.

We need a special National Risk Register study that includes consideration of public reactions and dynamics. Second, the government's Post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act provides an opportunity to integrate food resilience and think about the kinds of structures we need at local and regional level to coordinate efforts. Local areas need plans to get food to the vulnerable, and an understanding of community assets and networks that could help. And we need a more grown up conversation with the public than a website telling people to stock up on tins.

Third, while there are legal duties to ensure food is safe, there are actually no duties to ensure that everyone gets fed. It really isn't clear who would hold responsibility for this in a crisis. And finally, we need a rapid assessment of what storage is available at national, regional and local levels and a plan to improve it. Now, this isn't an easy fix. Can the government convene a cross-sector task force, for example, to wrestle with it? Other countries, everywhere from Switzerland to China, have national stores.

Many European nations are developing plans to store food. A key theme from Professor Lange's report for the National Preparedness Commission was the need to move our normal times peacetime food system to a more distributed and diverse model to boost domestic production and enhance regional food systems. The UK is unusual in having an underdeveloped regional food system compared with, say, France or Italy. Long term sustainability in our food system depends on protecting the natural resources.

Farming depends on soil health and biodiversity, and transitioning from reliance on globally imported fertiliser. Yesterday, the government published a new organic action plan for England to boost the share of food farmed organically. My first reading of it suggests there is much in it that is welcome, including backing organic farming to boost resilience in climate to climate change. We have to support farmers to transition to new ways of farming. That means backing those willing to experiment with organic and regenerative farming models, which focus on soil health and aren't tied to inorganic fertilisers.

We must fund rigorous scientific research into crop yields, soil nature and profitability, and share those lessons widely. But the new organic plan also leaves lots of questions. There's been exasperation from farmers at the chaos of the Sustainable Farming Incentive scheme. Small growers told me that even if the scheme had been well managed, it left them out by design. They're a critical component of a regional food system, and often already farming in sustainable ways.

Valleys, veg, for example, in Somerset and established Small Farm, told me that the economics of the food system currently relies on farmers effectively exploiting themselves. Its owners are deeply committed to agroecological farming, but don't have the resources to certify as organic, something the organic plan acknowledges is a problem. Valleys. Veggies commitment to the cause extends to supporting new entrants. They provide a small plot of land for free to a local grower to run a market garden, and they allow him to live on site for below market rent.

But even with all that generosity, he struggles to make a living. According to a recent McCain foods survey, 1 in 4 farmers made a loss or barely broke even in the last year. And 2 in 5 considered quitting altogether. We know those financial pressures are particularly acute for small farmers. Those who make it work often rely on additional funding streams. The Inspirational Prospects Trust on the Cambridge Suffolk border includes an accessible nature reserve, organic farm shop and retail outlet, and provides placements for people with learning disabilities or autism.

Funded through social care, they employ 51 local people part time and grow delicious fruit and veg. Over decades, they've built trusted relationships with the local organic wholesaler and a Cambridge college chef willing to cook the veg they can't sell elsewhere. Reducing food waste. They told me relationships are key to their ability to adapt to shifting weather, because constant communication allows them to agree with the customer what they can crop. It's a remarkable success story.

But there was frustration that they couldn't access the Agricultural Water Resilience Grant to replace their leaky irrigation system, because they could not quickly raise the 50% capital contribution that was needed. So I asked the Minister, what is the government going to do to support to support small farms such as these? Cambridge, incidentally, is an example of a city with a vibrant local food partnership, much enthusiasm and fertile arable land, but without capital investment in the missing middle of infrastructure on storage and distribution.

It is difficult to turn ambition into a functioning regional food system. The founder of the fledgling Cambridge Food Hub has been trying to secure investment for that missing middle for 13 years. He illustrated the problem he's seeking to fix by explaining that even though one of the largest strawberry farms and farmers in the country is based just outside the city, local businesses must buy their produce from new Covent Garden markets. That means fruit grown six miles away must travel 120 miles, Cambridge to London, London to Cambridge in a refrigerated lorry.

 This is madness. It's worth contrasting this with the success of the initiative Welsh veg in schools. With Welsh Government backing Food Science Wales to broker deals and local infrastructure donated by Castle Howell. Local growers have been able to coordinate what they grow more veggies being grown and local farms now supply over half of Wales's councils. The new organic plan restates the government's ambitions to use public sector procurement to support domestic growing. But and.

And it also references sustained Bridging the gap programme. But it's very short on detail about how the government will invest in the so-called missing middle infrastructure to make regional food systems fly. Will the Minister tell me what plans her department have to make good on Labour's 2024 manifesto pledge to boost local food procurement? The final theme I want to touch on is how we can ensure our efforts on food security involve the whole of society.

We have a long standing problem with food inequality and it's getting worse. The government announced small pots of funding for the Good Food Neighbourhoods programme to tackle fruit and veg deserts. But what's missing is a coherent national strategy, with teeth that draws together public health planning policy, housing strategy, local government, agricultural policy and public attitudes. Now is the moment for a good food bill, something that covers the full arc of the food system, allowing coordinated decision making at national and local level.

It would allow us to set targets, for example, on childhood obesity, food security and domestic production. It would provide certainty about the direction of travel for farmers, businesses, investors and consumers. It would also kick start a consultation about what we mean when we talk about a healthy, nutritious, sustainable diet. What would a reference diet look like? What implications would it have for our agricultural strategy? What needs to shift in public attitudes? If we're to consume more of the foods that we can grow here, like beans and pulses? A consensus on these elements would guide policy making priorities in peacetime.

But it would also be critical in an emergency. Joined up policy making would also give more creative projects a chance, like peri urban growing and land for community gardening and allotments. No one's arguing that community growing projects will fill the gap in domestic production. But what it can do is build solidarity, narrow the distance between farmers and urban populations, build knowledge and shape attitudes to what we eat and cook. Because in the end, in an emergency, it's only communities acting together that can provide civil resilience.

Everything we do now to invest in conditions for deeper community bonds will reap dividends. My Lords, the need to address Britain's food security cannot wait. I look forward to the minister's response and the debate today. I beg to move here.
16:21
Lord Smith of Ranmoor Portrait Lord Smith of Ranmoor (Labour)
-
-
The question is that this motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Baroness Teather on securing this debate? I look forward to working with her and forward to working with her and colleagues across your Lordships House on this vital issue. I declare an interest as the Chairman declare an interest as the Chairman of Cranswick plc, a large food processor and farmer. The United processor and farmer. The United Kingdom cannot have genuine food security without profitable domestic farming. Resilient supply domestic farming. Resilient supply chains and a thriving food manufacturing sector. Our ambition must be clear sustainable, affordable, healthy food produced in a system that is fair for all our retailers. Understand that good quality UK produce matters to their customers. But consumer demand alone cannot secure our food supply. That requires productive capacity, investment infrastructure and consistent government policy. Food security is national security and we should treat it accordingly. It's one of those issues we tend to only notice when something goes wrong. By then, the consequences are already being felt in our farms and our food businesses and supermarkets, and above all, in household budgets. We simply can't stop consuming food when supplies become scarce or prices rise. Yet our food system is exposed to conflict, extreme weather, volatile energy and fertiliser costs, cyber attacks, trade disruptions and pressure on domestic production. The real test of food security, therefore, is not whether food is a verbal. When conditions are favourable, it's whether we can continue to produce, source, process and distribute it when they are not. Nor is a full supermarket shelf proof that a country's food secure food may be available, but unaffordable imports may keep prices down in the short term while concealing an excessive dependence on overseas suppliers. We therefore need to consider four questions. Do we have enough food? Can we maintain supplies when production or trade is disrupted? Can households afford what they need, and can people access the food that supports good health? They're not separate challenges. They're interconnected tests of whether our food system is genuinely resilient. And Professor Laing, in his report, touches most of those topics. My Lords, a resilient food system begins with the productive domestic agriculture sector. If farming is not profitable, it's not sustainable. And if it's not sustainable, our food security is at risk. Farmers need the returns that allow them to invest in equipment, livestock technology, soil health and infrastructure. They need confidence that government policy will remain sufficiently stable for long term investment to make sense. That trust matters. We can't expect farmers to invest for the next generation if they can't predict the conditions under which they will operate over the next few years. Farmers themselves are strategic national assets underpinning domestic production, traceability, food standards and our own capacity to respond to disruption. How well do we understand the productive infrastructure on which our food supply operates? Do we know where our crucial dairies, critical bakeries, protein processing facilities and coal stores are located? Where are the bananas that you ate today? Ripened? Do we understand the consequences if a major facility closes or an essential input becomes unavailable? And do we have credible contingency plans? Those questions are not considered optional in relation to energy or other critical national infrastructure. So why should food be treated differently? Domestic production alone cannot guarantee food security. International trade remains essential. The answer is to strengthen our own productive capacity, while diversifying the overseas resources on which we depend. Imports can supplement domestic resilience. They cannot be a substitute for it. A country may have productive farms but remain vulnerable if it lacks the processing capacity to turn that output into food on supermarket shelves. Manufacturing and distribution is not a secondary consideration. It is also an integral part of our national food infrastructure. There is a risk that we undermine that capacity for the very policies and constraints that prevent domestic businesses from expanding. Consider chicken production demand has grown around 4.5% a year in the last three years, but planning constraints have made it difficult to build the additional domestic capacity needed to satisfy that need. The result is more of that. Demand is now met by imports, including from Poland, the Netherlands, Brazil and Thailand. Those overseas imports have doubled since 2020, so we should ask why it has proved so difficult to secure investment in additional UK production and resilience. There are investors ready to commit capital. There are plans, there are other. But there are other barriers presenting that domestic capacity from growing. There's a fundamental contradiction in making food security a policy priority. While we instruct. The way in investment is needed to deliver it. My Lords, we cannot secure tomorrow's food supply by exhausting the natural resources on which that supply depends. Climate change presents direct risks to agricultural productivity, healthy soils, reliable water, biodiversity and effective land management are not simply environmental aspirations. They are the very foundations of long term productive capacity. We should reject the false choice between food production and environmental protection. Neither can be secured sustainably by disregarding the other, but neither can we ignore the trade offs involved in land use decisions about food production. Nature recovery, energy generation and development have consequences. Those consequences must be understood and assessed together. Farmers need a coherent, long term framework that rewards environmental stewardship, while allowing viable agriculture businesses to produce food and invest in their future. Otherwise, we risk weakening domestic production in pursuit of objectives that depend, in turn, on resilient domestic economy. One final and for me, important test, and it is the one that matters most to families. Can people afford to eat well? Food security cannot be measured simply by national production figures, import volumes or the availability of calories. It must also be measured by whether households can afford a healthy diet. When food prices rise and household budgets come under pressure. The consequences extend well beyond the weekly shopping bill. They affect children's development, health inequalities, productivity and long term demands placed on the NHS. That's why food security must connect agricultural policy with public health. Household incomes, food prices, public procurement and the access to nutritious food. We must not create a false choice between affordable food and healthy food, or between improving nutrition and maintaining viable food businesses. My Lord Defra and my noble friend about Baroness Hayman cannot deliver food security alone. This agenda crosses departmental boundaries involving health, business, trade, energy, transport, education and local government. It also requires a close partnership between government and the businesses that produce, process and distribute our food. The country needs profitable farms, resilient food manufacturing, diversified international supply chains and natural environment sustains production and our food system, capable of delivering affordable, healthy food to every household. Food security should not be an aspiration we rediscover every time a crisis exposes our weaknesses. It must be a permanent test of how we make policy, because the true measure of our food security is not whether the system works when everything is going well. It is whether it continues to work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when things go wrong. My Lords, I congratulate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Teather on calling this timely and important calling this timely and important debate in her very comprehensive speech. The Prime Minister has stated recently that national stated recently that national security must not come before Social Security. But I think the Social Security. But I think the tone of this debate is already indicating, my Lords, that without
16:30
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Portrait Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Conservative)
-
-
food security, there can be no security at all. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has set that out Lord, Lord Smith, has set that out in his very knowledgeable contribution. Our farmers produce contribution. Our farmers produce 60% of our food with government support. They have over the years support. They have over the years worked to protect the sustainability of our land so that we can continue to have a reliable we can continue to have a reliable food supply in what is now. As we all know, an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation which threatens already fragile international supply chains, global food fuel shortages affect our food production just as they do all industry, and we have real and accelerating climate change deeply affecting. If anybody need an example, this year's Harvest My Lords in 2025, and this has already been mentioned by the noble Lords who have spoken. The National Preparedness Commission reported on the resilience of our food system. Professor Tim Lang, already quoted, said that while we continue to import food, our current food system is not sufficiently prepared to withstand inevitable future crises. If there is to be a future defence readiness Bill, it must include, obviously, a long term plan for a strong and stable food supply system. There seem to be an idea and I would welcome enlightened from enlightenment, from the noble Baroness, the Minister, perhaps later on, that the government has suggested that local authorities might be given the task of providing food stores as part of a food security plan. I really do hope that I was either mistaken or whoever it was was not speaking with authority, because I think all of us would agree that just at this moment, with local government in total flux and reorganisation, could not really be entrusted right now with something as complex as a new system of food storage. I mean, I would remind the house, although they don't really need reminding, so far we know almost nothing about the structure, the functions, and above all, the imminence of local government reform. And if local government is to be given this vital task, those who produce our food should know what form that task is likely to take. I apologise to the noble Baroness, the Minister. She may not be able to answer this, but she can. Great stuff. My Lords, and this really should not need saying. But honestly, before we discuss food storage, should we not try to ensure that those who actually produce the food are given as much support and certainty as possible so that they can continue that food production? We know that farmers, by definition, and people have already mentioned this. They're accustomed to working with uncertainty, climate conditions, world events which affect supplies and prices. They plan not just for the following year, but for several seasons ahead. But they do need to be able to invest confidently and for the long term in land improvement, irrigation, water storage and livestock. But this is not at all what the present government has delivered so far. For this, the very core of our national security, our land, our environment and our food supply. What the government has delivered is a series of shocks and policy changes, some of them literally at the last minute, driving farmers from the land and thereby threatening not only our food security, but also our rural communities. There really has been a heavy price for this ill thought out policy. The last year has seen the closure of more than 6000 agricultural, forestry and fishing businesses. There has indeed been a recent survey survey by the CLA already mentioned. This survey has revealed what we knew would happen, namely that the government's introduction of the inheritance tax changes on farmers would have a devastating effect on their confidence to invest. The same survey survey found that almost 9 in 10 farmers have paused investment in order to avoid triggering the tax. Many have cancelled the creation of income earning projects, like the provision of holiday homes, farm shops and cafes. All of this cutting jobs in rural communities. Others are having to delay vital machinery purchases, irrigation and drainage schemes, farm building repairs and renewing animal stocks, resulting in the attrition of farming and our rural areas. Every aspect of the rural economy, which is not only the staple of our food security, but also of the protection of our environment, has been affected. I'm sorry to say, by what is perceived in rural communities and by a government which they feel is hostile to them. My Lords, this is not the way to improve our national security that any government should talk about. Plans for national security while threatening the livelihoods of those responsible for its main component. Food security is almost beyond belief. These are harsh words, and I do know that the noble Baroness, the Minister, has much understanding of the problems that the government seem to have inflicted on rural communities. I know also that there have been some helpful changes, and many of these have been mentioned. But I do hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to persuade her ministerial colleagues that if they are serious about our national security, they will have to accept that without food security and what that means, they cannot claim to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protecting our nation. Hear, hear. My Lords. I'd like to congratulate Baroness Teather for organising this debate. And that was a terrific speech. Many of the was a terrific speech. Many of the things that I would like to say she's already said, as indeed has Lord Singh and Baroness Shephard Lord Singh and Baroness Shephard very much. I agree with the point that you don't test the food system until things go really wrong. So until things go really wrong.

