Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Judd and Lord Northbrook

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the proposed legislation will inevitably cause a great deal of extra work for not only Whitehall but many farmers on the front line. They have a lot of burden and a lot of challenges; their time is scarce.

In recent years, but particularly in the context of Covid-19, we have seen the consequences of ill planning, of the rushed implementation of new measures and of promises unfulfilled, including the consequent maximum disruption. Rationalisations after the event are no substitute for all the promises at the beginning. For those reasons, there must be time for civil servants and others, and particularly farmers themselves, to prepare properly. In that context, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has insight and sensitivity and realises the practicalities of what is involved.

When it comes to Amendment 41, in the name of my noble friend, the same arguments that I have just applied are highly relevant. What is important about this amendment is that it sets out in detail the things that must be in place and tested. That means not just uttering words off the back of an envelope or making a press statement from No. 10 Downing Street, but ensuring that these things are tested and proven. At stake is the success of the new arrangements. That will be very important, as we do not want disruption of agriculture and total chaos for farmers. From that standpoint, I believe that Parliament has an overriding duty to make sure that it is convinced about what is proposed and that we are able to vet it and give, or withhold, our approval. This is an important amendment and I am glad to be able to support it.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a landowner, an arable farmer and a recipient of payments from the BPS and its predecessor schemes. I will be brief, as the arguments have been well rehearsed on most of the amendments, which I support.

I support the reasons given by my noble friend Lady McIntosh for seeking to delay the start of the seven-year transition rule, having heard her concerns about farmers not knowing about the first plan, mentioned in Amendment 35, until after the Bill has become law.

I also support Amendment 37, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his well-judged comments on the countryside stewardship and production grants. This amendment seems entirely sensible, in that it would stop any further reduction beyond 25% until the ELMS was available.

I also back Amendment 39, tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, the aim of which is to support small hill farmers. I wonder whether he might consider extending it to small lowland livestock farmers.

I am also sympathetic to Amendment 42, tabled by my noble friend Lady Rock. I would just like to say how good the RPA’s performance has been in recent years, and I am sure that that will be extended to the new regime.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Judd and Lord Northbrook

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, first let me say how much I appreciate the tremendous amount of work undertaken by the Minister in all that he has done on this front. I know that he has shown a great deal of personal commitment—as indeed did his predecessor. That should be put on record by all of us. We have moved a long way forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said that he would not take lessons from Oxfam and Save the Children because of their record. I declare an interest: in the 1980s and 1990s I was a director of Oxfam and I have stayed very close to that organisation all my life, and remain as close now as I ever was—perhaps closer. I want to tell the noble Lord that the dismay and disgust in Oxfam at what happened in Haiti at the beginning of the decade cannot be overstated. There is profound dismay at what some people decided to do, and at the damage it has inevitably done both to the organisation and, more importantly, to thousands of people whom the organisation is now unable to help in the way that it would have liked because resources have inevitably dwindled.

That brings me to why this debate is so important. We have been discussing the technicalities of law and the constitution, and talking about the democratic rights of people—but what we are really talking about is justice, social responsibility and the accountability of wealth and power in the world. My noble friend Lord Anderson referred to the Select Committee’s report. It is a very important report, which we should all take very seriously, but it is operating in the context of parliamentary democracy and responsibility. All this Russian and other accumulated wealth that we are talking about—let us not dodge it; we have had allusions to property wealth finding its way to some of these territories as well—is not simply the wealth of those who are handling it; it is wealth that has come from countless ordinary people throughout society. That means that we all have a responsibility to ask: what are we doing, with teeth, to make sure that people who deceive, cheat and accumulate riches wrongly and unfairly are brought to account?

That is why I say how much I appreciate the tremendous work that the Minister has been doing. He has demonstrated the importance of diplomacy and the reality of the world that we live in. It is a matter not just of stating these things, however strongly we state them, but of how you move towards achieving what you want to achieve, and I take his arguments very seriously.

In the time that remains for this debate, I ask your Lordships to remember that we are talking not about money, although that may be a way of measuring the size of the problem, but about people—people from whom this money was accumulated and the countless people across the world for whose benefit it could be used through fair systems of taxation and through policies devised to meet the needs and help the development and emancipation of those who are exploited. This is not just a technical debate. I know that it is not fashionable to say it in this House but it has to be said: it is a debate about morality, justice and fairness. We have to stop sentimentalising about our commitment to those things; we have to make sure that there are teeth and muscle in meeting that commitment.

Perhaps I may come back for a moment to the challenge thrown down by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, about my old organisation. I invite any of your Lordships to come and meet the staff, the trustees, the volunteers and the people across the world in the organisation who are busting a gut to make sure that something that happened at the beginning of the decade and let down the whole cause can never occur again.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Naseby. The Minister, to his credit, spent quite a lot of his speech arguing against government Amendment 22. I wondered why the Deputy Speaker did not call the government amendments and had some suspicions, now proved, that they were tabled too late. I add my disappointment at the seemingly lackadaisical attitude of the FCO. That, as my noble friend Lord Naseby said, is deeply disappointing when the issue is so important.

I should like to refer to one or two points that have been raised. First, none of the overseas territories ais on the EU blacklist of non-co-operative tax jurisdictions. Secondly, as I understand it, money laundering is a devolved issue for the overseas territories. Therefore, I question the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that it comes under the area of international relations or international treaties. To legislate without even consulting their parliaments, let alone asking for their consent, is deeply wrong. In addition, the EU withdrew its proposal for public registers in December 2016 on the ground of concern about human rights. Could this be another case that the overseas territories could pursue?

Most countries are not adopting public registers. For the Caribbean overseas territories, the rival centres are the USA, Hong Kong and Singapore. They do not have public registers. To use an Order in Council for financial regulation, when the overseas territories have already adopted international standards, could expose the UK to legal challenge and be overturned on judicial review. I do not regard this as an exceptional circumstance where the UK Government should make laws.

The other place may think it good short-term politics, but the serious economic consequences and damage to our relationship with the overseas territories, and with the Commonwealth, will be long lasting. Perhaps one of the noble and learned Lords in the House will give their services pro bono for judicial review.