Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, in a brief meeting with my noble friend Lord Grimstone earlier this week, he made a very good point, which was elaborated on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, a moment ago. My noble friend had met the devolved Administrations and had some success with the Northern Irish devolved Assembly, but was disappointed that the Welsh and Scottish devolved Governments were not prepared to agree to a legislative consent Motion. Now that we have come to what I think is the appropriate moment, I should be very interested to understand a little more about why that is the case.

In this little group, Amendment 10 is grouped with Amendments 10A and 14, which I will leave the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to speak to. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for lending their support to my amendment, and apologise if I was precipitate in attributing support from the noble and learned Lord for my earlier amendments, for which I apologise. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has not started the road trip without us; perhaps he has just gone to make it warm, comfortable and hospitable for our arrival.

It may be asked why I am pushing Amendment 10 in connection with Clause 7, which relates specifically to the assistance centre. The reason I think that is appropriate is that, in the fact sheet that was issued recently, the Government labour the importance of the assistance centre to encourage foreign professionals to come and practise their profession here and our home professionals to go and practise their professions elsewhere. That makes the case for me why I am introducing Amendment 10. It requires the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations prior to making arrangements for the assistance centre—which is in place, but which, I understand operates under a different name.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I would like to namecheck Michael Clancy for his help in preparing this and my other amendments this evening, and we indeed wish him well and a return to his normal good health. He has been enormously helpful in many Bills, not least the internal market Bill and this one.

The Law Society of Scotland welcomes

“the provisions regarding the assistance centre to provide advice and assistance about entry requirements to those seeking to practise a profession in the UK or to those with UK qualifications seeking to practise overseas.”

It further notes

“the obligation on regulators contained in subsection (2) to provide the designated assistance centre with any information it may need to carry out its functions.”

I argue that that is entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

Why am I asking for consent to be given? Because the obligation to make arrangements for the assistance centre lies on the Secretary of State. However, the assistance centre will provide advice and assistance covering the whole UK. It is entirely appropriate, and important, that the Secretary of State should consult such persons as he considers appropriate before making the arrangements and, having consulted, seek the consent of the devolved Administrations. This last approach reflects that contained in Sections 6, 8, 10, 18, 21 of, and Schedule 3 to, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I further argue that consulting appropriate persons and seeking the consent of the devolved Administrations is important where the assistance centre may be providing advice relating to professions which are within the devolved sphere, and reflects the acknowledgement of the role of the devolved Administrations in earlier clauses in the Bill.

If the consent of the devolved Administrations is not provided within one month of being requested, the Secretary of State can proceed to make the arrangements without that consent. That addresses the specific point raised on amendments we debated earlier this evening tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We should hear from my noble friend Lord Grimstone in response to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as to why the devolved Administrations—in particular, in this case, the Scottish and the Welsh—have not come forward with a legislative consent Motion. I have regard to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in relation to an earlier group of amendments about how regrettable a position it would be if legislative consent Motions were withheld.

For all the reasons that my noble friend and the Government have set out in the fact sheet for the specific importance of the role of the assistance centre, and because I am mindful that my own profession of law is so different in Scotland from England, it is very appropriate that they consult and seek the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland department in this regard.

I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to set out in more detail why Amendment 13 does not apply to Clause 7, which I argue it should, and why, in his view, an LCM has not been forthcoming from the Welsh or Scottish Ministers. I echo the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It is incumbent on the Government to be very clear and as helpful as possible in the spirit of co-operation with the devolved Administrations and Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, hit the nail on the head: we in this place are the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. The devolved Administrations are very conscious that they are devolved, but they hope to have as much advance notice of any changes to legislation in draft as possible, so that they can prepare their views.

I look forward with great interest to hearing the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, when she moves her amendment relating to common framework agreements, which have already been alluded to this evening but, with those few remarks, I look forward to hearing from the Minister and I beg to move.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will, and he may be able to comment on what I am about to say.

The noble Baroness has explained quite clearly what the purpose of the amendment is, and I do not need to repeat that, but we are engaged with the interaction between the Bill and the internal market Act. That is the nub of where the suspicion has arisen. I take account of the fact that the Minister has explained the consultations that have taken place, but they did not take place for the internal market Act, and that has led to a legacy of suspicion which has not gone away. This is where the problem arises. The Minister will clearly want to say that things have moved on, but he needs to reassure the devolved Administrations that that is genuinely the case if we are to secure their consent, unless there are other valid reasons that we have not heard about.