So just as a sort of anecdote or story, when the seven over seven attacks happened, the ghastly attacks happened in London. There was no food because rightfully the city
16:37
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-
was locked down and everyone who had arrived by train and by tube, all the commuters were stuck inside London. And indeed, there wasn't enough food. And the policy, the only policy that was, was apparently to bring the head of Marks and Spencers and to ask for every single sandwich in the UK to be brought to London. And indeed, that's what happened. And every sandwich was eaten. And the following day everyone went home. following day everyone went home. But that's an illustration that things can happen and we're not prepared. And Baroness Teather briefly mentioned freezers. I mean, I hope everyone here has been reading about the cyber attack on French refrigerators in supermarkets. I mean, I was trying to look up this afternoon, but they still haven't said quite how much food real proper food has been destroyed in this way. So I think that this in a way, we shouldn't even be having a debate about whether we need more food security. We should only be having a debate into how we should achieve that. We are very dependent. 80% of fruit, 47% of vegetables, and 18 out of our top suppliers come from areas that are vulnerable. Just this spring, Sicily, Spain, Morocco were flooded, affecting enormous quantities of imports. These are foods that we have become very lazy and a sort of attitude. Well, if we can't grow it, someone else can. We can always shop. You know, Amazon makes it worse, a sense that everything is available to us all the time. Well, the answer is that it's not. And we have to find ways to be more resilient. I'm not arguing against trade. I'm just arguing for resilience and for a food system that takes food back into communities, back to farmers, and makes decent wages for them. Because there are many reports. And these come again from Tim Lang, who I think we will all quote, and who I have worked with very closely over the last 20 years. I mean, there are reports that some parts of East Anglia have 15 harvests left, ten harvests left, because we have overworked the very precious stuff on which we all depend. And that's the soil, actually, we have no food if we don't have the soil. I think James Dyson has an answer about strawberries, but quite frankly, I don't know enough about that at the moment except for to mention it. But I don't think that growing food hydroponically in factories is also an answer. What I want to advocate for is that the whole of our farming system tips towards regenerative agriculture. And indeed, I have put in a pitch to have a special inquiry on how this could be achieved. Because the thing about regen is it hasn't. While I very much welcome the government's support about organic, it's not quite as tough as organic and quite frankly, many people can get it. So what does it mean to farm Regeneratively? It means that you no longer go on completely digging the soil one foot deep, because one way of thinking about that, if you understand soil, understand that this is a living community with millions of different interactions going on every second. It is truly magical. It's like being bombed every night. It's like the soil lives in the blitz. You build your house and we smash it down. Somehow it keeps on recovering, but it only recovers because of the addition of fertilisers, which are sometimes, I think, rather thankfully at the moment stuck in the Straits of Hormuz. One of the things I do is I'm involved with the Groundswell Festival, which is the Regenerative Agriculture Festival, and when it took place this year in June, when the first impacts were being felt, the numbers of farmers who came. And when I started the school to say, how can I transition my farm? How can I go from this very, very high level of inputs into a place where I can get the soil and get nature to do the job for me, which is effectively what we're saying. And the answer is that they need help. So I'd like to kind of quickly go back for a minute to when the Environment Act was going through under the previous government, and there was a big fight in this chamber about what would categorise as elves, the environmental land management piece that was put in to replace the Common Agricultural Policy, which for all its ills and all the things that it got messed up, was basically a support for farmers who just owning the land. So if you now get on to the scheme, you get. The SFI, which is soil and pests and biodiversity. You get countryside stewardship and you get landscape recovery and you can claim for that. But if you just want to get money for growing food, the argument then was you can't do that because food makes money. But again, quoting Tim Lang, the farmer gets roughly £0.08 in every pound that you spend on food. So no wonder they are, as the late Shepherd said, they are setting up weddings in their barns and renting out cottages. I mean, I've got nothing against that, but we should pay for the food we have now. Food at its best goes back to communities, and one of the other things that's very bad about the subsidy systems is that you cannot support the really small farms and small farms, intensively grown, can produce a good salaries and be a lot of food. I was at the Jersey Regenerative Agriculture Conference the other day, and I met the nut farmer of Glastonbury who has, I promise you, only five acres. He had enough family money to tide himself for seven years. He is now supporting four workers and his family of four acres of production. It's a great story. It's a replicable story as well. And I have been. I've chaired Feeding Britain. I have put together capital growth in this city. You know, we have 200 acres of London that were nothing and now produce food, and we produce something like 200,000 tonnes of food a year. That's probably an exaggeration. But anyway, it really works. So I want to see the government revisit the way we subsidise and help people transition from very traditional kinds of farming and across. So I go back to groundswell as an example. And the farm that they work on is run by two brothers. And it's a great story. It's like a parable one brother does completely and the other brother still does traditional. So you can walk from one farm to the other. And over this year in the drought, the one who did farming, he still had water, he still had crops, and he had spent no money on his input. Now his yield was not massive. But on the other hand, his balance sheet in terms of what he'd spent, was almost zero. On the other side of the fence there was drought and there were crops dying. What you do with regenerative is also you use animals, you use everything at your disposal and you do mob grazing, which quite honestly, could be done by a robot so that cattle move across the land eating only the top inch of the grass. You never wear it out completely. It's sort of revolutionary because at the same time you get insects, you get biodiversity, and you get extraordinary food. Now I've got one minute left and I anyone who knows me well knows that I constantly bang on about ultra processed food. If we can change the way we eat and localise it, put more advertising, put local networks in, put ways that whoever was talking about, how do you get access to the city? The lunacy of having to come into Covent Garden. When I chaired the London Food Board, we tried really hard to set up hubs, mirroring what they do in New York, where they have a fantastic centre at the top of New York City that takes produce all over New York State and distributes it around the city. It's fantastic. It means that the farmers are getting £0.40 in the pound rather than £0.08 in the pound. We can do all this stuff with a bit of government thinking, changing the way we use the money. And the point is, everyone benefits. You benefit the kids, you benefit the people, you benefit health. And ultimately we benefit the soil because the soil doing its stuff is the best carbon sink in the world. There is nothing to beat it for. Just absorbing carbon and keeping us on a net zero track. So it seems to me it's a win win. And the other way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a lose lose. My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Teather for bringing this important debate bringing this important debate before your Lordships House, and it's an honour to follow that excellent speech by my noble friend excellent speech by my noble friend Baroness Boycott. I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. It was from the noble Coalition. It was from the noble Baroness Baroness Batters, when she was president of the National Farmers Union, that I first heard
16:46
Lord Bishop of Newcastle Portrait The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
Farmers Union, that I first heard food security discussed in terms which brought home its significance. Her clarity helped me understand that the ability to feed ourselves, to serve sustained attention at the heart of His Majesty's Government food security connects the farmer, looking anxiously at the weather forecast, with the parent looking anxiously at the supermarket receipt. Both need a food system they can depend upon. The threats are growing and interconnected, as noble Lords have already mentioned.

