argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Jack Wilson McConnell (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I support the general thrust of these amendments and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to this debate and perhaps come back with the best of each amendment in future stages. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a very powerful contribution in support of his Amendment 73 Obviously, there are some differences between Amendments 272 and 274, but I will address in particular the point that my noble friend Lord Foulkes made about the fact that Amendment 272 mentions specifically the need to work with the devolved Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. At each level of government in the United Kingdom, there is a responsibility to tackle climate change and each of these devolved Governments have specific legislative responsibilities for agriculture. If we are to make the case in this debate, and perhaps beyond, for a tighter connection in the Bill to the climate change targets, it makes sense that engaging with the devolved Governments would be a key component of that. There needs to be, in my view, far better co-ordination and agreement at all levels of government—local, national and UK—if we are to meet these targets by 2050 The idea of including the climate change targets in this Agriculture Bill is inspired. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, made that case very powerfully when she talked about the leadership that the United Kingdom could show in what may end up being the largest Bill to come before your Lordships’ Chamber—and maybe our longest debates—this year. This Bill, taking back powers from the European Union and setting out a new strategy for British agriculture to be so closely aligned with the climate change targets, would be a very powerful signal not only inside but outwith the United Kingdom in the run-up to the summit in Glasgow, now in 2021. For reasons of the opportunities that the noble Baroness outlined and the leadership that we could show, I think these amendments are on the right lines If I may be allowed to digress slightly for a second, I tried to intervene last Thursday in Committee but had connection problems and was not able to make one very small specific point that in fact relates to this topic today. Amendment 12, which was debated last Thursday, used the phrase: "the impact of climate change on agriculture" The amendment proposed this as one of the additional purposes to which the Government could provide finance. I felt at the time that this was the wrong way round and that it should have been about the impact of agriculture on climate change. That would be more in keeping with the amendments in front of us today, which are about the impact of agriculture on climate change. Perhaps those who were involved in moving Amendment 12 last week might think about that before we reach Report. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness the Minister has to say in response.
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Ann Mallalieu (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, my farming interests are set out in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just pointed out the word that is very obviously missing from the list in Clause 1(5). Livestock farming has to produce meat in the main and "slaughtering", the most essential and first step in the process of all those set out in the list, is missing I do not think that this is an oversight. I am afraid that it might be deliberate, and there are two possible reasons. The Minister may consider that the word "preparing" includes slaughtering. If this is the case, could he or she please make it clear in plain terms for Hansard and then we can all go home happy? If the Minister will not do so, I am afraid that the omission is deliberate and has been made because so many small and medium-sized abattoirs have closed and the Government are frightened of making a commitment that they fear might require them to prop up a line of possibly failing businesses That is not my intention in putting my name to this amendment, nor do I believe that this very small amendment, if accepted, would result in public money being thrown away on a pointless, uneconomic enterprise. I hope that government money would not be spent under any of the other categories included in Clause 1(5) on other enterprises without a good reason and a good business case. This simple one-word amendment is important for livestock farmers, of which I am one, particularly farmers in the uplands, of which I am one. It is important for small producers, and vitally important for family farms, which the Government say they want to support.
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Margaret Beryl Jones (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment, and I will speak briefly in support of it Many local farmers have trusted and long-standing relationships with their local abattoir, and it is therefore very distressing when they have to close. As we have heard, it means longer and more stressful journeys for the animals concerned and clearly has a negative impact on their welfare. It also means that the Government are failing in their stated objective to reduce travel times for slaughter For farmers wanting to sell their meat as a specified farm product, through so-called private kill arrangements, it also means a more complicated process for retrieving the carcass and ensuring that it is properly labelled. Yet we are all in favour of local food production with specified provenance, which is really appreciated by consumers and can help to add value and boost the rural economy Of course, it is important that local abattoirs meet our high slaughterhouse standards and are properly supervised and certified, and this amendment would do nothing to undermine that important principle. I therefore hope that the Minister will feel able to support this small but significant amendment. It is not the total answer to the fate of our small abattoirs, but it would represent a small step forward.