In answer to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the Minister previously said that immigration is one thing and professional qualifications are something else—but they all impinge on each other. We all know that the Government are out in the world looking for all kinds of agreements, post Brexit, which they feel will liberate the UK and create huge opportunities, whether it is exporting skills or importing skills. Yet professional bodies are saying, “Is this going to threaten our standards?”, and the devolved Administrations are saying, “Are our specific circumstances going to be overridden by those priorities?” I contend that that is the nub of the problem.

I have signed this amendment, as have others, because I believe it is trying to put in the Bill a requirement that would categorically state that the concerns of the devolved Administrations and their politicians would not be justified if the consultation was statutorily required and the particular safeguards were in there. That still allows, of course, for the Secretary of State to override the devolved Administrations, but not without going through a clear, spelled-out process of both consultation and explanation, as and when and if an override is likely to be applied.

I am not sure I need to say more, other than that I think the Minister has acknowledged that he is suffering from a legacy that was not of his making. But it is there and, if it is not addressed, it will poison the Bill.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage
Thursday 15th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

I thank noble Lords. Amendment 9 is self-explanatory:

“Clause 8, page 6, line 38, at end insert—


“( ) For the purposes of this Act, a person does not gain control of a qualifying entity if the person acquires a right or interest in or in relation to the entity—


(a) solely by way of obtaining security; and


(b) in a situation where they obtain no effective control.”


The purpose of this is to ensure that transactions constitute a trigger event only where the person gains actual control of a qualifying entity and, very specifically, to exempt Scottish share pledges or other situations where no effective control is obtained. I moved a previous amendment in Committee, and I thank the Law Society of Scotland, which has drawn this matter to my attention. I thank both Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Grimstone, for engaging with me, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and representatives of the Law Society of Scotland to discuss this issue, which the Law Society still feels has not been satisfactorily addressed by the Government. Obviously, this amendment would be an attempt to ensure that it was.

There is a particular point about Scots law. The amendment is intended to exclude a situation whereby the sole fact of pledging shares in security, under Scots law, would be classed as a trigger event. A Scottish shares pledge does not allow a security holder to exercise effective control over the relevant shares in a Scottish company. The primary concern is that the current proposal suggests that a trigger event would take place in a situation where no control has in fact passed. The Ministers will be aware that not only did we exchange very useful views in discussion in meetings— I repeat, we are grateful to the Ministers for engaging with us—but the Law Society president then wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, copying in the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to express the concern that there was still an outstanding issue that needed to be addressed. As set out in the letter, the Bill as currently drafted fails to align with clear statutory precedents for treating shares that are the subject of Scottish share pledges as still being controlled by the pledger. For example, there is the definition of “subsidiary” in Section 11(59) of the Companies Act 2006, as supplemented by paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 to that Act. That reference obviously comes from the Law Society and not from me. This would create a disparity between Scotland and England—that is the real concern —and could make it harder for Scottish companies to obtain loan finance, as well as disincentivising potential investors from establishing vehicles under Scots law.

The amendment would ensure that a trigger event was recognised at the point at which the transfer of control actually occurs. In doing so, it would enhance the ability of the Secretary of State to carry out a national security assessment and impose any safeguards, but at the most appropriate point.

The Law Society, very helpfully, has set out a hypothetical example reflecting what it would say is a common, real-life scenario. For the purposes of this, it is control over company C which gives, or may give, rise to national security concerns. The situation is this: company A is seeking to raise finance, by way of a loan, and approaches bank B. Bank B agrees to lend the money against security over the shares held by company A in its wholly owned subsidiary, company C. Under current Scots law, the only way to obtain fixed security over shares is by way of a share pledge, with the shares being transferred to bank B or its nominee. As such, it can be said that bank B holds the shares, as per Clause 8(2)—that is, the bank holds 100% of the shares in company C. However, holding the shares in this scenario is not ownership in the true sense, and does not give the security holder effective control. Bank B will be unable to sell the shares, has no right to be paid dividends, has an obligation to immediately retransfer the shares on the money secured being repaid and, most importantly, will be unable to exercise voting rights, other than in conformity with company A’s wishes. In practical terms, company A therefore remains in full control of company C, and bank B is not, in fact, in a position of control.

