Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, may I make it absolutely clear that the Government can take further action? The whole legal system is based on the Government intervening at a higher level when something is transparently wrong. Give or take the fact there are protocols, I am quite sure that the Government could commission a judge-led inquiry into this appalling report on Sir Edward Heath. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours; it is a disgrace and pathetic that the Government have not acted long ago.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I repeat the assertion that I made earlier: the police are operationally independent of government. On this matter it would be for the PCC, perhaps in conjunction with the chief constable, to commission an inquiry.

Syria: Refugees

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

We give them humanitarian protection, which is broadly the same thing. I know what the noble Baroness will say, but what we have is people in acute need and we want to get them here as quickly as possible. Humanitarian protection is the vehicle by which we can do so. If we first have to go all the way through the route of establishing refugee status for a lot of people who have no identification papers, it means they are at risk for longer. That is why we have chosen to take that particular route, to ensure that we can get people here and give them the help they need as quickly as possible.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government recognise the regrettable fact that there is no way in which the EU, with or without the UK, can absorb permanently the total number of people who have already arrived as refugees and would-be immigrants, and that the answer must be what two senior members of Mrs Merkel’s cabinet are now exploring? That is to have somewhere else outside Europe—they suggested north Africa—where people can go to be assessed, processed, helped and cherished as far as possible, to resolve the problem. The costs which would be imposed would otherwise be politically wholly unacceptable to the electorates of the countries inside Europe.

[Lord Bates]

As my noble friend will be aware, this was looked at and examined, but it would require a level of international agreement in this sphere which has simply eluded us in the core area of trying to reach a solution in Syria. We remain absolutely of the opinion that the best way to deal with movement and migration is to get a political settlement. That is why we are hopeful and supportive of the UN Security Council resolution which brought about the current ceasefire, but we believe it needs to work beyond that to provide a lasting peace under the Geneva communiqué.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the point so powerfully made by my noble friend Lord Butler, for reasons very much connected with what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has just said. The Committee on Soft Power, which was so admirably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, considered this matter because the contributions of all the other ministries to that 0.7% must be taken into account. It should not merely be a 0.7% DfID budget. Therefore, if in future, as I hope, the contributions of all the various ministries are included in the 0.7%, it is essential that DfID’s co-ordination of that contribution—if that is what it amounts to—should be subject to the discipline of making certain that it is properly spent in the national interest.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I am a mere observer of government over quite a long time. Obviously, we all support the 0.7% target and the whole gesture of telling the world that we intend to stick to it. However, you cannot translate a gesture literally into statute like this. The way that it is being done shoots an arrow straight into the heart of good government. The Treasury system of controlling spending is a complicated and sophisticated one but one that, in my view, has done very well.

The last big change to it was in the 1970s. At that time, public spending was based on the old Plowden system of allocating resources, which effectively pre-empted decisions. The House of Commons was, again and again, asked to vote supplementary estimates, which it did with virtually no discussion. The whole thing descended into total chaos and there was a major economic crisis. That was then changed to the present system, with cash limits and proper scrutiny of each proposal, by the great Leo Pliatzky, who was then the Permanent Secretary in charge of spending. That was based on the system of cash-flow management used in the private sector. Until cash-flow management came into force, an awful lot of perfectly good companies went bust because cash flow was out of control. I do not believe we can change the principle of proper control of public spending for one particular thing, however desirable and however much we support it. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, it is 45 years since I walked out of the Treasury, never to return. However, that was after 20 years there, and once a Treasury man, always a Treasury man. For that reason, and for many others, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Like him, I have no difficulty with the commitment to make the target 0.7%. We do not need legislation to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, talks about the signal that the passage of the legislation would send. With great respect to him, I do not believe that the passage of a Bill with this title would set all the flags flying in the capitals of the developing world. Legislation is not the best vehicle for gestures and signals. If you want to send gestures and signals, things like manifestos and Queen’s Speeches are the appropriate means of doing that. Therefore I support wholeheartedly the spirit behind this amendment, that this expenditure, however good and however meritorious, needs to be subject to the same discipline as other public expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a very serious matter. The world has become increasingly dangerous, volatile and unstable. During precisely that period, we have been cutting our defence capability. We must change that and we must set the right example to our EU and NATO partners. Doing something of this kind—accepting the 2%—would be the right way to do it. One of my great hopes for the country is that, in the course of the coming election campaign, both major parties—in the tradition of responsibility over national security that they have both displayed for countless generations, thank God, otherwise we would not be here today—will commit to spending not less than 2% of GDP on defence.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, emphasise a very important point: the synergistic act between aid and the military. We know that the help we recently sent to Sierra Leone to combat Ebola had to be assisted by military forces to make it possible to administer it. I suspect that there are a lot of instances where the provision of what we loosely call aid is the need to make it possible to deliver the aid.

