King’s Speech

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on their excellent maiden speeches and look forward to their contributions to our deliberations in the future.

Today’s debate has been wide ranging and extensive, with some very pertinent contributions on which I cannot hope to respond. The gracious Speech set out the Government’s agenda for the next year in the run-up to the general election. Although it has some interesting Bills which are to be welcomed, it is clear from the debate that many of the issues your Lordships were hoping to see addressed were absent. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised water and flooding, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, clutter in space, all of which are valid but not mentioned in the gracious Speech.

My first comments are on the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill. Annual licensing rounds for new oil and petroleum are unlikely to produce a more secure supply of oil and gas until well into the future. Most of this will be destined for export rather than the home market, so there will be no benefit to the British consumer. By 2035, half of the UK’s refineries in the North Sea will be of a type which are unsuitable for processing the heavy oil which the new licences will produce. UK refineries are outdated and were built to process light oil and will not be able to cope with the anticipated increase from 25% to 50%. Given this, we urge the Government to invest in renewable energy and insulating homes, especially for those on low or fixed incomes. Energy prices doubled last year and there is little evidence of this being reversed. Waiting for new licences to start producing oil will not help today’s householders to manage their budgets and afford to heat their homes as well as feeding themselves. How does the Minister propose to assist households?

I also find it extraordinary that this announcement on annual licensing comes just three weeks ahead of COP 28. I cannot understand how it helps the UK’s credibility or demonstrates strong leadership on climate change.

Turning to the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill, I can understand that the UK is keen to be the first new member of the CPTPP, which was not possible during European days, but just wanting to be a member of a club does not in itself bring benefits, and it is difficult to see what the benefits are likely to be. The gracious Speech and the Minister’s letter of 8 November indicate that farmers will benefit from reduced tariffs on cheese and butter exports to Canada, Chile, Japan and Mexico, and that imports of cheaper high-quality products, such as fruit juices from Chile and Peru, will benefit the UK customer.

However, a brief search of top exports from Chile in 2021 show that these were copper ore, refined copper, fish fillets, raw copper and iron ore. Its imports were petroleum products through to delivery of trucks. Its top export destinations were China, the US, Japan, South Korea and Brazil. Four of those countries are its relatively close neighbours, whereas the UK involves a great deal of air miles to get goods to market in both directions—again, cocking a snook at climate change. Chile, on the upside, is the largest producer of cherries and grapes, and exports fish pieces and fillets. Given that we are an island nation, I feel certain we can provide for ourselves with fish, but the fruit would be welcome. The main agricultural exports from Peru are grapes, blueberries, avocados, green coffee beans and asparagus. While all these commodities are part of our diets in the UK, they can be sourced nearer to home. The Government’s assertion that they will not compromise our high standards of protection for the environment seems extremely hollow when considering the carbon equation in bringing products from the other side of the world. This does not stack up in assisting the UK to get to its net-zero targets. Can the Minister suggest what the air miles are likely to be for this policy?

I turn now to the animal welfare (livestock exports) Bill. This is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has on many occasions reiterated the point that no live animals have been exported for slaughter or fattening for some time. This Bill will ensure that this is enshrined in law, and it should come forward at the earliest opportunity to prevent unnecessary animal suffering. Even within the UK, animals often have to journey a long way to slaughter due to the closure of rural abattoirs over the years. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has raised this issue.

However, I was disappointed that measures originally promised in the abandoned kept animals Bill are not likely now to make their way on to the statute. Examples are the keeping of primates as pets and the ban on the import of hunting trophies—so vehemently opposed from the Government’s own Benches. Listening to some of the arguments put forward on hunting trophies, one would think that every baronial home in the country had a lion or tiger skin rug in the hall.

I cannot leave the subject of animals without saying that I feel that the Government have somewhat abandoned their animal welfare credentials. Again, this is more about what was absent from the gracious Speech than what was included. Despite there being excellent faux fur alternatives, the MoD insists on the use of pelts of Canadian black bears to make bearskin caps. Italy and Sweden have changed their policy to using only synthetic fur. I find it extraordinary that the UK does not follow suit. Each cap requires the pelt from one bear, which costs the British taxpayer £1,560 by the time it has been made into the traditional bearskin cap. The Government, if they are serious about their animal welfare agenda, should bring forward a Bill to abandon this practice without delay. Can the Minister commit to ensuring that this happens?