Extreme weather, conflict, volatile energy and fertiliser costs, animal disease and disruption to transport and distribution. Other noble Lords have referred to the NPC's 2025 report, the National Audit Office report last month also found that government has done too little to prepare for potentially catastrophic disruptions to food supply. It highlighted the limited involvement of food businesses in national preparedness exercises. We cannot assume that because food reached our shelves yesterday, it will necessarily do so tomorrow.

I want to highlight three dimensions of our response. First, food security requires viable farming businesses. Many of the communities in my diocese across Northumberland, from the Cheviots to the arable land nearer the coast, farming sustains communities as well as producing food, businesses make decisions about planting livestock, borrowing and succession over timescales much longer than a parliamentary term. When confidence weakens, investment is postponed, when businesses disappear, skills and productive capacity cannot simply be switched back on.

The noble Lady Baroness Batters Farming Profitability review, published at the end of last year, offered recommendations on finance, planning, supply chains and infrastructure, and I welcome His Majesty's Government's response. The test will be whether these commitments enable farmers to plan, invest and earn a fair return. Public purchasing by schools, hospitals and other institutions should create realistic opportunities for smaller producers to supply nutritious food, strengthening local markets and connections between producers and consumers.

Newcastle University's research helps us understand whose enterprise sustains these businesses. Professor Sally Shortall, its Duke of Northumberland Professor of Rural Economy, together with Doctor Hannah Burgeon doctor Margaret Addis Ababa, has examined women's contributions to farm diversification and sustainable agriculture. Their research for DEFRA shows how women's businesses and income from employment beyond the farm can underpin farm viability. It also identifies barriers to training, business support and recognition, and the policy implication is clear support must reach everyone whose work sustains production advice.

Finance and networks should recognise women as farmers, entrepreneurs and decision makers. Overlooking their contribution means overlooking part of our capacity to adapt. Second, food security requires a healthy environment and dependable infrastructure. Healthy soils. As my noble friend has just pointed out, reliable water supplies, pollinators and functioning ecosystems underpin food production. Supporting farmers to protect these resources is an investment in future harvests. Newcastle University's work on regenerative agriculture highlights opportunities to reduce reliance on external inputs and strengthen resilience.

But change requires investment and advice suited to different farms. Policy must recognise the distinct circumstances, for example, of Northumberland's upland livestock and lowland arable businesses. Having lived and worked in New Zealand's Waikato region, I bring another agricultural context to these questions. Circumstances differ, but the connections between farming, local livelihoods and confidence are familiar. New Zealand also offers a warning. In 2023, Cyclone Gabrielle flooded farms and orchards, damaged roads and electricity supplies and isolated rural communities.

A single event disrupted several parts of the food system simultaneously. For Northumberland, in my area, the lesson is practical resilience planning must include the roads, power supplies and communications connecting farms to processors and markets. A productive farm still needs a functioning root route from field to fork. Imports offer diversity of supply, but they also connect us to environmental and geopolitical pressures elsewhere. They must sit alongside a resilient domestic farming sector. Thirdly, we must care for those who feed us and those struggling to be fed.

This year's Oxford Farming Conference took growing resilience as its theme. Its chair, Jude McCann, also leads the farming community network. Agriculture's resilience depends upon the resilience of its people. The network supports families and farmers through business difficulties and personal pressures. New Zealand's Rural Support Trusts likewise demonstrate the value of trusted local relationships. When rural communities face diversity. Further research by Professor Shortall and Doctor Budge offers an important caution. Their study of farming during the pandemic found that its effects differed within farm families, with women experiencing increased domestic responsibilities and emotional burdens.

Their conclusion was that crises affect the whole farm family and its members differently. Our response must therefore look beyond the person formerly identified as the farmer. Caring responsibilities, wellbeing and access to support belong within our understanding of food resilience. Rural churches and community organisations can sustain supportive relationships. They need accessible public services alongside them. Equally, national food security must reach the household. Food on a shelf offers little security to someone unable to afford it.

In Newcastle and rural Northumberland, nutritious food is a matter of health, dignity and opportunity. Will the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain how His Majesty's Government will turn its farming commitments and the National Audit Officer's findings into a co-ordinated, tested programme of food resilience involving producers and communities with clear responsibilities and reporting to Parliament. My Lords, our daily bread depends upon land, labour and relationships. We owe those who produce it and everyone who needs it, a system capable of sustaining all three.
16:53
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Lord Speaker)
-
-
Great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. I understand it's her third speech of understand it's her third speech of the day, so I congratulate her on her stickability. And I do want to thank Baroness Teather for bringing this incredibly important issue to the floor of the House this afternoon, because we've heard already that food security is national security, and as such, it should be treated as a permanent strategic priority rather than something which is focussed upon only when there is a crisis.

And there's no doubt, however, that recent geopolitical instability has demonstrated how quickly disruption internationally can feed through into the cost of producing food. Of course, agriculture is particularly exposed through energy and fuel security of supply and cost, fertiliser, its availability and cost, not to mention, from a Northern Ireland point of view, the carbon border pricing mechanism, which is coming in at the start of the year and which is going to have an impact on the availability and the cost of fertiliser issues with transport and logistics, again for Northern Ireland can be an issue in and around the Windsor framework.

And of course, all of the changes that happen internationally in relation to commodities. The issue, therefore, is not simply whether food can be imported today. Government really does need to consider how resilient our supply chains would be during a sustained international crisis. We need to move away from responding to individual crises with short term measures and towards long term contingency planning for food. And as noble Lords would expect, I wanted to bring a Northern Ireland flavour to the debate today because the Ulster Farmers Union supplied me with some contemporary figures, and I just wanted to bring them to the house.

Fertiliser prices were at least 25.9% higher in June 2026 than a year earlier. Energy costs 20% higher, but at the same time, agricultural output price index was 4.3% lower year on year, and in Northern Ireland in 2025, expenditure on fertiliser and lime increased 32% to £133 million. And that all matters in relation to food security. It's not merely about higher costs, persistent pressure on margins affects a willingness to invest the replacement of machinery and infrastructure is pushed back.

Decisions about future production. It affects productivity, of course. Succession and the next generation. Our capacity to deal with environmental requirements. And ultimately it also is about the amount of food which we in the UK are capable of producing and in respect of succession planning. Baroness Shephard has already mentioned the inheritance tax changes, and it might interest the noble Lady, the Minister, to know that in a recent survey carried out by the Ulster Farmers Union of their members, 88.6% of the respondents indicated that they had increased family stress and worry because of the changes that have taken place in relation to inheritance tax.

Because the economic health of primary agriculture is an early warning indicator on food security, and I think we need to acknowledge that that is the case. But the good news is that, notwithstanding the pressure on family farms in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland should be regarded as strategically important in relation to food production for the UK. It has productive family farms, established livestock, dairy, poultry, egg, arable and horticultural sectors. It has an experienced agricultural workforce and of course, a significant downstream food and drink industry.

 And maintaining that capacity is important not only for us in Northern Ireland but also for the wider UK food system as well. And government should think about agricultural productive capacity in a strategic way, rather than viewing agriculture purely through the lens of annual support budgets. Because the question should not simply be how do we support agriculture, but what agricultural capacity the UK believes it needs to remain resilient? And in that regard, could I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if she and the government have given any thought to food production duty on our farmers, given the importance of food security to the nation? We have all sorts of duties on on welfare, on environment, on the health of our produce.

But given the seriousness of food security, perhaps we should be thinking about a few food production duty, and that would give the certainty to farmers that they need. But we shouldn't just view this as domestic production increasing versus lessening our imports. I think that's a false choice. Imports are and will remain an essential part of our food security and equally, becoming overly dependent on imports from a small number of countries or vulnerable supply routes carries obvious risks.

So what we need is a resilient UK food system with a strong domestic production, but also a diverse international trade as well. It's not an argument for isolation or complete self-sufficiency. Having said that, our ability to produce food domestically is in itself a strategic national asset and one that we should absolutely celebrate. But as I said, food security must start at the farm gate. Farmers can't continually be expected to absorb increasing input costs, maintain high production standards, improve productivity, invest in new technology, improve environmental performance, respond to climate change and continue providing affordable food without receiving a sustainable return from the market.

 We do need a fair, competitive and functioning supply chain with greater transparency, and I think that that is something that is so important because food security ultimately begins with the primary producer. If farmers can't make an adequate return, they can't invest, they can't maintain production or respond to the shocks that we have seen over this past number of months. So I would like to see food security absolutely embedded into government decision making to make it a long term strategic objective.

And the last point I want to make is this that food security and environmental policy must work together. We must avoid portraying food production and the environment as competing objectives. Northern Ireland farmers are already doing significant work around soil health, which has already been mentioned. Genetics, carbon footprinting, nutrient efficiency, biodiversity and environmental management. So the objective should be sustainable production rather than simply less production. There is little food security benefit in reducing UK production if consumption remains unchanged and production is simply displaced overseas.

So my message to the noble Lady, the Minister, is that environmental resilience and food security should be designed together and not pursued in separate policy silos, so I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister and in particular, the idea of a duty on food production, which I think could change the dynamics around our food security.
17:02
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, can I congratulate, sir, my noble friend Baroness Teather, on particularly an Teather, on particularly an excellent speech and completely comprehensive and going through all the areas that she said she would that would all love to be experts on. One thing I wanted to say is that the UK is not a stranger to food crises, in that when I was born, I won't say exactly when. We still had rationing from the Second World War and the rationing of sweets of chocolate and of sugar actually ended in 1953, and rationing finally ended for meat and poultry and I think fish products in 1954. Now, I'm pleased to say I don't remember that time at all, but I was alive. And it is in the memory of people that still are alive in in this country. But I also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was present, much more present at one of the other points that Baroness. The noble Baroness Baroness Boycott talked about, which was the explosion of. Just in which was the explosion of. Just in time. Because I operated under contract fleets for Sainsbury's and contract fleets for Sainsbury's and other major. During the 1980s, and all of a sudden, and also I would all of a sudden, and also I would say I dealt with the crazy. A company called Crazy Prices, who I think have been taken over since by Tesco's, who were a brilliant retailer, food retailer in Northern Ireland, and at that time, the grocery industry, the fast moving consumer goods industry in groceries, moved from something like a few hundred lines to 4000 to 11,000 in a typical supermarket or superstore.

