argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Rosalind Scott (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 124 and 138, which I have signed. While my thinking is very much informed by questions of public access in the way that my noble friend Lord Addington’s is, there is a wider point here about the operation of this new system that is echoed in one way or another by a number of amendments in this group. While I recognise that it is positive that multiannual assistance plans will provide a level of certainty both for farmers and for the public, who are interested in these things, this ought to be strengthened by a greater understanding of how the objectives align with the public goods in Clause 1 As drafted, the Bill refers to the Government’s strategic priorities, but it is not really very clear how one would determine what those priorities are. I shall give the Committee an example: there is a national policy on flooding, for example, and we know that there are policies around climate change and the environment. That is probably clear. However, there are no strategic priorities established for the question of public access. It is quite difficult to see how assistance under the Bill will link to a government strategic priority that does not actually exist. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word or two about this because it would really aid clarity about what the funding is to deliver and ensure that there is a coherence in approach and predictability That then feeds into Amendment 138 regarding clarity in the financial assistance scheme, which I think most of us would agree is an essential part of transparency. We want to see not just what is being given to whom but how these strategic priorities—these public goods—are reflected in the spending once it has happened.
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Anthony Robert Greaves (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, whenever I talk to farmers, read the farming press or otherwise see them in the media, they are worried that they do not know how this will work, and that it will simply result in a cut in their income and will be a danger to the future of their business. I have listened to what has so far been an extraordinary seminar on all this business—it will go on rather longer; I did warn people about that —but we still do not get answers from the Government. Those of us who will again be asked by farmers, "What will happen?", will have to say that we do not know, but we can tell them what might. It is not satisfactory. The CAP changed several times. Fifteen years ago, it changed very substantially. It was decoupled—that is always the word used on these occasions—from a production-based subsidy system to the area-based schemes: the single farm payment with cross-compliance, which morphed into the basic payment plus greening, which was a bit different but not a lot. It was a major change that inevitably had a seven-year transition period in this country, which resulted in complete chaos with the payments I remember that when I was responsible for Defra issues for our party I asked questions time and again in this Chamber about the fact that the Rural Payments Agency was not able to perform its functions properly. People were not being paid on time and some were not being paid at all. The Government will say that it has settled down substantially now. That is true, but that is because the transition has finished, the changes have taken place and people now know what they are doing What will happen now? The answer is that everyone will be plunged into a new transition period and another fundamental change where, the Government say, direct subsidies to farms and farmers will be abolished and people will be paid under the new environmental land management scheme. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, said that it will definitely start in 2024. Without wanting to be too cynical, my answer to that is, "Pull the other one." It might start, but it will not be completed at all. I wonder whether it will even start then.
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Lindsay Granshaw (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 105. As we all made clear at Second Reading, British agriculture is now in a period of enormous uncertainty. This has run as a theme through the Committee stage of the Bill. As the NFU notes, British agriculture does not know what will happen in relation to its main market, the EU, or access to labour from the EU, let alone arrangements for other markets around the world Farming is an especially long-term enterprise—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly emphasised—and is risky and uncertain, especially for small farmers and tenant farmers, who farm a third of the UK’s agricultural land. It is therefore vital that when the Government talk about the transition period from the CAP for agriculture, they sustain the level of financial assistance to this sector despite the many demands that will be in competition Amendment 105 aims to ensure that there is not a reduction in the level of that financial assistance. It has been striking how short a period the Government have attached to their funding commitments, and already there are cuts. It is all very well the Government saying they "may" take certain action, as the Bill has it, but that does not mean they must or will deliver it, as my noble friend Lord Greaves said. Like him, I recall the chaos of the Rural Payments Agency If we bear in mind the many changes planned for the United Kingdom from next January—right across the economy, including in agriculture, and as we may or may not be coming out of the pandemic—it is understandable that farmers are deeply worried. I therefore welcome Amendment 105.