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Christopher Suenson-Taylor (Labour, Centre-left): I thank all noble Lords who have come forward with amendments and support; this is a daunting group of 44 amendments covering Part 3 of the Bill, Chapters 1 to 3, plus parts of Schedules 2, 5 and 6. It covers provisions on aspects of the agri-food supply chain; that is, the requirement to provide data and purposes for which data is provided, as well as enforcement of data requirements in Chapter 1. I have mentioned facets of fair dealing in Chapter 2, and Chapter 3 covers producer organisations and competition provisions Many amendments appear quite technical in effect; I applaud the assiduousness with which noble Lords have scrutinised these clauses. I welcome the provisions to make producer organisations more effective in legislation under the fair dealing provisions following their recognition under Clause 28. Regarding "competition exemptions" in Clause 29, can the Minister tell us whether the experiences of the Covid-19 pandemic caused any rethinking of the clause in the application of the Competition Act 1998? Given the opportunity to bring forward regulations in due course, with the consultations normally undertaken in that process, he may be able to confirm that the flexibilities around the framework are sufficient The importance of information and the collection of data in the supply chain has long been recognised. I thank the noble Lords who have pursued this in relation to how it is used with recognition of data protection legislation, to improve supply chain transparency and manage volatility. They have asked the Minister to clarify that the drafting of these powers will achieve this. I shall listen carefully to all the Minister’s responses to these amendments.
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Frank Ashcroft Judd (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am very glad to support this amendment. It seems to me absolutely crucial that at this juncture, of all times, we should be committing ourselves to making sure that proper funding is available for agriculture. It is one of these difficult situations: for quite a long time in Parliament I have been concerned about it. We have a Minister in our midst who takes these issues very seriously, but he will not necessarily be there for ever—alas—and that means that we do not know what lies ahead; nor do we know how far the Treasury and other key members of the Government share the commitment and aspirations that we know he has It seems to me, therefore, very wise of my noble friend to table this amendment, because it is saying that we must not allow circumstances, inadvertently or deliberately, to create situations in which the amount of funding available for agriculture decreases. This is the very time that this should not happen, and I believe that this amendment relates to other amendments, not least those by my noble friend Lord Whitty which are coming up in a moment—or at least this evening, we hope—in which he talks about smallholdings and the rest. The point here is that I think we are entering an economic phase in which land and the opportunities it offers for productive, constructive and creative activity will become necessarily more available and more important than ever. I am very glad that my noble friend has wisely tabled this amendment.
Agriculture Bill — House of Lords, 2020-07-16
Topic: Agriculture
Joyce Gwendolen Quin (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I also will speak in support of Amendment 105 as well as Amendment 112, both in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester. Indeed, I associate myself with the remarks he made on those amendments. They are designed to give farmers some degree of certainty during a challenging time of adapting to new circumstances So many recent speakers in the debate have stressed the importance of a smooth transition, and we certainly need to ensure there is no gap between the new system of ELMs and the present system. Such a hiatus in payment at a time of such uncertainty would be completely unacceptable. I certainly know of farmers in my own part of the country who in the past have suffered both mental stress and financial hardship as a result of schemes not being fully operational or involving late payments. We need to ensure as far as we possibly can that those problems do not recur. I am not trying to make a party-political point here. I am well aware that administrative problems and problems of implementing schemes are not unique to Governments of particular political complexions I also support the principle of limiting expenditure on administration and consultancy as a proportion of overall expenditure. One or two of the amendments mention that, but this point has not been raised so far in the debate. I am not sure whether the 5% limit mentioned in one amendment is the best limit, but I am interested to know whether the Government have a view on that Finally, I very much support the point made in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that Parliament should be given time to consider the plans. Obviously, we are concerned here about how much time your Lordships’ House has to consider these proposals, but it will also be crucial that the other place, the House of Commons, has ample time. As Members of Parliament have constituencies, they will want time to evaluate what the effects will be on the areas they represent. They will also want to discuss these proposals with farmers, environmental organisations and others in their constituency before coming to a verdict on them.