And we were in a situation where we had this amazing variety of foods from across the globe and across the country that we could enjoy, and we absolutely made the most of it as a nation and took it totally and absolutely for granted. And that just in time, for which I take some responsibility, did exactly what the noble Baroness said, which was take stocks completely out of the system and was very profitable for those retailers to do that system with the help of further computerisation.

 Automation still exists. Now, I'll come back to that maybe later on, but what I want to do today is there's so many things that I could, I could talk about, and my noble friend has mentioned a number of them. They might be nature friendly farming. It could be biodiversity. It could be pollinators, it could be all of those challenges of vasive species that we haven't talked about. That's that's key. But what I'm going to talk about is the other 70% of the planet, which is our oceans and our seas, which I don't think we've mentioned today, but actually provides something like 6% only of total global protein.

But in many countries, countries, it's far higher, up to 50%. And in the UK is higher as well with our tradition of fish and chips, although we export 80% of our fish and import 80% of what we what we can consume. And there's been two reports this week that have come out around the state of our oceans and the state of our fishing stocks globally and nationally. In terms of the UK, we've had the marine.

The MSC come out with its food report, which has actually highlighted that something like 29 areas of, of fish categories have actually gone from green or from amber to red or from green to amber, and that is clearly not good. There's some good news in terms of North Sea herring and the other fish that I've been privileged to see from Land's End, down in Cornwall, near where I live, which are bluefin tuna, which are a fantastic spectacle if members have the opportunity to see it.

So there's a little bit of positivity there. But our fish stocks, despite all our management, are not in a good position, but internationally, in comparison with 1970, fish stocks globally are down something like 59%. And that is a truly worrying figure in terms of those, the future of biodiversity in our oceans, but also those, particularly the artisanal fisheries in developing world that actually rely on those fish stocks. So my question to the Minister on this is, nationally, what are we pursuing hard enough illegal, unregistered and unreported fisheries? Are we actually doing enough there? I feel we are still not doing that.

It's a difficult issue, but one I think that we need to do. Are we pushing the International Marine Organisation on those fishing vessels, huge trawlers that go across the high seas that that are unflagged or flagged with nations of convenience, that take no control over their actions? Are we doing something there? And something I know the Minister feels strongly about and has worked with us all on in this House, which is the Treaty on Biodiversity beyond National jurisdictions, that gives us, now that the UK has ratified that treaty, that gives us the influence to try to get together with other like minded nations, to actually get some control from what is now piracy on the high seas outside EU Zs.

And I'd be interested to hear from the Minister what we're doing on that. Are we pushing that agenda that's so important forward. So that's national and international, but particularly on the national side. Again, coming back to that, one of the areas that is so important in terms of understanding scientifically what's going on our seas is equipping our fishing vessels with remote electronic monitoring. Now, the government has said it wants to do this, and I'm sure it's absolutely sure that it does.

But what we have at the moment, I think we have one vessel at the moment that is actually got REM electronic monitoring on it that can actually see exactly and analyse exactly what's been caught and give such data a depth of scientific information. Scotland has moved ahead on this. Their pelagic fleet have to be equipped in that way. When are we going to do that in England? And because of English waters and our agreement with the United with the EU, if we meet do that, it means that foreign vessels in our own waters also have to have similar technical equipment and do exactly the same.

So we not only solve that for British waters, hopefully it's a contagious effect on European fisheries as, as as as well. Those are the areas that I would like to see accelerated, I think are so important to save our oceans and our seas. Just one other thing. We talk about food, food imports, but we don't often talk about food exports. We actually export something like 14% of our agricultural production, mainly fish, meat and drink, which I'll come back to later on.

And I'd be interested in the government's view of how that affects strategy. How should how should we look at that? I'm not suggesting a Trump style diesel export ban, but maybe there's some possibilities there in terms of making us more secure. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that we we had rationing that was state imposed. These days, we have family imposed rationing. we have family imposed rationing. We have 2800 at least food stations in this country.

And Trussell trust themselves only. Only them have put out something like 2.5 million parcels of food last year. We need to change that. We have moved from state rationing to family rationing, and that cannot be right in our advanced society.
17:11
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Like the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Newcastle, we've both the Bishop of Newcastle, we've both done a stretch today and I just wonder whether she, like I, are fed up with Ministers saying that up with Ministers saying that national security is food security. But in every step by tax regulation, ignorance or prejudice, obstacles are put in the way of those who put bread on our tables. We have never imported more of our food than at present, either by weight or value.

 Last week, the Food and Drink Federation told us that over all inputs, imports have risen by 0.9% to £33.1 billion in the first half of the year, the highest since records began in 2000. My Lords, that's 33 billion is twice the entire farm gate gross domestic product of all the farmers in our nation, by a ratio of 2 to 1, we are importing more than we are producing. That is not healthy. Now in that hierarchy of needs, food in your belly ranks above a roof over your head.

And we've heard about public money for public goods. My Lords, there is no more public good, more important than feeding the nation. And we have the most productive broad acre agriculture in the world and some of the best dairy and livestock around, all of which enhance our private, our national landscapes. But nowadays a man can do 2000 acres. It's astonishing the old days when a 500 acre family farm would support. Three generations are well and truly over, and I sort of know this more than most because I have a first class degree in agriculture.

 I'm a director of a large farming business, and I've built a career in the fertiliser industry, which is the foundation of the entire food chain, hugely complex technical and market driven upstream supply chains drive world leading innovations in plant nutrition, seed production and crop protection. Not only that, but these firms also mostly privately owned, take the big financial and logistical risks so that when spring comes and crops start growing, farmers have the critical inputs they need to ensure their crops meet their full potential.

 But the problem is that our yeoman farmers have the government on their backs. The National Audit Office has in recent weeks called on the government to make our food system more resilient. But government has stopped investment in in our farming future stone dead with the family farm tax. But it does just doesn't undertake just doesn't attack those farms handed down in trust over generations. But that wider economic private ecosystem that supports them. Somebody mentioned Warburtons earlier, a private business all under threat alongside machinery dealers who are on their knees, and the network of fences, drainage ditches and ground workers who now have no incentive whatsoever to invest in their or our future by some delusion.

The Chief Secretary breezily tells them not to worry about inheritance tax. Dear, oh dear. The government's stand is incomprehensible because their land use framework, which I will say is a shoddy piece of work that would shame a sixth form geography project with the suggestion that Norfolk, Breadbasket of our nation should be forested, requires a 20% improvement in agricultural productivity by 2050. So I asked the Minister, where does she think this 20% productivity gain is going to come from, and yields of improvements have flatlined over a decade.

And when new investment has been made irrational, or our best land is carpeted by solar panels? I was grateful to Lord Smith in a very important and telling contribution when he raised for the first time, to my knowledge, in this House, the risks that are faced in the cold store business, cold store, cold chain are are really, really extraordinarily vulnerable pieces of national infrastructure that ensure food arrives in our stores in a safe and nutritious way.

And I'm grateful for him for raising that particular threat to our food security. Now, we heard last week that there is one civil servant for every five farmers. What have these people been doing? Well, they've been designing an SFI system, which launched in the mid morning during one of the best drilling conditions of the year, exhausted after 5.5 hours and resulted in only 50 upland farmers in the most fragile environments that the Minister knows best being accepted.

Three quarters of eligible farmers missed out because they didn't employ armies of land agents, and have now been forced to rip up the environmental improvements lovingly cherished for years, and instead go hell for leather on intensification. That is a fail. It is this government that has made driven the wedge between economic security and environmental benefits. They have forced farmers to to plough up as much land as they can. No wonder they've all gone to the pub for a pint of warm beer.

Their black Labrador has a better idea of what's going on than the government we pay to sort this out, but it's a battle of survival now. While real Ale dulls the drone of the sanctimonious press releases from Defra, pretending SFI was a success whilst treating the calloused, hands handed farmers with contempt. And I'm sorry for the farmers who thought they could put 75% of their farms into regenerative approaches, which is only really fit for rooks and crows.

They were suckered. Now those remain. Wonder how they're going to cash flow the crops that are meant to be putting into the ground after three bad harvests. The first two wet, then too cold and lately too hot. My Lords, could the economic security of these farms get any worse? Well, yes. Actually say what you like about Brexit, but now we have effective black arse control for winter wheat. The Millers bakers use to bake our bread. I attempt to pronounce the product name, but it's a miracle.

Yet it could all be traded away in a late night session on the 20th of November. Alongside that other miracle precision breeding. Now I have met the people using Crispr technology to breed more nutritious tomatoes, longer life strawberries that halve food waste, faster flowering, healthier purple broccoli, and that Norfolk company protecting the Cavendish banana in Norfolk from from attack in Africa and Latin America from disastrous fungal attack without the need for chemicals. All of this is at risk from an SPS deal that asks alignment rather than mutual recognition.

The EU has seen us coming, but it's not just the EU, it's the US. We did a CO2 deal which rewards French farmers with £1 million subsidy per day over our own. And it was only needed because the former Prime Minister quite recklessly decimated our clean biofuels industry when he negligently surrendered 1.4 billion litres of tariff product, which just happens to be the market. In another one of those late night phone calls with the US president this week, the Other place rubber stamped new taxes on fertiliser the most.

The thing that drives productivity the greatest, which is added to the farmers most expensive input. And that will do nothing to reduce carbon inputs emissions because this government's energy policies make domestic production impossible, all it will do is incentivise the importation at huge cost of the most polluting fertilisers and drive up the cost of fertilisers food in an inflationary spiral that affects the poorest, the worst. We've got a Minister who thinks that the sight of blood, whilst a former agriculture Minister says the government doesn't understand these issues and we know this because Defra has entered into a contract to send their civil servants to see what farms look like.

It's unbelievable really. But I want to be helpful to the noble Lady, the Minister. This litany of failure is bad politics for the Labour Party. It has a majority in the other place of 160, but 80 of those are in rural or semi rural seats. They are the government's majority, and the government says they want to reset relations with the countryside. My Lords, on all these issues, they're going to have to square away the farmers and those who part form part of that wider £160 billion GVA in the food, drink and agriculture industry, or they will be done.

Labour has estranged themselves from the countryside and now they need to make an existential choice between putting food on Britain's table or pursuing a class war fantasy grounded in the world they say never existed. Dogs, warm beer, roaring fires do exist. The only delusion is a hard left fantasy, blind to the reality that a nation that cannot feed itself in a dangerous world is no nation at all. So for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, it's make your mind up time.