In the previous debate, Schedule 1 was acknowledged and it appears to address the issue, recognising a scenario where a person grants security over shares but continues to exercise de facto control. However, the clarification refers to rights attached to shares, rather than the holding of the shares. Therefore, it does not fully account for the different situation, where a lender becomes the registered holder of shares in security. That has been the case with a share pledge in Scotland and has been standard Scottish legal and business practice since the 19th century. This is different from English law because, by way of comparison, under an English charge over shares this situation just simply does not arise, because no formal transfer of the charge shares is required to perfect the charge. In the parallel English scenario, the same relationships of control or lack of control exist but—this is crucial—no trigger event is recognised. The disparity between the situations in Scotland and England is one of real concern, which has been highlighted. It is not only prejudicial to existing Scottish businesses, by increasing obstacles to obtaining finance, but risks making Scotland less attractive as a jurisdiction in which to establish a business vehicle. I do not need to remind your Lordships how important the financial services sector is to Scotland. Indeed, Scotland’s contribution to the UK economy is disproportionately large in this sector. So, in project financing, investors could prefer an English vehicle, if this makes it easier to obtain funding. The practical effect is that long-established Scottish legal and business practice is being treated adversely compared to its English counterparts. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government or Ministers, but that remains a continuing concern of the Law Society of Scotland.

Acquisitions will, of course, be notifiable only in relation to the listed sectors. However, it is not the notification requirement per se that poses the risk to the ability of Scottish business to access finance. As identified in the context of the PSC, lenders are reluctant to enter into arrangements that suggest that they have control over an entity when this is not the case. The breadth of the call-in power, the potentially broad scope of national security concerns, means that many transactions may be called in for up to five years after the event has taken place. This creates uncertainty, and uncertainty, of course, opposes a commercial risk. The potential for transactions to be called in after the event in other sectors, may ultimately have a greater impact by disincentivising lenders. I hope the House is clear that this is a point of real and substantive concern.

In real life, it is very unlikely that bank B would seek to appropriate the shares in company C, in the scenario I outlined earlier. The most common scenario, following an event of default, would be for bank B to notify company A that it was going to enforce the security, and then sell the share in company C to repay the debt. The sale of the shares in company C to another purchaser—purchaser P—would constitute a trigger event under Clause 5. There is also the potential that bank B would decide instead to retain the shares. Having given notice to company A, bank B would therefore, at that point, enter into control of company C, acquiring all voting rights, dividend rights and the ability to sell the shares. That is the point at which the trigger event should occur. Entering into control of the shares following a default could indeed be specifically recognised as a trigger event, but that scenario is already suitably covered by Clause 8(2).

In a situation where company C falls within one of the 17 listed sectors, bank B’s acquisition of control would be recognised only if the appropriate notification had been given. In a situation where the Chancellor was not compulsorily notifiable, the five-year call-in period would begin to run at the point bank B assumed control. This could give the Secretary of State a longer timeframe in which to assess any risks posed by ownership of the shares vested in bank B. Notice of bank B’s interest would appear as a matter of public record, subject to the default occurring after the annual return showing that the share pledge had been taken. That would all happen long before bank B was able to take control. For these reasons, there is no real risk of hostile actors targeting lending arrangements as a means to gain control of national security-sensitive entities. The Secretary of State would retain discretion over available remedies, which could be applied at the appropriate time.

Nothing in the remarks that I have just made will come as a surprise to Ministers, because it has been set out in detail in a letter from the president of the Law Society of Edinburgh, addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and copied to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there is an outstanding point of concern. As I say, we are all grateful to the Minister for engaging with us and showing understanding that this is a real issue.

None of us is of the view that there is any intention to put Scotland and Scottish businesses at a disadvantage, but, without this amendment or some comparable amendment that the Government might agree to or introduce, there remains a real possibility of discrimination against Scottish financial services and investment businesses, which would be politically awkward and embarrassing as well as practically damaging to the interests of both Scotland and the United Kingdom sector. I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that this issue needs to be addressed head on and that assurances can be given that the concerns outlined will not actually take effect. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of, and to have co-signed, Amendment 9. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for moving and speaking to the terms of the amendment so thoroughly. I also echo his thanks to the Law Society of Scotland for highlighting this issue at Committee stage and bringing forward this amendment for Report. I also thank my noble friends Lord Grimstone and Lord Callanan for the time that they spent with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, me and members of the Law Society of Scotland going through the issue with us. I remind the House that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.

This is quite a sensitive time to be raising this matter, mindful of the fact that elections are going on in Scotland—they will be held on 6 May—so I am sure that it is not the intention of a British Government whom I overwhelmingly support to seek to disadvantage Scotland at this time. We are here to assist the Government and bring to their attention the ramifications of the preventions of the Bill currently before us. Amendment 9, so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, would simply ensure that transactions constitute a trigger event only where a person gains actual control of a qualifying entity—and to exempt Scottish share pledges in relation to other situations where “no effective control” is obtained.

