My Lords, despite that Panglossian reply, is it not abundantly clear that the Government deliberately and improperly suppressed the publication of the report to avoid embarrassment in last year’s general election? Why, six months after that election, have the Government irresponsibly failed to appoint a new intelligence committee which could publish the report? This is a shabby episode, increasingly typical of No. 10 Downing Street.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to facilitate the publication of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee entitled Russia and sent to the Prime Minister on
My Lords, in the new farming environment there will be many challenges, which undoubtedly will affect some, if not all, of the four nations of the United Kingdom. In these circumstances, co-operation is not just desirable but necessary; that is why I support Amendment 66. Looking around us, we see the absence of co-operation between all four nations in relation to the virus. This should be an example to us of the importance of co-operation when it comes to agriculture. It is better to have an existing framework for Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast than to deal with issues on the basis of ad hoc responses.
I have a few comments to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie on Amendment 78. Support for what used to be the less favoured areas constitutes a set of public goods. First, it allows farming to continue in a viable business fashion. Secondly, it avoids the risk of land abandonment. Thirdly, it helps to maintain continued agricultural use. Of course, all three help to combat depopulation. But it goes further than that. Agriculture support helps to preserve communities and services such as education, and to maintain social infrastructure in areas where population is thinner than it is in the towns. Amendments 66 and 78 warrant support.
My Lords, at this stage in the debate, much of what I might have said has already been said eloquently, but I will focus on the working-hours provisions for a moment. They provide an illustration of the tensions between the laudable objectives of the Bill and its consequences. Noble Lords are aware that the legislation gives an authority the power to approve, refuse or amend an application for variation of hours, but it cannot do any of these without investigation. Investigation will impose additional administrative burdens on planning authorities, many of which are ill-equipped to fulfil that responsibility. That will particularly be the case in areas of high activity and construction.
Noble Lords will know from experiences elsewhere that working hours are always controversial because of their impact on amenity. When the public realise that the proposed legislation carries with it the possibility of an extension to cover a whole day, perhaps that controversy will be even greater. In the circumstances, proper account must be taken of public objection to any application. Proper opportunity must be made to ensure that that objection can be put before the local authority. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, proper notice must be given so that the public are aware of precisely what is proposed. All of this is to be achieved within 14 days of the application for extension being received by the local authority. Is there not a risk that a planning authority, inundated with multiple applications, will give little weight to public amenity or, in the worst case, simply ignore it? It may even take refuge in the deemed grant provisions, all at the expense of public amenity.
When one is considering the impact of the issue of hours, is it not right to consider that the same local authority may be, in relation to planning permission extensions or outlying planning permissions extensions, already engaged in responding to the responsibilities that the legislation imposes? It might be 28 days, but that is still a colossal burden in many circumstances. Even the most well-intentioned local authorities may find themselves having to accept damage to amenity that they would not normally support, except that they find themselves compelled to do so because of the terms of this legislation. I believe we should make it clear to the public that, sometimes, in this particular balance, the amenity of the public will have to take second place.
Let me finish with this. I understand the need for the hybrid powers now being offered to the Planning Inspectorate. When I first read about this, I found a commentary which said that such powers would allow it to do its work quickly and efficiently. In an area where the public has an interest, the words “quickly and efficiently” should always raise a red flag. It will be important to ensure that public participation is not in any way prejudiced by the exercise of these hybrid powers.
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chancellor of St Andrews University, and I welcome the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, as he introduced his Motion.
These proposals essentially amount to the imposition of a penalty upon the devolved Administrations. We have heard that there was no consultation. Higher education is a devolved subject. Why were the devolved Administrations not consulted? Essentially, what is happening here is that Scottish institutions are being punished by having a penalty imposed upon them due to problems caused by the virus in England.
There is no evidence that Scottish universities have been making predatory offers. The majority of offers made by Scottish universities were in early April this year, and, as some noble Lords will understand, offers made constitute a contract between the university making the offer and the applicant accepting it; subject always, of course, to the applicant achieving the necessary qualifications. That, in particular, makes the proposals unfair to those students who have accepted offers after the cut-off date of
Finally, on a more general point, it is the strongly held conviction among the universities in Scotland that using student loans to impose policy on the devolved Administrations in this form undermines necessary efforts to widen access.