Stop the war on the countryside, farmers and family businesses or face the music. It's as simple as that. The choice is yours.
17:20
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
What is meant. >> What it is not is complete self-sufficiency. We looked up a definition produced by the FAO, which was very long winded, but might be proceed as the adequate availability of healthy food at affordable prices. Surely, along with defence and energy, a prime responsibility of any government should be food security. So this debate is very welcome and I thank Baroness Teather for securing it. The motion before us asked us to note, asked us to take note of the growing threats to UK food security, but before considering those, it might be useful to set in context the current situation by looking at recent historical trends, the UK self-sufficiency values since the 1950s have risen for all food from 50% in 1956 to a maximum of 75% in the early 1980s, before dropping back to the current figure of 60%.

And for indigenous foods, those we can produce in the UK, the respective figures for 1956 were about 62%, rose to 90% in the 80s and has fallen back to currently 75% for the past 20 years or so. These indices have remained more or less stable in spite of Covid 19 and geopolitical instabilities. So I think our farmers and the whole supply chain deserve much credit for that stability. However, climate change and increasing international instability against a background of a rapidly rising global population present real and acute food challenges nationally and internationally with regard to climate change.

This year in the UK, we have faced the worst drought in 50 years, which has resulted in historically low harvests, failed crop production and much reduced grass growth for feeding animals. Whilst much of England is still classified. Now in October, as in drought, the total precipitation over the UK has not changed over historic levels. What has happened is that rainfall is much more lumpy and has changed in seasonality. We urgently need to move to actively conserve the water, which falls from the sky, and to secure assured supplies for both domestic and agriculture purposes.

Farmers are increasingly storing on farm water in their own reservoirs and seeking further abstraction possibilities. So could I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, what is His Majesty's Government doing to improve planning policies and guidance to enable the building of more on farm reservoirs and enabling more abstraction to safeguard food production? The multiple threats to food security, apart from climate change include plant and animal diseases, land use changes, increasing vulnerability of dependence on imports, labour shortages and most recently, as has just been mentioned, failure of cold chains either by malicious cyber hackers or abnormally high temperatures.

Now, threats to biosecurity of animals and plants are increasing due to the volume of movement of goods, people and animal and plant products, and the spread of vector borne disease. Bluetongue virus disease is now established thoroughly in the UK, transmitted by midges, causing serious problems with cattle and sheep. It doesn't affect humans or food safety, but is extremely detrimental to the health and livestock production. Other vector transmitted pathogenic viral infections are also established here, like Schmallenberg virus, and the new kid on the block is shaman virus, which has appeared in mainland Europe and very recently in Jersey.

Even influenza continues to threaten the poultry industry. Avian African swine fever and foot and mouth is a constant, serious threat to our pig industry. A fundamental parameter that limits food production is the amount of land devoted to agriculture. Given the current increase in threats to productivity, it's concerning that the recent Land Use Framework policy document, published in March this year, recommends that 9% of agricultural land be taken out of food production. It is proposed that improved productivity should or could make up the difference.

But, my Lords, it's certainly presenting a challenge to our UK food production and supply chains to produce that level of increased productivity. Given the uncertain challenges it faces through more extreme weather events, the extent and size of loss of agricultural land is well illustrated by the current pre-application for the West Oxfordshire Energy Park, a solar farm which is planned to occupy 2400 acres in what appears to be grade 2 or 3 agricultural land.

Imported food has always been an important part of the food we eat, particularly for fruit and vegetables, and diversity of sources of some products actually improves the security of supply and buffers against any failures in our indigenous sources. It also enables exports of products of animal origin, for example, to help balance carcase sales. UK self-sufficiency values for milk, mutton and lamb are very high over 100% and in spite of some reduction, have been reasonably stable for poultry, meat, beef and cereals at over 80%.

The serious situation is worrying because historically a substantial global source of wheat has been from Russia and Ukraine. What is critical with regard to both imported animal and plant produce products is that the standards applied to their production should not undercut the standards expected of of our industry. Indigenous producers, and thereby enable cheaper products. Not only would this unfair competition threaten our indigenous production and food security, it may carry animal and plant health risks.

In. A recent example of that is the salmonella infections from imported eggs. So in that respect, could I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, will His Majesty's Government develop co-production standards that would apply to both domestic as well as imported agri food products? Labour shortages have presented challenges, particularly to the fruit and vegetable industries, but innovations in in mechanisation and precision farming, with the use of autonomous machines and drones, are increasingly compensating and mitigating the labour position.

An essential element of food security. As has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, is the affordability of a healthy diet for our population. But I think it's often not recognised that the UK population average expenditure on food is as low as 11% of disposable household income, and has remained between about ten and 20% for the last 20 years, excluding Covid, while for the lowest income 20% of households, it is around 14%.

If we look at historical trends, those are low levels compared to those we we had in the 1950s and so on. In summary, our farmers and the food supply chain have proved, I think, extremely successful and resilient in maintaining an adequate availability of healthy food at affordable prices in recent times. But the threats as as demonstrated this year, warn us that further and probably greater challenges lie ahead. Agriculture desperately needs the consistent backing and support of government to maintain the food security to which the UK population has been accustomed, and which it expects.
17:29
Lord Docherty of Milngavie Portrait Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, may, I began. May I >> My Lords, may, I began. May I begin by thanking the noble Baroness Teather for this timely and important debate, and may I and important debate, and may I also thank Lord Trees and the other noble Lords who have spoken with such knowledge and insight. This afternoon. My Lords, food security is clearly essential to the well-being. Indeed, as Baroness Shephard said, survival of this or any other nation. And it is something which in our globalised world we have perhaps taken for granted for too long.

It is especially timely when one considers the increasing geopolitical threats we face, with all the dislocation and turbulence that could bring to food security, as well as what emergency planners might call the slow rising tide of climate change. My Lords, we discuss food security. At the same time, the country faces the most dangerous and volatile international situation since World War Two. Europe is rearming at a variable pace led by Poland and Germany, but it is rearming nonetheless.

There is a superpower arms race in AI and compute, with all the risks known and unknowable, which that entails, including, as has been much reported, the risk of new bioweapons. And alongside this geopolitical landscape, the impact of climate change, as so many noble Lords have mentioned, continues with all the demands that will place on agriculture and food production. As has been said today, the UK imports just over 40% of our food, with by far the largest element around three quarters of total imports coming from mainland Europe.

The level of food imports placed the UK among the least self-sufficient among developed nations in respect of food production, and we have been here before. In 1939, the UK imported 70% of the food required to sustain the population. Then 50 million. Much of that import came from empire. Some data suggest imports were responsible for nearly 90% of the total calorie intake, a remarkable sum, and this reliance on imported food became a strategic vulnerability.

When German U-boats attacked merchant ships shipping in the battle of the Atlantic, threatening supplies of grain, meat, sugar and other essentials a battle, incidentally, in which my uncle Able Seaman David McGroarty, serving in the Royal Navy, died aged 19. The best known element of the government response was called dig for victory, which encouraged people to cultivate gardens, allotments and unusable land to grow vegetables. However, much more importantly, farmers were encouraged to switch production to grow wheat, potatoes and other crops rather than maintain pasture for livestock.

Mechanisation, including greater use of tractors, helped compensate for labour shortages, and the government transformed how food production and consumption was managed. Government exercised extensive control over agriculture through guaranteed prices, subsidies, compulsory cropping requirements and the direction of farming resources. Now, food rationing mentioned by Lord Teverson I. I wasn't alive at the time, ensured that scarce supplies were distributed more fairly and reduced waste. Scientific advances, improved farming techniques and more intensive land use contributed to higher output.

My Lords are not suggesting exactly the same thing would or should happen now, but as has been mentioned, we do not have to look far for examples of where conflict can bring to a halt the shipping of essential global commodities. And today you halt things by much cheaper and more agile autonomous boats and drones and submersibles, etc. Now, Russias full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 caused a major shock to global food supplies. Ukraine was and is one of the world's most important exporters of wheat, maize, sunflower oil and other commodities, and the invasion disrupted production, blocked ports, damaged infrastructure and made shipping through the Black Sea dangerous.

The result was not only a shortage of food worldwide, but higher prices and reduced access to affordable food, especially for poorer countries, some of which had sourced over 80% of their wheat from Ukraine prior to the invasion. Now, given our disproportionate reliance on food imports, I like Lord Swire would like reassurance that contingency plans are in place for how we would respond to systemic shocks to those imports. The threat is real and we need to plan accordingly.

My Lords, climate change, as has been mentioned, will also require a major rethink of UK food production and whole system change. One obvious example is the viability of grass as animal feed in a warming climate, and the impact of that on livestock production. We only need to think back a few months to those images of a scorched Hyde Park to understand the impact climate change is having. My Lords, over time, different sources of protein may be required.

All of which, as has been mentioned, will require producers, retailers and consumers to work together. New technology today might mean gene editing rather than tractors, but I am optimistic as our agricultural sector has seen whole system change at pace before and may have to do again. My Lords, before I conclude, I would like to raise one other issue which impacts on both geopolitical risk and climate change, and that is sovereign capacity to produce ammonia, the essential element in the production of fertiliser and in what the defence industry would call energetics explosives to you and I in 2021, the then government allowed that only ammonia production plant in the UK to close, citing market forces.

This was not long after the same government allowed one of our last virgin steelmaking plants, also in Teesside, to close. But that's another story. The ammonia plant, based in Billingham, Teesside, still produces fertiliser but since 2021 has been entirely dependent on ammonia produced in and imported from the USA. To repeat, the UK no longer has sovereign capability in the production of one of the most important base chemicals, the essential ingredient and essential ingredient to both food security and national security.

So I have two questions for my noble friend the Minister. Does the government have a live and active contingency plan for how it would respond to major disruptions to food imports to this country, caused by a major geopolitical shock or shocks? Are those plans kept up to date? Are they active? Are they under review, and is there a plan to restart ammonia production in the UK? And if so, what are the timescales for that? I look forward to the minister's response.
17:37
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My thanks. >> To. >> My noble friend, Lady. >> Teather, for initiating this all important debate. I had the privilege of working with her at the other end of the building for many years, and her tenacity in pursuit of something should never be underestimated, and I'm delighted that she is involved in this issue. She outlined with her usual eloquence and in a comprehensive opening speech, the need for readiness for shocks across the wider food system over the summer.

With an interest in this issue, I found myself listening to the prepper Mike Chappell. I'm not sure I would relish all his food choices, and the sachets of ex-army rations sound pretty foul, but I guess that's not the point. If you need to have seven days worth of food stowed in a cupboard, but it is certainly pause for thought about how ready any of us are for a significant food shock and the necessity to be ready.

But it is for me. Today I would like to concentrate on the producer end and farmers at the very start of the chain and the crisis that they face now, whilst myself being acutely aware that this is a very complex issue that has been covered in many brilliant speeches that we've heard this afternoon, but small or large tenant, family farmer, upland farmer, or yes, even Jeremy Clarkson. All farms are facing the worst drought in 50 years, according to the NFU, and I thank them for their briefing.