Of all the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I echo the comparison that he made with English law, which could cause some confusion and has perhaps led to this regrettable situation. Of all the things that I recall from the conversation that we had on the call with my noble friends the Ministers, I want to impress on the Government that this is not just an issue but potentially one of some magnitude—my noble friend Lord Callanan seemed not to grasp that during the call, so I pause to emphasise it to him.

By way of comparison, under an English charge over shares, this situation does not arise, because no formal transfer of the charged shares is required to perfect the charge. In the parallel English scenario, the same relationships of control or lack thereof exist, but no trigger event is recognised. I am sure that this is just an unfortunate situation that has arisen, which is why it is timely to bring it to the Government’s attention today. The disparity between the situations in Scotland and England is one of the concerns that we seek to highlight as not only being prejudicial to existing Scottish businesses and increasing obstacles to obtaining finance but risking making Scotland less attractive as a jurisdiction in which to establish a business vehicle. I support all the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, made.

In the spirit of openness, as this is an extremely technical issue—I can quite understand if my noble friends perhaps do not fully grasp the situation in which we find ourselves—I have taken the opportunity to bring it to the attention of the Advocate-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who will fully consider the ramifications. As such, I have every confidence that, before the Bill leaves this place, full and due consideration will be given to Amendment 9 and what we are seeking by moving it today.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Cormack said about our noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

I have not spoken in general terms about the union. Suffice it to say that, as a Scot by birth with a Scottish father, who made her maiden speech next door on the Scotland Bill, I care passionately about this area. I lend my support to the terms of the amendment as set out by my noble and learned friend. I urge my noble friend Lord True to show the same spirit as our noble friend Lord Callanan when he accepted many of the areas, identified by the Law Society of Scotland in earlier parts of the Bill, on which we felt that the Government should consult. I am just disappointed that those fell to the terms of consent being sought. I am not sure that is appropriate in all those circumstances.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the Scottish Parliament withheld its consent to this legislation. It behoves the Government to move as far as possible and to consult. I am mindful of the old BT advert: it is good to talk. By talking and consulting, many misunderstandings are removed. It also behoves the Government to ensure that the common frameworks are allowed to reach their natural conclusion in the areas that are already well advanced. I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and his amendment the best, and hope that our noble friend Lord True might be magnanimous and come forward with something similar at the next stage.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 75, and I recognise the constructive intentions behind Amendments 73 and 76. I want to be clear that I have not been persuaded in any way of the case for this Bill. It is wrong in almost every respect, and that is why it has been substantially amended: I think the House takes a similar view. Of course, I have supported amendments that mitigate its worst effects, but I view with growing despair the failure of the Government to grasp just how negative and dangerous is the thrust of this Bill.

The Bill is clearly driven by an ideological and deluded belief that the UK Government can negotiate trade deals more far-reaching and radical than have been achieved within the EU and that, in doing so, they do not wish to allow the existing devolution arrangements to account for any friction in the process. Of course, however, Part 5 of the Bill destroys the negotiating capacity of the Government, who have had no experience of negotiating trade deals in more than 40 years, by advertising in advance their preparedness to set aside unilaterally any agreements that they might sign. The trouble is that the Government seem completely oblivious to the friction that will result from unilaterally overriding decision-making under the devolution settlements.

It has been argued repeatedly that decisions involving the devolved Administrations should be based on seeking agreement. The principles behind the common frameworks have been met with wide support and approval, and I welcome their inclusion in Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. However, there is still a serious lacuna in the process for reaching agreements across the four nations, and Amendment 75 addresses this. The amendment also seeks to utilise the joint ministerial committee, which, in practice, has not been used enough, but which could be an effective means of producing a dispute-resolution process.

The problem at the moment is that the default position leaves it to UK Ministers—who, of course, are also English Ministers—to have the final say. It is not desirable for any one of the four nations to have a veto on achieving agreement. We are quite clear about that. That is why a premium should be placed on seeking agreement wherever possible. Where it is not possible, however, there needs to be a mechanism that is seen to be fair and collaborative and not one-sided. That might involve qualified majority voting, which I have advocated on a number of occasions. However, this amendment proposes not a solution but a mechanism for finding one. My noble friend Lord Purvis, in previous contributions, alluded to the Australian example where the mechanism was unanimously agreed by all the state premiers, but decisions relied on qualified majority voting.