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Spencer Livermore (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell for securing this debate. I congratulate him on his wide-ranging opening speech. The Covid-19 pandemic has delivered a shock to economic activity, unprecedented in speed and severity. The OBR’s initial scenario sees GDP fall by 35% in the second quarter, unemployment rise by more than 2 million, government borrowing increase to £273 billion, and debt exceed 100% of GDP. As the IFS has observed, these figures are predicated on a swift recovery. Should the economy fail to bounce back, the picture would worsen further The Resolution Foundation has reflected this uncertainty with a range of forecasts, depending on whether social distancing lasts for three, six or 12 months. It estimates that GDP would fall this year by 10%, 20% or 24% respectively, with unemployment rising to 2 million, 5 million or over 7 million. Irrespective of how severe the coming recession turns out to be, this pandemic has exposed significant flaws in the UK economy. It has revealed deep inequalities, with the economic effects disproportionately experienced by the low paid and the young. It risks exacerbating them still further. Unemployment will be concentrated in the lowest-paid sectors. Those soon to leave school or to graduate will enter a very bleak labour market Addressing these inequalities will be key to building a stronger, fairer, post-crisis economy, with far greater resilience for the future. As we do so, we will need to see a radically different approach from that of the past decade, when we saw the slowest recovery for eight generations: living standards were undermined, public services weakened, and our welfare system underfunded. As the Government begin to restore fiscal sustainability, ensuring that the burden is borne fairly across society must be paramount. In the previous decade, while money was found to cut the top rate of tax, the poorest families had their incomes cut by more than 15%. As we repair our economy, we must learn the lessons of this crisis and of the past decade, so that we can build a new social contract, fit for the future.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alistair Darling (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I start by referring the House to my interests as recorded in the register It is a pleasure to speak in this debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I agree with everything that he said, particularly on the need to build resilience in this country and to point out that, at a time like this, the Government can do things that individuals and companies cannot do themselves—in particular, supporting the economy to get people back to work. That is what we did 10 years ago; that is why the economy started growing again in 2010 I understand people’s concern about debt, but we have to look at it in the same way as we did in the aftermath of the Second World War. We will have to spend a lot of money to get our economy going and to preserve the fabric of our economy. We are now, in many ways, reaching the most difficult part of the economic policies that we need to look at. As the furlough schemes run out, I fear that unemployment will start to rise. The Government must do everything they can to stimulate the economy with things like cutting VAT, perhaps a scrappage scheme for cars and so on. All these measures and more will need to be addressed, as well as continuing support for companies, through grants and possibly taking equity or loans Critical to all this is to get the testing regime working. At the moment, the promises are not being met by reality. In far too many cases, delivery matters and the Government need to pay attention to that We must address the fact that people will lose their jobs as a result of this. We cannot allow ourselves to go back to the 1980s, when millions of people went on the dole queues and, frankly, many of them never came off. That scarred the whole country. That is why the Government now need to look at the measures they will take to retrain people, get people back into work and stimulate the economy, perhaps introducing measures that will help us to adjust to a lower-carbon economy The Government cannot just leave these things to chance; they need to act. It is very important that we concentrate on the delivery of these policies, because that will make the difference to whether we succeed in coming out of this in better shape than will otherwise be the case.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Labor