I suggest—it may not be a matter for this amendment, although I think it is the point of the amendment—that very much more careful consideration be given to the extent to which the Ministry of Defence budget is used to facilitate aid. Particularly now, in the days of ISIS, that so much is needed to introduce minimum stability—to help refugees, for example—I suggest that one could look at the defence budget and the aid budget as a single budget and use that synergy to make both most effective. It is quite extraordinary to me that we set aside the aid budget with a special ring-fence and do not do the same for defence, especially when we are underspending on it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I entirely agree with what my noble friend is saying. However, of course the root of this problem is that the Government’s focus is on meeting an international target, and the requirements as to what can be included in the international target exclude things which are contributed by the MoD, even though they are helping poor people in difficult circumstances.

[Lord Marlesford]

In that case, I would have thought that we should redefine aid to take into account the need to be able to deliver it, if necessary unilaterally but maybe with other countries as well—particularly the United States, where the expenditure is not that great, as we have heard.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for tabling this amendment, and I agree that both the ODA target and the level of defence spend are very important issues. Once again, reflecting this House, we have had a profoundly well informed debate on this amendment, with the participation of, I reckoned: a Chief of the Air Staff—later Chief of the Defence Staff—a First Sea Lord, a former Secretary of State for Defence, and so on. Where else but here? This has also been extremely thoughtful and well argued.

However, to tie one set of spending to the other would not do justice, in our view, to the intention behind the Bill, which aims to increase the predictability of the aid budget and consolidate the United Kingdom’s position as a leader in international development. I understand the noble Lords’ concern to ensure that the defence budget is adequate for the task at hand. They will know that the United Kingdom has the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in Europe, and that the Government are committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence. I absolutely hear what noble Lords have said about the importance of the defence of the realm. However, I am afraid that, while I respect the views expressed by noble Lords today, I cannot agree that this amendment belongs in the Bill.

Syrian Refugees

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

It is extremely concerning to hear what the noble Lord says about Sicily; I had not heard that. It is certainly the case that the UK is working extremely closely with all our European allies on the situation of those who are seeking to come across the Mediterranean, often in incredibly dangerous and dire circumstances.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, in her first reply, my noble friend referred to the desirability of a transfer of power in Syria. Does she recognise that the most likely recipient of any transfer of power at present would be ISIS? That would be a great deal worse than the status quo, because at least the present regime in Syria, for all its faults and misbehaviour, does not slaughter Christians because they are Christians, which ISIS does. In fact, the present regime has always had a reputation for considerable religious tolerance.

[Baroness Northover]

In my first Answer I did not mention a transfer; I talked about a negotiated political transition in Syria. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, we are engaged with moderate groups within and around Syria, helping to ensure that they work effectively together—because it is extremely important for the future of Syria that that happens.

Agriculture and Food Industry

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Plumb. There are very few, if any, Members of this House who are more respected. I declare my interest as a Suffolk farmer and the president of the Suffolk Preservation Society.

I will start by emphasising the cyclical nature of agriculture. In a sense, one ought almost to go back to where it all started in recent history. After the American Civil War, the railways were built, the middle west was opened up and the great agricultural recession hit Europe in about 1870 and lasted until the First World War. Now British farming is suffering from a fresh turn-down. The best example of prosperity in farming has always been the price of wheat and there have been huge fluctuations in recent years. By 2002 the price of feed wheat had fallen to £60 a tonne. If you adjust for output—4 tonnes rather than 1 tonne before the war—and adjust for inflation, that brings that price down to about £6 a tonne, which is what farmers got during the great agricultural depression of the 1930s. By 2007, the price was up to £120 and in 2012 it touched £200. Since then it has fallen by 38% and today it is under £120 a tonne. Oilseed rape, which is probably the main arable rotation crop, has fallen from just under £400 a tonne to £226 a tonne. That is a reduction of 42%.