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Catherine Bakewell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, this group also deals with funding and the snappily titled "multi-annual financial assistance plans". We have heard much about the level of funding that the Government are guaranteeing for the farming community. This is set at £2.8 billion. It sounds sufficient, but exactly what it is proposed to cover is unclear. Many of the amendments that we debated on the first day in Committee sought to ensure that certain aspects of our agriculture were included in that funding Many noble Lords have spoken in favour of Amendment 105. Payments to farmers should definitely arrive on time. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is seeking to ensure that the overall financial assistance is not reduced and that no more than 5% of this assistance is spent on administration and consultancy. I am sure that we have all had experience of the costs of consultancy spiralling out of control. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to this. The Government will have difficulty in reining consultancy back once it has begun. Similarly, it is important that any funds unspent in one year are carried forward to the next and future years, rather than being returned to the Treasury, when they will likely be lost to agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, drew attention to that. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that this will happen The question of public access to farmland, water and woodland, and how it will be funded and monitored, was raised by my noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market, Lord Addington and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. This is also extremely important for the health, well-being and enjoyment of the public in general. It is necessary to understand how the plan will work to deliver public good in this area.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jonathan Oates (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for the opportunity to debate the economic issues arising from Covid-19. I thank him for his excellent and powerful speech Sadly, through no fault of the noble Lord, for most of us this is a highly truncated opportunity in which we have just two minutes to attempt to discuss this enormous issue. This follows a debate on 30 April, when Peers were given one minute to debate the impact of Covid on people living in poverty. On12 May, we had just two minutes to discuss our future relationship with the European Union. Day after day, we have had similar speaking times which do not offer the slightest prospect of properly holding the Government to account. This is the dismal state at which the House of Lords has arrived. Despite repeated requests, 74 days after the lockdown began, the Government have failed to arrange a meaningful debate on the greatest crisis faced by this country since World War II. This is an astonishing state of affairs and, if we allow it to continue, the role of this House will be further diminished In the time that I have left, and on a more positive note, I welcome the early and decisive actions taken by the Chancellor to support the economy. Although there are some gaps in support, which my noble friends will highlight, his early action has undoubtedly made the lives of many better than they otherwise would have been. Nevertheless, the hardest part is likely to be in the next phase. It is estimated that between 1 million and 2 million people have already lost their jobs, and many more are likely to follow. In this context, will the Government urgently publish detailed plans for a job-rich economic recovery? In particular, can the Minister indicate if the Government intend to bring forward proposals for a nationwide programme to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes? This could provide tens of thousands of jobs and will be critical to meeting our net zero targets. Will the Government also look at urgent investment to accelerate research into cost-effective production of clean hydrogen, so that it can play an effective part in our decarbonisation plans This crisis reminds us how fragile is our control of the environment in which we live. We must use this timely reminder to inspire urgent and concrete action to tackle climate change and protect the future of generations to come.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Sharon Bowles (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Pandemics, like wars, change the path of history. This one has not only put into focus where austerity went too far but also changed perception of the role of the state, both here and internationally. Already, there are serious and credible suggestions for a post-war type of investment, taking advantage of low or negative interest rates to invest faster and more than was envisaged pre-pandemic. We will not be the only ones doing this, which adds a competitiveness angle Strategic self-sufficiency should pay a greater part, bringing environmental benefit along with security. The pandemic has also taught us that personal space matters. Inadequate and high-density housing, over- crowded public transport and excessive commuting are all promoters of illness, lost productivity and social misery as well as spreaders in pandemics; this affects, and infects, everyone in the end, and so it must change More economic support for business will be necessary, but it must work in a distributed and reinforcing way. Last week, the FT reported that Rolls-Royce threatened to chop any supplier that cannot give it a 15% discount. The same article points out that big manufacturers demanding cuts from suppliers are simultaneously using their need to support the supply chain as one of their pleadings to Ministers. I hope that the Minister has spotted this hypocrisy, and that BEIS will make it clear that help is for sharing and that squeezing the pips out of supply chains, unreasonable discount demands and paying late will count against them.