Rural Economy

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests, which are financial, as set out in the register, and also personal, given my actual involvement in things. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on calling this debate. It may disappoint him, but it seems to me that rural Britain is not really homogenous, and I am afraid I am not really interested in the Home Counties. Rather, my concern focuses on the shires and beyond—what I like to think of as l’Angleterre profonde. They are particularly important to us in this country as a whole, partly because they are part of our collective sense of Britishness and of a perception, from the outside, of what this country is. In their own way, they are as important as, for example, the building where we are this afternoon, or Canterbury Cathedral, or the National Gallery.

Rural Britain is experiencing two revolutions. The first is in town and country planning. The important thing for the countryside is that the underlying thinking behind the settlement of the post-war planning regime is now under challenge. Rural Britain is not only for farming and forestry. Particularly with the development of connectivity, all kinds of possibilities are opening up that are consistent in land-use terms with what was tried to have been protected. Of course, we all know that connectivity is pretty erratic in the countryside, but I hope the relationship between fibre and mobile, with the two—as I understand it—coming together, means it may be possible to achieve an adequate overall system quicker than perhaps was previously thought possible.

Secondly, now that we have left the common agricultural policy, there is a revolution in that area too. It is worth remembering in this context that agricultural policy has always been a distinct specialist phenomenon in politics, going back to the Middle Ages, for rather obvious reasons. Public money and the public goods that the public are going to receive for it are in a state of flux.

The questions that we need to ask are twofold. First, what is rural Britain for? Secondly, how is that aspiration going to be achieved? In my case, much of my thinking is derived from looking at the Lake District, which the Minister obviously knows well. It is 40 years ago that I became a member of the Lake District special planning board and chaired its development control—that is, its planning committee. Subsequently, I have always watched what is going on very carefully. In many ways, it is completely unrecognisable from what it was then.

The point about the Lake District is that it is England’s premier national park. It is the crucible of the Romantic movement, both here and abroad, and relatively recently has been inscribed as a UNESCO world heritage site, both for its landscape and for cultural reasons, and they are equally important. It is not just any old corner of contemporary Britain or just part of our nation’s family silver; it is part of the world’s patrimony. The point of that is that it is much more significant than simply a bean-counter’s analysis of a profit and loss account.

Despite all that, productivity, as it is now measured in this country, means that the Lake District is below the national average. To a degree, that may be to do with the methodology employed. It has always interested me that water, which in very large quantities is exported into what used to be known as industrial Lancashire, does not play a proper part. It is not only that they cannot spend a penny in that area without our water; industry—and everything in society—would simply grind to a halt.

Equally, as a number of speakers have mentioned, housing policy is seriously flawed. There are plenty of houses in the Lake District, but the problem is that people who want to live there and need to work there cannot do so because housing has become a must-have asset for rich, moneyed southerners and international money. If you think about it, the houses are there. The place is a national park, so the solution is not building more houses; it is finding a way of moving the houses that are there into a category which means they will be restricted to people who live and work there. You have to think out of the box a bit, but it is far from impossible to see relatively easy ways as to how that might be done, given the political will.

The visitor economy has been mentioned. It is important, but it is beginning to cause problems along the very general lines of the problems that it is posing in places such as Venice and Barcelona. It requires considerable thought. I was a bit startled the other day when my son said to me, “You know, dad, I think the Lake District is now more famous for food and fine dining than it is for the landscape and what it’s really all about”.

Our economy is dysfunctional. Despite providing and contributing a lot to UK well-being, it still seems to be unable to generate enough money to look after itself. Its liquidity, taken across the piece, is haemorrhaging. That is why the ideas proposed in the Budget for taxing small businesses and farms are, frankly, cuckoo. You must not take working capital out of a series of activities that are losing money.

I suggest that the Minister looks at the system used for dealing with works of art in a similar context. There are all kinds of pointers that seem to suggest that there are ways of both taxing and collecting the money at the time when the asset’s value is realised. That is a much more sensible way of doing it.

The world is changing. We are not yet in a world where the policies and systemic framework surrounding all this are stable. Until just the other day, I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, which is 50% industrial and 50% rural. I believe that we managed to achieve a harmonious partnership between local authorities, the voluntary sector and industrialists. In particular, industrialists and businesspeople are important, because they are the people who know how things are done. It is very important that, as we go forward, we find a way of making sure that those who do the business take part in and drive the policy.

Storm Bert

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I live in a community in Cumbria that floods a lot, and one of the most extraordinary things when you have faced a serious flooding event is the way the local community comes together, whether that is farmers helping to clear the roads, people checking on vulnerable residents or people looking after other people’s pets when they have had to go into hotel accommodation. Community support, the way communities come together, should be hugely commended in our society, and farmers have an important role to play in that in rural areas.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given that we seem to have more and more floods, do the Government have any analysis of whether people are taking flood warnings more or less seriously than they used to?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an interesting question. All I can say, for my part and that of people I know locally, is that in the last 20 to 25 years, since the flood warning system was set up and made available to communities, we have taken the warnings extremely seriously. It is important that we have these systems set up in order that they can help people in advance. If that did not happen this time, that is something we need to look at.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests in the register and by saying how much I enjoyed the preceding speech from the noble Earl, Lord Devon.