The thorny issue of banning the use of peat in horticulture came to the fore this morning with the publication of the report on the future of horticulture. The 25-year environment plan trailed the ban on peat. The Government have indicated that it is coming, but still there is no sign of it. I fully understand the needs of the horticulture sector and seed growth. Perhaps a compromise could be reached by allowing the use of peat only for the very first, delicate stages of seed and plant germination before switching to peat-free alternatives. A dialogue is needed, rather than ignoring the subject altogether. The country and the world desperately need the carbon storage that peat provides. It should remain where it is, in the ground, wherever possible. Can the Minister please give reassurance on this?

I am trying not to be a total prophet of doom and do welcome the tobacco and vapes Bill. Living for a while in London, I was conscious of the huge number of discarded vapes at a certain spot on my Sunday morning dog walk. Vapes contain the critical materials of lithium and copper, as my noble friend Lady Sheehan referred to. I am grateful to the Green Alliance for its information that last year, enough lithium-containing vapes were disposed of to create 5,000 batteries for electric cars. Other Peers have referred to this. Now is the time for this Bill and the Government to take a holistic view on the use of lithium, which is not a finite resource.

Lastly, I was disappointed that there was no mention of tackling the issue of waste. Repairing and reuse of goods and materials is not rocket science, as was ably demonstrated yesterday evening at the earth sciences awards ceremony. It is time that the Government stopped talking about tackling waste and actually took it seriously with legislation. Wales is successful in this field. Why cannot England follow suit?

There is much to commend in the gracious Speech, but it is the absence of substance on climate change which causes most concern. I fear that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. Overall, the Government have missed a golden opportunity to show their commitment to tackling climate change and have let the country down badly.

Farmers and Landowners: Tax Consequences

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I reassure the noble Lord that we are cognisant of the need to ensure that our tax policy and our environmental land management schemes are working with and not against each other. It is an area of some complexity. With respect to how different farmers are affected—the noble Lord mentioned upland farmers—we are trying to look at the whole system and its different levels of complexity to make sure that we get to the right approach.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the current environmental land management schemes have three elements: the sustainable farming incentive, which is up and running, and the local nature recovery and landscape strands, which are still in pilot stage and will not be fully launched until 2024. Farming is a profession that requires very long-term planning. How do the Government expect farmers to engage fully with ELMS if they do not know what the impact on them will be, either financially or in expected tax commitments?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Part of what the noble Baroness alighted on reflects our approach: as we pilot and iterate these schemes, we will learn and look at their implications for taxes. How they are designed might have different impacts, so we cannot prejudge that. I reassure noble Lords that tax rules should not have a bearing on many environmental activities under the ELM schemes, such as improving soil health. Many farmers already undertake these activities or have changed their land use within the tax rules currently in place.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be taking part in today’s debate on the gracious Speech, and I, too, look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle.

Like many other noble Lords who have spoken during this four-day debate, I felt that the Speech was sadly lacking in the Government’s aspirations for the country in the next 12 months. It is unfortunate that the in/out campaign appears to dominate all aspects of our daily lives, not least where the Government are concerned. Nevertheless, this is a momentous decision which will affect us all in years to come one way or another. I fully support the campaign to remain in Europe but surely it should not freeze us into immobility. We should all have ambitions for our country, regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU.

We have only just dispatched the Housing and Planning Act, which included an element of neighbourhood planning, but here we are, about to debate this subject again. I now realise why the Government were reluctant to give neighbourhood plan communities the right of appeal, even on a very limited basis. However, what better way is there to strengthen these communities than by giving them the right of appeal?

I understand the housing crisis. How could I not? It is all around us. With 1.6 million people on local authority waiting lists, one can hardly claim that there is no housing crisis. It is important that we encourage developers and builders of every size and at every level to begin to tackle this problem. Housebuilding and infrastructure are inextricably linked. This infrastructure must include consistently reliable flood-prevention measures. The cost of installing such measures at the point of construction is minuscule compared to the cost of clear-up after a major flood. It is not helpful to focus only on the costs to the developer of flood prevention. These costs must be weighed against the emotional turmoil to those affected by flooding and the astronomical costs of clear-up to local authorities, the Environment Agency and insurance companies and the resulting bad press received by the Government for failing to act adequately in the first place.