We had the driest July on record in England and Wales. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit estimates that for arable farming alone, there was a shortfall of 2.5 million tonnes, costing that industry up to 399 390 million. As my noble friend said, it may be the worst harvest on record and four of the five worst have now come within this decade for livestock farmers, replacing the forage lost to drought cost about 34 million.

We have spoken many times in this chamber about the cash flow crisis in farming, and that was before this blistering summer. Add to that, as the noble Lord Trees outlined, more than 3000 bluetongue cases, nearly 2000 of them in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset, and an avian flu outbreak on the Isle of Lewis that has cost Great Britain its disease free status. Right now they are facing significant issues, as the nature Friendly Farming Network warns, next year is now at risk too, with reservoirs this low, farmers will plant only what they can be sure of watering and potatoes, vegetables, salads are most at risk.

Spring crops are being dropped altogether because the market simply doesn't pay farmers to carry that level of risk. The government's responses are welcome. First steps the 15 million water management grant and 50 million through SFI, and changes to environmental land management schemes. But this year's SFI money ran out in six hours in September, leaving thousands of farmers empty handed. Support for species rich grassland has been dropped. And as my colleague in the House of Commons, Tim Farron MP pointed out, farmers on common land were locked out altogether just by the software.

 The budget on 28th October is a chance to undo the damage done by changes to the agricultural property relief, which my colleague Sarah MP has rightly called an ill thought through family farm tax. The last Government Agriculture Act in 2020 was built on the slogan public money for public goods fine words. But that conservative government forgot the most important public good of all food. Instead, they delinked payments from farming altogether. So a landowner at no received the same check.

Whether they grew wheat or grew nothing at all. Scotland and Wales and every other country in the European Union kept backing their farmers to produce food. England alone walked away. That cannot be right. That is why we on these benches say, as my colleague Tim Farron has put it in the House of Commons, that food must be treated as a public good and paid for as one. We should take up the recommendations to let farmers build reservoirs on their own land, without a full planning application to run the water management grant every year rather than once, and to let the Environment Agency match abstraction to the water.

Actually in the river on disease, as already discussed by the noble Lord Trees, we need longer term investment in the Animal and Plant Health Agency, its labs, vets and surveillance and farmers need help right now with the cost of fallen stock and with blue tongue vaccine supply above all, pay farmers for growing food through stronger environmental land management payments. Alongside the 75% domestic production target in the Good Food Bill. My noble friend Lady Teather has already described.

 Retailers need to share the weather risk in partnership with farmers. Take one family farm in Saint Earth, which was shared to me with me earlier this year by my noble friend Lord Teverson. Cornish growers have supplied around 90% of the nation's winter supermarket cauliflowers. Yet last winter, supermarkets halted their harvest for weeks while stocking Spanish cauliflowers, some under a supporting British farmers banner, and hundreds of acres were ploughed back in.

In April. Seed for this winter had not even been ordered. That is what happens when retailers carry none of the risk. It means we need flexible contracts and a Groceries Code Adjudicator with. With real strength, with real teeth. Farmers in England and Wales. Wales deserve a level playing field. On 3rd September, the European Union banned Brazilian beef and poultry because of antibiotic growth promoters, which we banned here 20 years ago, but we have not as yet followed suit.

Our farmers should never be undercut by food, that it would be illegal to produce here. So my one question, only one question today, uncharacteristic I appreciate for the Minister today is this if we are serious about food security, will England, like Scotland and Wales and every country in the European Union, recognise food production in its farm payments? Every farmer right now in England is deciding what to plant for next year. With less water, less money and less certainty than ever.

If we fail, then we will all pay the price at the checkout. And for the 1 in 8 households already struggling, decent, affordable food will simply be out of reach. Our farmers need an answer and they need it soon.
17:45
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, it's it's a pleasure to win this debate. And I thank my noble friend Baroness Lady Teather, for the bringing this important debate and the forensic clarity with which she set out the issues. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I note, actually the unanimity in this debate, really across the House and across political parties. Our food security is national security. Lord Booth-Smith Baroness Shephard, Baroness Foster and Baroness Boycott have all made this statement.

Somebody said in the debate, food on a shelf is not food security. And Lord Docherty said that perhaps we we have not concentrated on these matters and we've taken this for granted. I am more worried about our food security now than at any point previously in my lifetime. And of course, as many have set out, no single threat explains that it's a warming climate. It's wars restricting supply, driving up energy and fertiliser prices. It's our dependence on food imports.

It's countries also facing a warming climate, which means they can't export to us. It's our ageing infrastructure. It's hostile states also probing our food distribution and retail systems and our food systems might absorb any one of these shocks. But the real danger is the combination of them coming at us together. And my other concern is that the government seems or appears to be structurally locked into different siloed ways of thinking and planning, and that nobody is really taking the overall charge of the risks of resilience and adaption.

Many people in this debate have obviously spoken about our warming climate, and Europe is the fastest warming continent on earth. The UK is warming by about 0.25 degrees per decade. We are both seeing drought conditions and increased rain, and we are seeing increased levels of hot, dry summers and wildfires. And all of that means terrible things for our farmers. Flooded fields and winters mean that they cannot plant their crops. And then in the summer, we get prolonged periods of extreme heat and drought that stunts the growth of any crops that do manage to grow.

And our climate seems to be changing faster than we can keep up with our policies. And our farmers are struggling to survive against this background, let alone to adapt and to survive the energy, climate and intelligence unit's analysis in August suggested that 2026 is on track to be the worst cereal harvest since records began in 1984. After the driest July on record. Even if yields do recover, as Baroness Grender pointed out, that means that four of our five worst harvests on record have happened this decade.

The Green Alliance further reports that weather costs English arable farmers over £800 million last year in lost revenue, and that 60% of our most productive farmland already sits in the highest flood risk areas. Farmers have faced changing subsidies. Schemes since the end of Brexit. Our small farmers have often struggled to get access to SFI payments, and our farmers can't plan and invest, and we're a long way from where we need to be. And on top of that, we have El Nino coming next.

This year, the government's own national security security assessment is stark. It says that without significant increase in food system resilience, it is unlikely that UK could maintain food security. If ecosystems collapse drives global competition for food. I welcome the announcement of a new task force and research programme. I wonder if the Minister might be able to give further details on that. Many have asked for publication of the full report. It is the government's right to, including myself, to refuse that.

However, from my point of view, the science is well understood and I don't want arguments about publication to delay progress on actually dealing with what we know are the consequences and our need to adapt. So. Many have also talked about energy and rising energy prices, and energy is also driving up fertiliser costs. Baroness foster talked specifically about, you know, 25.9% increase. Lord Fuller has also talked about fertiliser and the fact that we import 60%.

And Lord Docherty also talked about the fact that we don't have a sovereign ability to produce ammonia. We also import 40% of our food and a quarter of it from the Mediterranean. And they've also experienced floods and heat waves, and that that is causing them problems as well. We need to develop less energy intensive and more nature friendly farming systems. And I welcome the government's announcement for organic farming. I welcome it warmly. That was announced yesterday.

Baroness Boycott rightly spoke to us about the need for regenerative agriculture, and pressed the government on what more can be done for that. And the need to support small farmers. And these these are important points. Turning to just in time, the National. The Nao report shows just how far we are from any real food resilience. Food is critical national infrastructure. Yet no one food asset sits in the government's infrastructure database. I wonder if the government will reconsider that half of our food passes through the cold chain.

Yet, as many have talked about, the the Nao and Defra lacks detail on its role and its risks. Should it fail. This week, as has been mentioned, we've seen probing incidents. We've seen fridges on the continent that have been cranked up to 52 degrees, destroying God knows how many quantities of food we've had large scale cyber attacks on M&S and co-op, so our food distribution and retail systems are under attack from other our enemies, and they will face further attacks.

We've had we've had exercise, mighty Oak probing the impacts of power shortages, and Defra decided that a full emergency food plan was too costly. Only 1 in 7 food exercises are conducted involving the food industry itself. My worry is that Defra is unable to direct business in the event of a food catastrophe in 2025, Defra told the Cabinet Office. It had very little confidence that cross-government governance was joined up. And I note Defra is doing more on this front, but this this is £148 billion a year industry.

And if we compare it with what's being done in terms of energy security, where Ofgem has a 70 billion budget, it's hard to make the argument that actually that there is any form of parity there in the importance that it plays food plays in our daily survival. Food is the word is largely unregulated. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill excludes food. And my Lords, just in time is just not reliable. And I now know that I can partially bring Lord Teverson for that.

And the food industry itself is increasingly raising concerns about food security and its role in these just in time systems to develop. Many noble Lords have also talked about the cost to families, Lord Rees of Easton said. We have family self-imposed rationing and the right Reverend Prelate of Newcastle talked about health, dignity and opportunity. But. And Baroness Teather talked about the shocking figures from the Food Foundation at 85%, that many low income households have to spend 85% of their disposable income to meet the government's recommended diet.

So we, across all parties, need to do more to make sure that people have access to good, affordable, nutritious food. So to conclude, my Lords, I feel that we are too food insecure as a country. I worry that we lack coherent and joined up policies and perhaps most importantly, we do not talk about and cooperate on these issues enough. As politicians across parties. And actually, one of the things I've taken away from today, and I come back to it again, is just the unanimity of actually some of the messages that have come across in this debate.

And I think we need to talk about it more. I would press the Minister to give serious consideration to setting up a Cabinet Office led Food Systems Resilience Task Force and to legislate for Food Security and Resilience Act with a duty on government to ensure the public can be fed in a crisis. The Nao has made some strong recommendations. I would press the Minister whether the government will be accepting those. We do need to move beyond just in time.

We do need a whole system approach. We do need to adequately stress test everything. And my understanding is that we have virtually no strategic food reserves. So can I ask the Minister, really will government seriously consider the need for strategic food reserves? And look at that in the round. Our cold chain systems have been mentioned, but they are ageing. They can't cope with degrees above 36 degrees and they are highly vulnerable systems. We need to do more on adaption.

We need to support our farmers with more water storage methods to diversify their income, support for agrivoltaics and more funding and research for our future crops of the future that are more climate resilient, resilient. So we must work across government to do more of these things. There's been calls for a Good Food Bill. I've run out of time. I will conclude, my Lords, the warnings from the intelligence community, the Nao, the Climate Change Committee and others are clear.