Peter Richard Grenville Layard (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the huge danger that we face is mass long-term unemployment. Once that takes root, it is extremely difficult to reduce it. It kills the human spirit but also of course costs the Exchequer a lot of money. However, there is a well-tested way to prevent it, which is an active labour market policy. Instead of paying people money for doing nothing, we pay employers to employ them to do something useful. That is what we did for young people under 25 after the financial crisis. It was called the young person’s guarantee. Once these young people were long-term unemployed, their benefits ceased and instead they were offered a guarantee of work at the rate of the job for at least 25 hours a week for at least six months. The jobs were with regular employers, the state paid the basic wage and the employers had to compete for access to the workers on these terms by offering meaningful jobs, including training. When the programme was evaluated, it was found to have raised the employability of those who went on it by at least a quarter, and the net cost to the Exchequer was under half the gross cost The crisis that we now face is much greater than after the financial crash. It is a crisis that, as we know, was rightly and deliberately created by the Government, and I think that puts an especial responsibility on the Government to the victims of the slump that they have created. That responsibility has to extend this time to people of all ages, so we need more than a young person’s guarantee: we need a guarantee to workers of all ages that they will not be left to drift into long-term unemployment. For any worker approaching a year’s unemployment, there should be a job guarantee and we should then support people’s incomes only through work, not through inactivity. To find the jobs that we need, the state should pay the minimum wage for at least 25 hours a week for the first six months that an employer employs an at-risk person This is not pie in the sky; we have decades of experience of it. I ask the Minister to meet with some labour market experts to discuss what should be done this time around.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Mann (Labour, Centre-left): Two minutes today, a minute previously—not enough time is being spent debating the economic crisis emerging around us. I propose to the Minister and the Government that, as there will be no summer holidays, we should cancel immediately the Summer Recess and hold a virtual House of Lords throughout the summer to give proper and effective time to such critical debates There has been much talk today of resilience and growth, but if we simply go back to the economy that we had before—where, for example, manufactured car parts crossed the channel 30 or 40 times—it will not be either economically competitive and sustainable or environmentally sustainable. Neither do we want to move into the new economy that is emerging, where we are run by Amazon and Facebook, with the taxpayer, in effect, cross-subsidising the operations of both—Amazon’s facilities and Facebook’s expanding infrastructure—with neither paying proper taxes back into our economy. It is an economy where London is the motor, with the vast majority of those running the motor commuting into London. That is not an economy sustainable for the future, nor is one where we are not self-reliant for our energy and our food. We need an entirely different kind of economy, which will need changes in planning law and taxation to allow for home-working and international competitiveness. Let us also have people’s quantitative easing, with the Bank of England buying government debt so that the country can get on its economic feet again.
Covid-19: Economy — House of Lords, 2020-06-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Paul Yaw Boateng (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Covid presents a triple whammy to the UK’s economic prospects: supply, demand and finance have all taken a hit. We need a comprehensive, funded plan for all sectors as our response. I want to focus on skills and manufacture and the importance of equity in our response across regions and all demographic communities. We cannot leave any part of our country behind, as has been the case in recovery from previous downturns, nor can we allow existing patterns of disadvantage—as experienced, not least, by Britain’s black and ethnic minority communities—to continue. There is already some evidence to suggest that BAME applicants face continued disadvantage in accessing existing government schemes for Covid-related assistance. How is central government ensuring this is not the case? Will the Minister tell us what data is being collected and whether the Race Disparity Unit in the Cabinet Office is working with HMT on this? It needs to On the wider issue of manufacture, the lesson is surely that we need a strategic industrial policy that supports manufacture in the UK not only for our large global market leaders, which need to be supported with access to capital, but for small and medium-sized enterprises. Where, in the past, we have been content to outsource our orders for PPE, ventilators and other essential equipment to overseas suppliers, we now surely need an active interventionist policy to support our domestic industrial base. This needs to be backed up by procurement policy that actively favours our domestic suppliers where our national interest dictates that it should. We hear about the new freedoms outside the EU; this is an opportunity to demonstrate that We know too that there are regional/sectoral variations, which have to be addressed. We need to support local initiatives, with local employees and trade unions coming together with the LEP network to address these issues in order to meet local needs, supported by central government funding. We must also recognise that we need a funding entity that is prepared not simply to hold loans but to convert them if necessary into equity stakes Underpinning all this is Make UK’s call for a national skills taskforce, so we have a workforce that is equipped to face the challenges going forward, with well-paid, meaningful jobs that serve this country’s interests and protect us as we go forward into the future.