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Edward Timothy Razzall (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is now commonplace to agree with the evidence of the Chancellor to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that we are facing a recession like no other we have seen before, and that it is not obvious that there will be an immediate economic bounceback. The facts are stark. As other noble Lords have said, currently, the Government are paying 80% of wages of employees on the furlough scheme, which has now been extended to October, and this covers 35% of private sector employees. With the addition of grants to the self-employed, this will have cost £100 billion by the end of October—more than the average forecast spending on defence and transport. As noble Lords have said, when the Government stop making these payments, serious redundancies are bound to follow, with the Bank of England forecasting unemployment rising to at least 10% What should the Government do? They were inundated with suggestions from leading economists, many of which have merit, and I shall highlight a few. Many of these proposals are technical. The first is to align the lower national insurance threshold with income tax at £240 per week, rather than, as now, £169 for an employer and £183 for an employee. The second is to create a fund to hold the bailout loans, to take them off banks’ balance sheets, as suggested by Howard Davies the other day. The third is to manage 10-year gilt yields down to close to 0%, to make it cheaper for the Government to borrow Some of these proposals will require alterations to the way our banking system works. To kick-start the housing market, borrowing rules for homebuyers could be relaxed. The Green Investment Bank could be reactivated to promote a significant increase in green technologies. Some proposals will require a significant change in direction by the Government. With the large erosion of opportunities for our young people, now is the time for a massive focus on further education and apprenticeships. There is a major need to focus capital expenditure on infrastructure investment It is absolutely clear that Keynes is back: this will be no time for austerity, otherwise we will see more lost jobs, more lost income and the familiar consequences of unemployment and poverty—poorer health, a crumbling infrastructure, and rising crime and xenophobia. And for heaven’s sake, let us extend the Brexit transition period while all this is being sorted out.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Warren Shipley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it was reported yesterday that the US economy will take 10 years to recover from the pandemic—that is according to US government analysts. We know that something similar is likely for the UK. Our economy is in a state of shock, and it is estimated that Covid-19 could reduce GDP by well over 10%. To make matters worse, the Government seem intent on risking a no-deal Brexit, which could result in a further 5% long-term reduction in the UK’s GDP We are suffering from an acute lack of leadership as the Government pretend that they can solve both problems at the same time. They cannot. It is dangerous to expect British companies trying to save and restore their businesses in the wake of the pandemic, which is not over, to cope with the additional complexities of a new trade agreement—or no agreement at all—which would need to be implemented at very short notice. The Government should request an extension to the 31 December transition period deadline On the impact of no deal, the Government should heed the warnings of Nissan, which is keen to continue car production in Sunderland. Its global chief operating officer said yesterday morning that if the company is "not getting the current tariffs, the business will not be sustainable." That is what everybody has to understand. Can the Minister say whether the Government understand that We have learned a lot from the impact of the pandemic, not least that we are too reliant on global supply chains and need to be more self-sufficient. I am thinking of more local food production to reduce dependency on imports; the supply of energy, where major investment in renewables would boost the economy; and more local manufacturing in areas that have been traditionally been manufacturing centres. Achieving all this needs the Government to think in terms of places and how they can be helped to produce more.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Qurban Hussain (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, my hometown, Luton, has also taken a severe economic hit from Covid-19. This has resulted in a devastating projected shortfall of more than £49 million in Luton Borough Council’s finances this year. As a matter of fact, Luton is the second worst-hit town in England The leader and the chief executive of Luton Borough Council have written a letter to the Prime Minister regarding this, a copy of which was forwarded to me. The letter points out that part of the commercial income increase is income through Luton Borough Council’s ownership of London Luton Airport. Luton Borough Council has invested heavily over the last six years to enable the doubling of the size of the airport to 18 million passengers. Last year, the airport delivered to Her Majesty’s Treasury around £116 million in air passenger duty alone. Covid-19 is decimating, and will continue to decimate, passenger numbers, with the operator currently forecasting an annualised reduction of at least 66% in 2020-21. With passenger numbers catastrophically impacted, the council’s airport company, London Luton Airport Ltd, is no longer receiving air passenger income. That makes it impossible to pass on dividends to the council, which relies heavily on them to fund many vital front-line services That will mean an in-year revenue reduction for Luton Borough Council of around £40 million in 2020-21. Taking into account the forecasted reduction in business rates, council tax, rents and fees and charges, there will be a shortfall of working capital in the region of £50 million in 2020-21. This shortfall will have a devastating effect on delivering our much-needed statutory services that protect and support the residents of Luton. Luton Borough Council is therefore urgently seeking emergency revenue funding from the Government of £50 million for 2020-21 in addition to the welcome Covid-19 response funding. Will the Minister support with sympathy Luton’s application to bridge this financial gap as a special case?