This Bill will do immense damage to the union and to what is left of Britain’s good standing in the world, which this Government seem determined to destroy. Amending it is only damage limitation, but Amendment 75 would go a long way to help. I support it: it is a mechanism by which we can find solutions to disagreements among our four nations that do not allow for veto but do seek consent and will have the support of all the component parts of the union, apart from those who have no desire to maintain it. Many of us want this union to survive and to be effective: this kind of amendment is a way to try to ensure that.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to my three amendments, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, the Bill team and everybody for getting us to this stage. It is quite remarkable that we have a book of amendments almost as large as the Bill itself. I know the lengths to which my noble friend will go to accommodate us.

I will speak first to Amendments 24 and 104 in my name. I thank other noble Lords who have joined me in signing Amendment 24, which is for probing and debating purposes only. Obviously, I do not wish to see land taken out of “managing land or water” that will benefit from new financial assistance under the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend, who is responding today, and to our noble friend Lord Goldsmith for responding to my concerns, which I have also set out in Amendment 104.

There will be opportunities for farmers to create reservoirs, working either on their own or with water companies. This will be recognised as financial assistance, other than where they may already fall within a flood plain, which I think is the one exclusion. My noble friend said that the equivalent of 25 Olympic-sized pools would fall within the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975.

We are absolutely delighted to have the Slowing the Flow at Pickering scheme. I am sure that many other schemes like it will benefit from the provisions of this Bill. I welcome that. It could be not just for farm use, but caravan parks and golf clubs may consider storing water temporarily or more permanently on their land. However, could my noble friend be a little more precise? In my noble friend Lord Goldsmith’s reply to me in a letter on 2 July, he said:

“The temporary storage of floodwater on land would not necessarily constitute a raised reservoir and would therefore be exempt from reservoir safety regulations in England.”


It would be helpful if my noble friend could place that letter in the Library so that I do not need to refer to it in any more detail. Could we have an assurance today on what will be considered temporary storage and what permanent storage, to reassure those seeking to retain water temporarily as floodwater that they will not fall within the provisions of the 1975 Act, which are particularly onerous for reservoirs and would reduce it to 10,000 cubic metres?

Further, the reservoir we had initially sought for the Slowing the Flow scheme could not be signed off by the panel engineer from the Institution of Civil Engineers. Can my noble friend assure the House today that even water stored temporarily to retain floodwater on land will not fall into that category? That would be most helpful.

Amendment 24 relates to financial assistance for upland and hill farms in particular, which produce pasture-fed livestock. There are concerns that hill farmers may not benefit because many of them are tenants. In North Yorkshire and other parts, I think almost 50% of farms are tenanted. Later we will consider county council farms, which are almost exclusively tenanted farms by their very nature. This is a probing amendment to see whether my noble friend would be minded to use financial assistance to promote pasture-fed livestock farming systems. It is something that we are particularly good at in the United Kingdom, in parts of northern England, Scotland, Devon and, I am sure, Wales and other parts as well. The taste of the spring lamb off the North Yorkshire moors is hard to beat but that is not why we are here today.

Pasture-fed livestock farming is responsible for the management of a significant part of our landscape. The national parks have done a great piece of work on this, which we will come on to consider. But it is particularly important in this regard to seek financial assistance for the way the uplands are managed. Too often, calves and other animals that are fattened on the pastures come in for unnecessary and unwanted attacks from interest groups which perhaps do not understand how red meat is produced and how important it is to a balanced diet. The uplands also play a role as a carbon sink—storing carbon in the grasslands—and in harvesting carbon from the atmosphere on an ongoing basis. Given the wider benefits of pasture-fed systems, I urge the Government to address this sector within the realm of public goods, under Clause 1(1).

I make it clear that this is complementary to and supportive of the provisions on native breeds, whether on pasture or other systems. I acknowledge that native breeds are probably already recognised, so I nudge my noble friend towards considering that pasture-fed livestock also come under the provision, for biodiversity and public health reasons as well.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, whose closing remarks on pasture-fed livestock echo my own Amendment 78, which seeks the following:

“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining support for hill farms and other marginal land previously designated as less favoured areas.”


I support what the noble Baroness said in praise—not just support—of those areas.

We need to recognise the geographical importance as well as the environmental, agricultural and food production importance. Less favoured areas in England cover the Pennines, the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales —Yorkshire generally—Devon and Cornwall and most of Wales; and, of course, a huge chunk of Scotland, which I know is not directly covered by the Bill but this demonstrates how important it is. In those areas it is a very significant part of the local economy, in terms of employment, the environment, access and the general diversity of the economy. As the noble Baroness made clear, our uplands—our hill lands—are most useful for livestock rearing, grazing and pasture feeding, particularly of lamb and beef, and are not suitable, really, for cropping, other than in marginal circumstances.