Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation and Linked Households) (England) Regulations 2020

Debate between Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Greaves

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD) [V]]

Sorry, I did so, and it went back on mute. I beg your pardon. My Lords, I speak again from the hills of east Lancashire, which are not so sunny today.

The Minister said that we are not back to the grim times of last March, but in this part of the world, and many others in the north, we have never really been out of them, apart from a short time in the middle of summer. The misery, loneliness and debilitating frustration of people such as small shopkeepers in town centres continues.

Vaccination is really the Government’s last chance to show that they can do something competently in this area. My noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted talked about the logistics and the rollout. In my view, at local level it is very important that the local people involved—the hospitals, GPs, pharmacies and local authorities providing facilities—are able to operate with a degree of flexibility.

Too often we have an attitude in this country of tram lines and tick boxes, and people are not able, and do not feel they are able, to do anything at all that is not on their tick list. Yet if people have the vaccines locally, it is very important that they use them, and that we do not get a situation in which there is a surplus of vaccines in a particular place and people do not turn up to get their vaccination, or there are not enough of the priority categories available. People have to be able to use those vaccines. Every vaccine delivered locally and not used will be a disgrace. I ask the Minister to assure us that people will have the flexibility to use them and to get people vaccinated, right up to 100%.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Greaves

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, what a pleasure to follow a succession of speakers with whom one agrees almost entirely. I added my name to Amendment 231 as an expression of solidarity with all the amendments in this group, which come to the heart of one of the major problems of the Bill. Okay, we are doing away with cross-compliance from the CAP grants most farms have taken advantage of, and moving to a system where a proportion of farms—perhaps a high proportion—will take advantage of, for example, tier 1 schemes. They will be an improvement on cross-compliance if they work properly, because each one will be tailored to the specific circumstances of that farm. That ought to be an advantage, as it ought to be possible to get the best benefit from the particular and unique circumstances of every farm that takes part.

However, the main problem is that there will be some farms—we do not know how many, but they may be large, efficient farms—that decide not to take part in ELMS because they think they can make a profit in the new environment without doing so, without doing all the fiddly things the Government are insisting on through ELMS. Those are the farms where there is a huge risk of a severe loss of environmental benefit and a severe deterioration of everything good that farms give that people have been talking about—ponds, hedgerows and everything else. I do not think we have had an answer from the Government yet on how they are going to deal with that particular problem. These amendments seek to do it by setting up a system of regulation—if I have understood them properly—that will insist that all farms undertake certain basic minimum things.

The Minister has said on at least two occasions in Committee that under the new system there will be no compulsion, and everything will be voluntary. I am very worried about some of these big, supposedly efficient but environmentally inefficient enterprises that might undermine the whole thing.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has withdrawn from the debate so I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Greaves

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We are having problems connecting to the noble Baroness, I am afraid. We shall move on to the next speaker and come back to the noble Baroness later. I call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am enthused by Amendments 68 and 77 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Mouslecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but I think that they explain themselves. They are set out well, they stand for what they stand for and the two noble Baronesses will speak to them. I think you have heard enough from me for the time being, and I will say no more.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Greaves

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 77ZE and 77ZF. I have also given notice that I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. This is, in a sense, a continuation of our previous debate on Clause 22. Perhaps I may first respond to the Minister’s generous offer to convene a meeting with the Canal & River Trust. I am delighted to accept, as, I am sure, the trust will be; I look forward to the meeting.

I shall not repeat the arguments that I put forward regarding Clause 22 but seek simply to state that what the Government propose in Clause 23 goes further than what the two chairmen—the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place and our Chairman of Committees—recommended in their special report on the Rookery South order, when they considered the promoters’ challenges to the locus standi of the petitioners against the order. In paragraph 28 of their report, the two chairmen concluded:

“We urge the Government to amend either the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 or the Planning Act 2008—or both—so as to ensure a consistent statutory framework for the consideration of future Development Consent Orders subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. In drawing up revised provisions, the Government will need to consult with the relevant authorities of the two Houses. In the meantime, no further orders of this type should be laid before Parliament until the statutory framework has been amended to resolve these inconsistencies”.

In its proceedings on Rookery South, the Joint Committee decided at the outset that it wished to hear evidence on the whole of each of the petitioners’ cases. The amendments proposed by Clause 23 would have prevented the Joint Committee from doing so. It is likely in future cases, once Clause 23 is in force, that any attempt to petition on issues that are not related to the acquisition of the special land are likely to be challenged at the preliminary stage before the two chairmen.

Despite that, it remains to be seen whether petitioners will be able to raise issues that are not directly related to the acquisition of the land. It has always been a central tenet of compulsory acquisition law that the applicant for the powers must demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily—a point made with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in the previous debate. Those words are embodied in Section 122(3) of the Planning Act. In order for a petitioner to demonstrate that there is no compelling case in the public interest, he should be able to bring evidence to bear about the benefits of the proposals as a whole, compared with the injury that he will suffer when losing his land.

As I said, Clause 23 goes further than the request made by the two chairmen, who limited their remarks to the 2008 Act. No issue has been raised as regards the compatibility between the Acquisition of Land Act 1981—and other statutes that authorise compulsory acquisition—and the 1945 Act; yet the clause seeks to limit the scope of SPP in the 1981 Act and the other examples in the same way as it does for 2008 Act cases. I should be grateful if the Minister can explain why the Government have decided that this should be the case. My amendments would have the effect of limiting the changes proposed to the SPP procedure so that they apply only to development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I wish to put on record that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.