What is missing is a whole systems approach, leadership, urgency and funding.
17:56
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I am grateful to the >> My Lord, I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Teather for securing this crucial debate. Noble Lords have made important points Lords have made important points about the various global threats to our food security, which is, in truth, national security. In these turbulent times, we cannot simply assume that food will always be available on world markets, or imports will always arrive when needed. Therefore, more than ever, we must examine how the policies of this government support British farming and domestic food production. Indeed, a recent report found that 70% of farmers surveyed considered government policy to be the biggest threat facing agriculture. Even more worrying, 42% said they had considered leaving farming in the past year, while 40% of those questioned whether they would still be in farming in ten years time. My Lords, when 4 in 10 farmers are contemplating leaving the industry, government should ask itself whether current policies are helping or hindering domestic food production. Just recently, the Farming Sustaining Incentive Scheme mentioned extensively today, which is not a blanket subsidy to every farmer but but supports sustainable farming, closes application window less than six hours after opening. This meant that eligible farmers, including some facing IT difficulties, simply lost out. So can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain what financial support is available for sustainable farming practices for those farmers who are unable to access the scheme in time? My Lords, on the issue of sustainability, I would like to stress that we cannot continue to treat agriculture primarily as a pollutant, requiring ever greater layers of regulation. British farmers already operate to some of the highest environmental and animal welfare standards in the world. Of course, we should farm sustainably, protect our environment and safeguard biodiversity. Farmers themselves have the greatest stake in healthy soils, clean water and productive land. But we must also be realistic. We already rely on imports for around 40% of our food. If we continue to burden our farmers with higher costs and lower competitiveness, we do not save the planet. We merely outsource production elsewhere. I have had briefings from various bodies suggesting that we should cut British meat production in order to reduce our UK carbon footprint. For those who imagine that British agriculture can somehow solve global warming on its own, may I remind them that China produces around one third of global carbon emissions, the United States 15%. 98%. Russia 5%. Whilst we in the United Kingdom produce less than 1%. So British agriculture produces less beef, lamb, cereals or dairy, while global demand remains unchanged, production does not disappear, it simply moves elsewhere. We would then import more food, often produce a lower environmental and welfare standards, and then transported thousands of miles to get to us. Now that may improve our domestic carbon accounting, but as little or nothing to reduce global emissions, we should be particularly cautious about policies that simply export production. Britain has reduced many of its territorial CO2 emissions, but some of that apparent success reflects the fact that manufacturers now moved overseas and products are imported back into the UK. We must not repeat the same mistake with agriculture. The closure of productive British farms does not necessarily reduce carbon emissions globally, it merely moves them elsewhere. Rather than forcing food production abroad, we should be supporting our farmers to adapt and become more resilient. As the noble Lady Baroness Prosser of Alexander Ramsay stressed, that includes investment in water infrastructure. Existing reservoirs have been heavily depleted and there is every possibility we may face another dry spring. The government has announced funding of up to £15 million for on foreign reservoirs. So can the noble Lady, the Minister, confirm when the Water Management grant will reopen this autumn? What is the government doing to reduce planning obstacles, obstacles which can make reservoir construction lengthy, expensive and uncertain? I understand reservoir safety rules are under review. How much additional regulation does the government envisage, and what size of reservoir will fall within any revised regime? Furthermore, can the Minister reassure the House that the forthcoming water Bill will not treat agricultural water use as an afterthought? The government also needs a coherent strategy for domestic fruit and vegetable production. The exceptionally hot and dry conditions of this year have significantly affected harvest expectations, while depleted reservoirs are already influencing planning decisions for next season, farmers report that without confidence in future water supplies, they are less willing to plant irrigation dependent crops such as potatoes, vegetables and salads. As a noble Lord Lord Tyrie said, we get more rain than we need in this country. We just seem incapable of holding on to it. If Ministers genuinely wish to improve British food security, increasing domestic horticultural production would be a sensible place to start. That means more water storage, quicker planning, approvals for reservoirs, affordable energy for glasshouses and controlled environment, agriculture and support for investment in modern growing technologies. What specific plans does the government have to reduce our reliance on imported fruit and vegetables and increase production here at home? And it is vital, of course, that we maintain gene editing and don't sell it out to EU in a new reset. That brings me to the government's broader approach. Food security is not simply what happens on farms, it also involves fertiliser production, food manufacturing, storage, refrigeration, transportation, fuel supplies, digital infrastructure and workforce. The Food Resilience Commission has highlighted that the UK's food system depends upon functioning warehouses, refrigeration networks, cold stores. As the noble Lords rightly pointed out, energy supplies and communications structure. I just wonder what what additional cost the new private owners of Northern Foods have faced in the last year in trying to get food to the market. Now, more than 60% of wholesalers surveyed reported that their existing arrangements could not withstand another summer comparable to that of 2026, without significant additional costs for support. Food has now been recognised as critical national infrastructure. If that designation is to mean anything, it must be reflected in practical government policy and national resilience planning. Food resilience should be treated as a national security priority and not simply as an agricultural issue. As a noble loyalist, Lord Smith of Kelvin pointed out in a very interesting speech. When it comes to food and drink manufacturing, this sector supported around half a million jobs in 2025 and remains the largest purchaser of British agricultural produce. Yet. Manufacturers face industrial electricity prices, significantly higher than those of many international competitors, and we now have some of the highest electricity costs in Europe. And at the same time, we continue to reject domestic oil and gas exploration, but can approve it quite rightly, for our Falkland Islands territories. So what is the government doing to improve Britain's competitiveness? Energy costs, fuel costs, employment costs and inflation all continue to pile pressure onto food producers and manufacturers. These sectors, alongside our farmers, repeatedly warned Ministers about the cumulative impact of government policy. The Countryside Alliance has identified 27 separate policies since 2020, for which rural communities believe have had a detrimental effect upon them. To ensure our long term food security, there must be incentives to farm and that means businesses must remain profitable. That is not economic rocket science. The family farms tax directly threaten long term business viability and reduce the ability of farming businesses to invest in technology, productivity and environmental improvements. And we already seen evidence that family farms have reduced employment and delayed investment. The form the former farming Minister and Other place subsequently revealed that he knew nothing about the policy before the 2024 budget announcement. Why did the Treasury fail to consult the Minister for farming? Can the Minister. I demand a cast iron assurance on this that the budget, when it comes, will will not repeat that mistake, and I'm sure she'll be able to deliver on that. But what is more, when I was at the Labour Party conference, the parliamentary Under-Secretary of state for nature suggested that the image of rural communities gathered around warm ale with a black Labrador at their feet in a pub that is a far right vision which never really existed. Now we know that's absolute rubbish for a new MP who gives the impression she's never been out of Felixstowe. Now the noble Lady, the Minister knows that all over Cumbria now, with Socialist MPs and a Lib Dem, rural people in our hundreds of villages frequent our pubs with an assortment of dogs, and they are not full of hate, as Miss Carpenter seems to suggest. And it seems that all those right wing extremists voted for 160 Labour MPs in rural areas. As my noble Lord Lord Fuller pointed out, when rural people, my Lords, hear bigoted comments like that, is it any surprise to the noble Baroness and Minister that farming communities feel alienated by this government? Now I must say to my noble friend Baroness Shephard of Northwold, there's a certain merit in putting local government in charge of food production and distribution. It would certainly tackle the obesity crisis as as we all starve in future, my Lords, food security cannot be separated from profitability. Farmers cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invest in environmental improvements, water Resilience, new technology and productivity. If their businesses productivity. If their businesses are no longer viable. We need sustainable farming, but we also need farming. We need lower emissions, but we cannot avoid simply exporting those emissions abroad. We need environmental abroad. We need environmental stewardship, but we also need food production. Above all, we need a production. Above all, we need a that sees British agriculture not as a problem to be managed, but as a strategic national asset to be supported.

If food security is indeed national security and British farming deserves to be treated as such, I look forward to the Minister's response. Well said. Lord Blencathra. Excellent.
18:06
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for securing what is Teather, for securing what is actually a really important debate on the growing threats to the UK food security, but also to all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. It has been an important debate, and that's because food security underpins every household's ability to access affordable and nutritious food. The United Kingdom benefits from a diverse and resilient food system built on strong domestic production, international trade and the expertise of food businesses from right across the supply chain.

And that resilience has been demonstrated. Although challenged through successive challenges including the pandemic, EU exit and international conflicts. But of course, resilience is not a fixed state. Climate change, as we've heard, is placing sustained pressure on production and supply chains. Cyber threats are evolving. Geopolitical tensions can disrupt the energy, transport and critical inputs on which food production depends. More severe and potentially catastrophic events, including major infrastructure failures, could test the system in ways that previous disruptions have not.

So what characterises many of today's risks is that they do not occur in isolation. Climate impacts, cyber incidents, energy disruption, infrastructure failures, and geopolitical events can interact and reinforce one another, creating consequences that extend far beyond a single sector or region. The conflict in the Middle East illustrates these interconnections its effects on energy and fuel costs, freight routes, agricultural inputs all impact farmers, manufacturers, cold storage facilities and retailers. Even where food is not imported directly from that region.

So Defra works closely across government and with industry to understand these pressures and to monitor their impacts. Climate change presents perhaps the most significant long term challenge to our food security. Drought, heat waves and flooding can affect crops, livestock, water availability and transport networks and can disrupt production overseas, reducing the availability of alternative sources of supply. And of course, these impacts can persist long after the immediate event and can also combine with other existing pressures on farm businesses.

And that is why building resilience remains a central priority. Through the environmental land management schemes, we are helping farmers to improve soil health, strengthen water management, increase resilience to future shocks. We do work closely in Defra with farmers, the Environment Agency and the water sector, including through the National Drought Group. While our research and innovation programme supports both a better understanding of risks and the development of practical solutions. But cyber disruption is a growing challenge. Digital systems increasingly connect production, ordering, stock management, distribution and payments through the food chain and an incident affecting a major business or a shared service provider can have consequences right across multiple sectors and communities.

Even when the food itself remains physically available, DEFRA has strengthened engagement with industry and is working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre in order to understand risks, improve resilience and support recovery planning and exercising and information sharing are of course, very important components of that work. My noble friend Lord Smith mentioned the fact that food security is national security, and I think others. The Earl Russell mentioned this, but I think he very clearly laid out that food security is about more than food being available nationally.

It's about whether people can access and afford the food they need. People's ability to manage disruption varies according to income, health needs, caring responsibilities, storage space and access to local support. We saw during the pandemic the invaluable role played by local authorities, community organisations and voluntary groups in helping food reach those who needed it most. And through the good food neighbourhoods, we are investing almost £10 million in deprived areas of England to improve access to healthy, affordable food at all times.

And I want to stress here that our sector plans will align productivity and growth with health objectives. There's also existing advice on the gov UK prepare website and practical steps that all households can take. And Cabinet Office is launching a preparedness campaign this autumn, and through our food preparedness group, we are bringing food chain organisations together with local and voluntary partners to clarify responsibilities and agree planning assumptions. Alongside this, we are also developing a clearer resilience framework for food and that demonstrates the importance of cross-departmental working, which has been mentioned often in this debate.

So we do continue to work very closely with colleagues responsible for energy, transport and other critical sectors where resilience, their resilience is closely linked to the resilience of our food supply. I'll try and get through as many as I can in the time I've got. Noble Lords, we are looking at how we can improve SFE for next year. By doing that, we are continuing to work closely with farmers and stakeholders.