Nearly 40 years ago, I spent about a couple years as a non-executive director of North West Water, the pre-privatisation predecessor of the United Utilities water section. In my initial briefing, I was absolutely gobsmacked by the revelation of the extent of the problems thrown up by dirty water and its treatment. It was explained to me that, over possibly three or four previous generations, the dominant de facto control over these things had been in the hands of the local authority. In practice, vastly insufficient resources have been put into the underground infrastructure. The Alderman Foodbothams, to use Peter Simple’s graphic phrase, thought there were no votes in burying ratepayers’ money. Of course, they were right then.

Since those days, as we have heard from a number of speakers, there are now more people, more houses and more pollution, coupled with a genuine recognition that pollution really matters and needs addressing effectively. At the time I was involved, privatisation was in the wind. The rationale was that it would help deal with these issues. My experience suggests that the problems that I discovered then were, if anything, underestimated. They are turning out to be more difficult to deal with than was anticipated, not least because a certain amount of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked.

I believe that privatisation as taken forward has brought a number of benefits, but not universal benefits—we should remember that. The question we should ask ourselves is: what are water companies for? Their essential purpose is supplying clean water, then treating dirty water and returning it to the natural environment clean. The combination of corporate structures, with their extensive legal implications, and the regulatory framework was intended to provide a better vehicle for doing that—and, as I said, it has brought benefits. But—this is the important thing—while most directors of responsible companies are decent people who behave responsibly and are law-abiding by instinct, a certain number of people are dazzled by the financial services sector and become disciples of Gordon Gekko, in that “Greed is good”. Dazzled by the gold, they lose a proper sense of proportion. Some of the abuse that has taken place in the water sector is the result of that.

What matters is what is happening on the ground—or perhaps I ought to say what is happening in the water. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to Lake Windermere, where, as we all know, there has been a well-publicised campaign about pollution problems. As he said, those are urban not rural in origin. It is true that the water in the lake is not up to the best target standards, but for years considerable sums have been spent, progress has been made and measures put in hand to improve matters.

The problem is that the way in which that campaign has been promoted has had a damaging impact on the tourist industry there. As your Lordships will know, the tourist industry was very badly hit by Covid and has not properly recovered. The message that has been received in many places is clearly—wearing my hat as the chairman of the Cumbria LEP, I have been told this by a number of angry people in the visitor economy —that, if you go on holiday to Windermere, you will be having your holiday on the Costa del Septic Tank. As can be imagined, that is not something that positively encourages people.

This is a very real and serious concern, which we must bear in mind in parallel with the overriding long-term objective of improving water standards. The scale of the problem is such that we cannot solve it all immediately—and if resources are transferred from one place to another place, somebody else is going to suffer. There has to be progress over time, which will inevitably involve a degree of political direction. We do not want to duck that.

Finally, I turn to a similar but much smaller-scale matter, which I hope I will be allowed—having been given my pass to the political tumbril—to illustrate from my own personal circumstances. It is a good graphic example of something that has a much wider application. The Minister, as a noble Cumbrian, knows that my home is too big, and is situated in the Petteril catchment area, which is part of the Eden catchment area—one of the problem catchments in this country. It has been designated as a place of national importance, which, both by statute and by contract, I am obliged to look after properly—and that is what I am trying to do.

Some of the adjacent cottages, which are an integral part of the whole, are served by a United Utilities septic tank subject to a grandfathered discharge licence dating back between 50 and 100 years. Nobody would get a discharge licence on those terms now, but it is valid. The result is that, from time to time, horrifyingly disgusting discharges go straight into a stream that is part of what I might describe as a water feature—part of the garden, which is of national significance. Visitors pay good money to see that and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

I have talked to United Utilities about this, and the people there they explain that there is a licence to discharge, albeit that it is below contemporary standards. It is not a priority for them. I can understand their point, and where their thinking is coming from. Across rural Britain, and England in particular, there are many similar arrangements, which for practical purposes are equivalent to the well-recognised and understood private small-scale systems that exist.

I suggest that the best way of dealing with the kinds of problems that such arrangements bring about is to transfer the responsibility for dealing with those discharges from the utility company to the private landowners affected, together with a dowry to enable them to carry out the work. The companies would be relinquishing their responsibilities and taking them off their balance sheet. Speaking for myself—and, I dare say, for a lot of other people—I would much rather be subject directly to the rules and the law, and be able to take responsibility and gain control over my own immediate environment, than have no choice but passively to endure the noxious consequence of the inactivity of the utility.

I raise that as a thought, and in conclusion I simply join others in saying that I am looking forward to considering the Bill, and also the promised review in due course. This manifesto Bill is targeted at a real abuse, but we need to examine it and ensure that it meets its purpose well and avoids collateral damage. After all, that is what the House of Lords is for.