Planning conditions are the perceived bugbear of the developer and builder but the safeguard for those affected by large-scale developments. Infrastructure, access, materials, design and layout are all an integral part of ensuring that the much-needed housing development does not have an unnecessarily negative impact on its surroundings and its neighbours. This will be particularly true for garden cities and towns. All will need to live together in harmony once the development is completed.

While it is undoubtedly true that in some cases pre-commencement conditions can slow down the planning process, it is not true in all cases. The most useful way forward for any applicant is to have pre-application discussions, which provide an invaluable insight into what is expected on the part of the applicant and find favour with the legitimately elected councillors who will consider the application in due course. The cannier in the development business will understand this and carry out pre-application public consultations. However, the more bullish will choose to ignore this, put in their application and then express anger and hostility when their application is refused. Conversation is undoubtedly the best way forward.

Pre-commencement conditions are, in my opinion and experience, imposed not to deliberately thwart a developer but to try to safeguard those working on site, ensure the smooth flow of traffic while development takes place and ensure that, once finalised, those occupying the dwellings have the necessary facilities available to them from the moment they move in, not some years into the distance. There is a balance to be struck. It is no use pushing ahead with a development where the implications have been poorly thought through simply to get the houses built in the shortest possible time, only to find that there are major obstacles that could have been foreseen and catered for. Retrospective consideration invariably leads to additional costs.

Finally, I turn to the section on homebuilding. The list of facts and figures is impressive. I note that the largest private housebuilders will be doubling their output by 2019. I hope that in the process they do not throw design and space standards out of the window. We have all heard stories of rooms being reduced in size to such an extent that bedrooms no longer accommodate a double bed, or of sitting rooms being too small to allow for even a two-seater settee. Quality must be balanced against quantity.

I am concerned at the lack of any mention of affordable social rented housing. The Government prefer instead to concentrate on the private rented sector. For those not able to buy their home or afford rents in the private sector, social housing is the only option. I welcome the Renters’ Rights Bill, sponsored by my noble friend Lady Grender. This will be a lifeline to many thousands of tenants up and down the country.

Time prevents me speaking further but, as in all things, the Government should expect robust scrutiny of their proposals for local government from me and my colleagues on these Benches.

Personal Service Companies (Select Committee Report)

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Select Committee and the opportunity to debate the issue. This was my first Select Committee; I found it a stimulating and interesting experience and one that I more or less understood. I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her chairmanship and for making me feel at ease. I welcomed the opportunity to participate and to learn from the more knowledgeable noble Lords on the committee. This has been a privilege. I do not therefore feel it necessary to comment on every aspect of our report and the government response to the recommendations, as there are those here today who are much better qualified to do so. I also thank and pay tribute to Patrick Milner and the others who worked so hard on serving the committee.

With regard to recommendation 2, the merging of income tax and national insurance, I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that these could be more aligned and accept that employers already have to deal with significant amounts of change in legislation. However, I hope that the Government will return to this in the foreseeable future as a positive step forward.

Recommendations 3 to 6 set out a number of measures that are a mixture of clarification and enforcement surrounding tax returns and IR35. I note that HMRC is planning to undertake a full review of its questions and guidance on personal tax returns and RTI declarations. This move is to be welcomed and we wait eagerly for it to take place in the not too distant future—I hope that we do not have to wait too long. There are a number of recommendations where the Government have indicated that a review will take place, but, as other contributors to this debate have pointed out, the IR35 Forum appears to be either undertaking this review or playing a very significant part in it. As a councillor, I know that whenever a review of a service or an activity is undertaken, it is important that there is a level of independence in that review to maintain public confidence in the outcomes. Like others, I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on this matter, with particular regard to recommendations 8, 9 and 10, on the contract review service, the business entity tests and HMRC.

As others have indicated, the majority of the evidence that the Select Committee received was from those representing or dealing with people who had set up personal service companies and who were very well able to negotiate around the rules and regulations surrounding IR35. However, as has been said, we received evidence of how the legislation affected those on lower incomes. This is the whole thrust of recommendation 11. While the Government feel that HMRC has updated its guidance, and it is the Government’s aim to move us through their digital strategy towards becoming not just a paperless office but a paperless nation, this is not suitable for everyone.