We are listening carefully to the experiences that people have this year and learning lessons from that. We are exploring alternatives to a first come, first served application process for SFE in 2027, and the noble Lady Baroness Grender asked specifically about payment for production. Will that be part of it? Well, certainly, we'll be looking at that in our discussions. And it's also important to note, coming back to the noble Lord Blencathra point, that that SFE is just part of how we're allocating our £11.8 billion of farming funding.

There are other funding opportunities. For example, the new expression of interest process that's providing a simpler route into the countryside, stewardship higher tier. The noble Lady Baroness Teather asked particularly about the whether the government would introduce a good food bill. We do recognise there's a lot of interest in this, and the value of long term action on food system challenges. We're currently focussed on delivering the outcomes of the good food cycle through a range of policy, regulatory partnership approaches, and we're going to look at how we can best achieve the outcomes we want.

And on that basis, we haven't yet made any decisions on bringing in dedicated food legislation. And the noble Lady also asked, as did others, about how we support small and local food producers. We are opening up our public sector supply chains to smaller businesses. That includes farmers and growers to help them access markets and support local food economies. We do want to have at least half of our publicly purchased food to be locally produced or certified to high environmental standards and small businesses.

Small farms have an important role to play there. Fertiliser came up with a number of noble Lords the noble Lady Baroness Prosser, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked about fertiliser costs. We've recently sought views on the tariff suspensions of agricultural goods, fertiliser and kerosene to help mitigate the consumer impact of the conflict in the Middle East, which closed on the 24th of June. We're currently reviewing and analysing the response responses received to that, and we've also asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to improve market transparency.

Its fertiliser price reporting has now been increased to weekly publication to support farmers purchasing decisions. I was asked about how food security fits in with wider national resilience planning. The noble Lady Baroness Teather mentioned that and also the noble Earl Russell. I'd just like to say, to assure them that Defra is working closely with the Cabinet Office and other departments to ensure food supply is fully incorporated as part of our emergency preparedness, including consideration of dependencies on other sectors.

And we do align with cross-government working Defra on risks that could have the biggest impact on the food system. The the assessment of the top ten risks to food supply is reviewed every two years as part of the Cabinet Office's critical National infrastructure assurance process, and we are working towards the good food cycle, which we we announced this year. That's a high level strategic vision for the food system with ten priority outcomes, including greater preparedness of the food supply chain to disrupters.

 So we're doing that work on that, specifically on farm reservoirs was mentioned by the noble Lord Lord Blencathra and also the noble Lord Lord Trees as a noble Lord Blencathra said, we have announced the water management grant that will bring £15 million available to help farmers and growers build on farm reservoirs. I completely understand the importance of doing this and why we need to move forward on that, and on abstraction mentioned by the noble Lady. Baroness Grender Defra.

The Environment Agency are conducting a smart abstraction trial in the upper Cam catchment with local partners, using real time monitoring data and alerts to enable farmers to dynamically abstract water when conditions allow, while protecting river flows during periods of low availability. And the early findings are looking quite positive, suggests the approach can both reduce environmentally damaging abstraction but also increase opportunities to abstract and store water while reducing resilience on the on the EA's alert. So we're learning from that pilot and there'll be more announcements on that going forward.

The noble Lord Earl Russell asked about how government is responding to the pressure on higher energy costs. And I know the noble Lord Lord Blencathra also talked about this. Absolutely recognise the serious pressure that energy prices and wider supply chain disruption have been placing on the food supply chain. We're working across government to look at potential support measures, and particularly looking at assessing the impact of g What impact has that had? Importantly, in profit profitability for farmers and growers, I understand that, you know, horticulture does use is very energy intensive.

So we need to look at those impacts. We've been undertaking some detailed work in Defra to assess the food sector's exposure to rising fuel, fertiliser and energy prices, which are having a bit of a triple whammy at the moment on the sector. And we're trying to better understand so we can mitigate the impacts. And we're also talking right across government because it's important from deficit point of view that agriculture and food supply and sectors are considered in any future energy support measures.

We need to get ourselves more plugged into that. The noble Lord Blencathra also asked about how we're making the case for the sector, and we have made. We will continue to make the case in government for energy support for the food sector, recognising the Department for Energy Security and the fact that it's the. They have the net zero leading role, but we're working very closely with them to to press on, on that. The noble Lady, Baroness Shephard asked about stockpiling who's holding the food government's food supplies, the.

Just to assure that the government. The UK's approach to food resilience is not reliant on stockpiling. Whether that's by public or elsewhere. We work closely with industry to understand critical supply chains so that we can monitor the risks and strengthen preparedness so that food continues to reach consumers during disruptions. But of course, we keep these resilience options under review because we need to make sure that we we can manage any, any difficult situations. It was difficult in Covid when you suddenly had food shortages.

We don't want to go back to that. We need to learn from those challenges. The one of the issues, of course, though, is capacity of food storage infrastructure is for individual food businesses. But we have we do work with local authorities. Local authorities came up as part of local authorities are kind of within government are part of that response. The broader response to, to, to food supplies, they manage the local response. They don't hold government food stocks, but it's part of they are built into our our response more generally.

She specifically asked about LGR, and I have checked with the current position at Mhclg, and I've been informed that they will be setting out next steps in due course, because they do recognise that areas need clarity over their future. Geopolitical shocks came up. I think my noble friend Lord Docherty particularly asked about geopolitical shocks and we we we have been looking at home defence planning. So in July of this year, the home defence planning acceleration was announced and that included updating classified government crisis plans, commonly known as the War Book, which of course is coordinated by the Cabinet Office.

And these plans are going to be tested through exercise Albiston shadow in 2027. That is going to be the largest UK home defence exercise in several decades, and that will complement NATO's own exercise, which I'm informed is known as CMX27. Sounds very James Bond, isn't it? But so there is a lot of lot of work going on on that. And in fact, I have been involved in some Cobra meetings looking at resilience planning as well.

And the importance in what I was pleased about is that Defra and the importance of Defra's role in resilience, both in water and food, has been recognised. There were a number of questions around the number of questions around the National Audit Office report. The. My noble friend Lord Smith Lord Docherty, the noble Lady, Baroness foster and others asked about this. So I think one thing to say is that the O's report actually agrees with our own assessment that risks to food supplies are becoming more complex, which is exactly why we're working with farmers in the food and drinks industry to to strengthen our food security and resilience.

And while our food businesses and supermarkets have continued to feed the nation through significant disruptions, we are very. I just want to stress, we're really carefully considering the report's findings and recommendations as part of our ongoing work to build a more resilient, productive and sustainable food system. These reports are really valuable in informing the work that we that we carry out in this space. And I think the noble Lord, Earl Russell, asked about timings. The Public Accounts Committee inquiry on this report is currently taking place.

Senior officials have very recently given evidence to that committee and on the Nao report. We then need to. We will be responding within two months. So fairly shortly. So be interesting to see people's feedback on on the response to to that report. The noble Lady Baroness Prosser asked if the government is planning a food production duty. Not that I'm aware of, but I'm more than happy to go back to the department and check and put it in as a suggestion.

If that isn't something that we are looking at, and I just want to come to the noble Lord. Lord Teverson, the noble Lord asked a number of questions around marine seas. Fish stocks. I don't think I have the time, I've only got, what, three minutes left? I do not have the time, unfortunately, to go into that, he raises incredibly important points. He's very knowledgeable. If he wants to, I'd be really happy to arrange a meeting to sit down and get into the nitty gritty and the detail of this, because I think that would be really, really helpful.

Where am I profitability and and the batters a minute batters report was asked by Lord Fuller Lord Trees and around productivity. Nobles will be aware. We've established the Farming and Food Partnership Board, which is going to bring together people from farming, food, retail and finance in order to drive profitability. And that was one of the recommendations that was in Baroness Batters profitability review. And this what we're looking to do through that board is to set out how we can work to drive growth in all sectors, focusing on improving farm productivity and profitability, but also importantly, championing our brilliant home grown produce and strengthening our national security.

And the joint Government and Industry Board is going to explore how to increase our domestic food security, but also the potential of new export markets to boost farming profitability. The noble terms asked about export, he might be interested to know that last night, I've recently been given the portfolio of rest of world trade in agri foods, and last night I was I was actually at a big do with businesses from right around the world to look at how we can work with them to increase our exports into, into new markets, because there's a, a real appreciation of the standards that are that we have in Britain food wise.

So that's something I'm specifically working on, on on standards. Lord Trees noble Lord Trees asked about core standards, DEFRA is always keen to increase standards. You know, I'm working with Farm Minister all the time and the Secretary of State about best ways to achieve this, and if the noble Lord has particular suggestions he'd like to put to us, I'm more than happy to to hear them, I'll have to rattle quite quickly. Noble Lord Fuller asked about fairness of supply chains and contracts.

We believe farmers should also receive a fair price for their products. We. And we are committed to tackling contractual unfairness wherever it exists. The sector by sector approach that's been adopted will enable targeted regulation, which will address specific issues without introducing broad, broad and burdensome regulations right across all sectors. My noble friend Lord Docherty asked about ammonia. We do recognise that there is interest in domestic ammonia production, however, because it is so high, highly energy intensive and requires significant private investment, our focus is is actually going to be on strengthening resilience of fertiliser supply chains and supporting innovation and helping farmers with price shocks.

And finally, finally, two seconds publication. The JIC report that the noble Earl Russell asked about. They're not routinely published for for national security reasons. I think I have to stop. So thank you very much for this important debate, and I look forward to further contributions on this issue.
18:26
Baroness Teather Portrait Baroness Teather (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I want to thank all noble Lords >> I want to thank all noble Lords who've contributed today. It was an incredibly knowledgeable debate and fascinating. But one of those moments where, as a new member, I have a real sense of the privilege of of being here to hear the depth of the contributions from both long standing members and also new members as well. I thank the Minister, particularly for a lot more detail around the planning that's happening on on in terms of civil resilience, I've got a couple of questions that I quite like to follow up with her on, and I might write to her about that, particularly about whether or not we've really considered whether we need some form of reserves as well as, as well as supply, and whether actually, given the scale of the risks at the moment to our food supply system, whether it should be should be reviewed every year rather than every two years, two years. I think the I had a glimmer of hope, which is around the Good Food Bill. She did not say no. So I'm just wondering whether or not there might be things that we could do to give power to her elbow in terms of cross-government negotiations. At some point, I'm sure that there'll be a discussion about whether or not that has a place in a future. A plan for for legislation, and I'm very keen that it does. It would really offer the opportunity to join up thinking. So if there's anything that those of us supportive can do and please do,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

let us know. Thank you. The question. Is that this motion is agreed. To, as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many of that opinion will say, content. Of the contrary, not content. The not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The not contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move. The House. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page