Covid-19: Aviation — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Environment
Jennifer Elizabeth Randerson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I join the Minister in condemning BA’s disgraceful behaviour, but will she confirm what action the Government will take to ensure that BA cannot continue to take public money and at the same time use this crisis to treat its employees in the worst possible manner Aviation urgently needs a support package that tackles climate change. What it does not need is quarantine. Does the Minister agree that the plan is three months too late to be effective and sends out the wrong signals about opening our economy?
Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Rosalind Scott (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Can the noble Baroness reflect on the difficulties experienced by police in the early days of the lockdown concerning regulation and law versus guidance? Can she tell us what lessons her department learned from that, and how we can make sure that the three agencies involved are very clear about the difference between statute and guidance?
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Lords, 2020-07-15
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, on 27 February a noble Lord, Lord True—I believe it was the same one—was asked in the House about concerns that there would be friction for business in imports and exports. He said that the Government hoped that any friction "will be minimal or non-existent".—[Official Report, 27/2/20; col. 286.] Now that we know that 150,000 companies are likely to have over £200 million in export declarations, why does he believe that that noble Lord, Lord True, was so wrong? If the Minister does not accept the HMRC assessment of business costs—his own document says that HMRC is responsible for business trade data—what is the Government’s information on the business costs of the procedures they are now putting in place?
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Lords, 2020-07-15
Topic: International Affairs
Jonathan Oates (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Minister said in his reply to the Front Benchers that no question has gone unanswered over the past four years. Yet, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, among others, the Statement still provides no guidance to Northern Ireland business on the border operating model relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. We know, however, that customs security and transit forms will now be required on all goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland. So, can the Minister explain to the House why the Prime Minister claimed during the election that such forms would not be required when he must have known it was not true and was never going to be true, as the Government have now confirmed?
Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-07-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Michael German (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Government have frequently used the argument that substantial policy changes should not be made as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, and that mixing a permanent policy change with a policy designed to deal with the Covid-19 crisis is to be avoided. In fact, this very argument was used by the Government this week in rejecting an amendment to the rules on bounce-back loans in the Business and Planning Bill. Well, here we have the Government making the very opposite argument to the one they made in another measure affecting the future of our economic base Also this week, the Government deployed this argument about a no-smoking ban in the spaces outside pubs and restaurants, where pavements are now being made available to these businesses. So next week, when they try once again to resist these amendments, I hope that they will not try to deploy arguments that run counter to those they are using today. I have no issue with the Government seeking to advance these policy changes, even when opportunities arise from the pandemic. I am simply asking for consistency The Government say that these regulations are "brought into focus by the demands placed on the UK by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the economy" and that "as a result of the economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic, usually stable businesses may be suffering a short-term impact to their share price or profitability" But they go on to say that the measures are "not time-limited to the current pandemic" and are therefore permanent. So, despite what the noble Lord is saying about a Bill yet to come, these regulations are permanent until such time as the Government alter them; there is no time limit in these regulations at all. So, in supporting these measures, I hope that the Government will explain their volte-face on policy-making in the same week—in fact, within the space of three days.