Yesterday I was invited to the launch of the report from St Mungo’s Broadway, an organisation assisting the homeless. One stark fact struck us all: 51% of the homeless cannot read or write. While the subject of this debate is not the homeless, it is patently obvious that those working with the homeless are seeking not only to get them housed but also to get them into work in order for them to be in a financial position to maintain their housing. Many of the lower-paid workers, especially those using umbrella organisations, will have poor literacy and numeracy skills and have no access to the internet. While a digital strategy will suit the majority, it will definitely not suit all. I urge my noble friend the Minister to develop other strategies to reach the poorly paid to ensure that they are aware of the implications for them of a personal service company. I look forward to the publication of the remit of the Low Pay Commission this summer and sincerely hope that the use of personal service and umbrella companies is covered—it will be a wasted opportunity if it is not —and I encourage my noble friend the Minister to give a strong indication that this will be the case.

I was disappointed with the response to recommendation 15. While it is convenient for departments to do their own risk assessments, the response leans towards a certain complacency. Many in this House will have examples of where complacency can lead to poor outcomes. The committee was calling for a review; it is to be regretted that this was not accepted. In order for the outcomes from the committee’s work to be productive, it would be extremely beneficial for such a review to take place.

Finally, with regard to recommendation 16, I am encouraged that there is some movement. However, it is not clear whether this is as a result of the work of the committee or whether it would have taken place anyway. It would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could clarify this.

While I fear that some of my comments have been negative, I nevertheless welcome the Government’s response to our recommendations. There is much to praise and I am hopeful of moving the issue of IR35 forward in a positive way. However, as with all things, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Barnett Formula

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Like my noble friend Lord Shipley, I believe that the Barnett formula is fundamentally unfair and I will relate this to adult social care. As we have heard, this is an out-of-date formula for allocating resources across the UK.

The Local Government Association estimates that allocating funding on a needs-based formula would potentially increase public spending in England by £4.1 billion. This would make a huge difference to services currently stretched to their limit. There would be a decrease in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Government figures already show Scotland as overfunded. In a recent report, the Treasury said that since 1998,

“public spending per person in Scotland has been around 10 per cent higher than the UK”.

In the current climate, this is simply unsustainable.

This unfairness is understood by most people in England. In 2012, the Future of England survey indicated that 52% of those surveyed felt that Scotland received more than its fair share of funding; this was up from 24% in 2002. What implications does this have for the adult social care system, which in England is underfunded? Over the past three years, budgets have reduced by 20%. There is a growing gap between the demand for social care and the resources invested in it. The Government are not providing councils with enough funding to deliver the care people need. An additional £400 million a year is needed to maintain the same level of service, excluding inflation.

In Somerset, a secondary school which covers an area of 600 square miles transports children to and from their homes, an expensive and large logistical exercise. Delivering dignified and appropriate care to their elderly relatives in the same area is much more challenging when often the assessment is for only 20 minutes of care and the drive to the next client is 30 minutes away. The solution is to reshape local health and social care systems and invest in community-based services. These will alleviate pressure on the acute sector. The Government have acknowledged this with the Care Bill and duties on councils to provide or arrange services that prevent, delay or reduce needs.

Reforms require proper resourcing. If the funding arrangements across the UK were fairer, more could be invested in the English social care system and preventive community care services, with reduced spending on expensive A&E acute services. People will rightly see the current distribution as unfair and look at comparisons in local services received north and south of the border. The English and Scottish social care systems are different. There is different legislation, and there are different entitlements and progress on integrating health and social care. Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom to introduce free personal care where the full costs are covered by the state. In England, the plan is to cap costs. That is a major difference. In effect, English taxpayers, through the Barnett formula, are subsidising a level of care to which they themselves do not have access.

I am pleased that we have had the opportunity today to debate this issue and I agree with my noble friend Lord Shipley that it is right that the Barnett arrangements, agreed as a temporary measure in 1979, should be reviewed. Very few people consider 34 years as temporary. To question Barnett is not to question the future of Scotland in our union. Instead, this debate is about the question of basic fairness across the UK. I therefore call on the Government to set out their plans for making a constitutional settlement fair for all.