It is hardly necessary to refer to the bad situation that milk producers are in due to the catastrophic fall in milk prices. I was a milk producer until 2004 and I got out because of the price. Some small milk producers in the West Country have incomes barely above subsistence level. It is largely due, in a sense, to overproduction because only about 50% of all the milk produced is drunk as liquid milk and the rest has to be used for products. They face keen competition and the price for farmers has now gone down again in the last day or two to only about 30p a litre. Supermarkets are selling it at something like 40p a litre as a loss leader.

The global milk demand is set to grow and therefore we ought to be well placed to take advantage of it. It needs big investment and the investment must, as others have said, have certainty for 10 or 20 years, otherwise it will not happen. Many people probably regret the passing of the Milk Marketing Board, founded in 1932 by the great Walter Elliot and presided over with distinction by my noble friend Lady O’Cathain, who is sitting in her place. Sadly, it was abolished.

Returning to wheat, cereal yields have, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, flatlined over the last 10 years compared with other crops, such as sugar beet, which have shown considerable improvement. Cereal plant breeders have stopped investments. The Government have started to spark investment again with incentives and that must continue because it takes about 20 years to develop a new seed variety that goes on to the field.

I echo the need for the Government to give much clearer ideas about GM, which must be a big way forward.

This year there has been a huge increase in herbicide-resistant black grass in wheat. There is a simple remedy for next year. There should be a temporary derogation of the ban on straw burning, which, when properly supervised, is the ideal non-chemical way of clearing the ground of weed seeds and sterilising the soil against many crop diseases. I was on the old Countryside Commission when we recommended it be banned because of abuse by some farmers. In those days the chairman was the brilliant noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury. Aged 96, he is still going strong, with all his faculties. I rang him this morning to say that I was going to make the suggestion about black grass and he said, “You have my full endorsement and you can quote that”. My view counts for nothing but I hope the Minister will take that back to the department and make sure that it is looked at properly.

I also congratulate the Government on taking a firm line against diverting large areas of good agricultural land into solar parks. Again, this is quite relevant to the points made about topsoil. Let me say at once that solar has an important part to play but it should be in industrial areas on industrial buildings—there is plenty on scope—not on good agricultural land. Of course, the economics are too attractive for many farmers to resist. Even with wheat at £200 a tonne and four tonnes to the acre, that is a gross revenue of £800 an acre—out of which you have to grow the stuff. The solar people were offering £1,200 to £1,500 an acre a year, which of course they recouped by adding it on to the electricity bills of everyone. It was a very unsound thing.

We had a recent case in the village of Hacheston near where I live and farm. There was a proposal for a solar park on 150 acres of good agricultural land on the banks of one of the most sensitive designated landscapes, the Ore River Valley. But after a robust campaign, in which everyone in the local community joined, it was rejected by both the inspector and my right honourable friend Secretary of State Pickles. Now the land will continue to be farmed, as it should be. I will put a plug in for the Suffolk coastal area, which is one of the most important parts of England for the growing of vegetables.

I will refer also, as others have done, to CAP reform, in particular the greening obligations. All claims on the basic payment scheme on 15 May 2015 have to be “greening-compliant”. However, Defra still has not produced the guidance that is needed. There will be a real worry if it is not produced in time. It is almost too late. Farmers are working blind. Defra has said it will do it by the autumn but that is really too late. If the Ministers have difficulty, let them ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who did such a terrific job of getting a grip of Defra when we had the shambles of the Rural Payments Agency.

I very much regret that we have lost my right honourable friend Owen Paterson as Secretary of State for Defra. He was a super Minister and I am sure his successor will be wonderful. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord De Mauley is not here. I am not sure that he has his priorities right by being in Scotland but at any rate we should expect him to give a really strong lead to Defra in some of the things that your Lordships’ House can speak about with authority.