Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Byford and Viscount Eccles

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who is not based near Kew but who has really appreciated my visits there, I am delighted that this very small Bill will secure Kew’s future. I understand the questions raised about Clause 1, but, having looked at the amendments in this second group, I think they will reinforce it and give us a good balance. We will be able to look at future developments that may happen, because otherwise it will not be sustainable in the long term. The most important thing is the valuable work that goes on at Kew. With climate change and everything else that is coming along, Kew is a precious commodity that we need to keep in hand, without restricting it from developing in ways that we do not yet know will be possible in the future. I am delighted with this, and very supportive of it, as I have been throughout the passage of the Bill.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 2 and 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) refers to,

“the ability of the Board of Trustees … to carry out its functions under section 24 of the … Act”.

The first of these functions is to,

“carry out investigation and research into the science of plants and related subjects, and disseminate the results of the investigation and research”.

That is a very widely drawn function. It was drawn that way because, when the draftsman drew up the 1983 heritage Act, he discussed what Kew was doing and was looking for continuity. He was not looking for change.

The point I want to stress concerns the related subjects. In a period of climate change, biodiversity problems and environmental problems, the status of and the concentration on related subjects will change. Kew could help us, particularly with some of the points raised in the course of the Bill, if it gave its interpretation of its policy at a given moment in relation particularly to this first function, but indeed to all of them. The rest are a little easier to interpret. At the moment, in its annual report Kew states these functions, but says nowhere what it has concluded these functions mean it should be doing.

As has been said, completely correctly, Kew is constrained by its resources, particularly money, and by all sorts of history and agreements. It is in a context. If Kew wishes to explain how it sees that context, it should set it out. I hope that my noble friend, in his conversations under the Memorandum of Understanding or in any other way, will seek agreement from Kew that it will volunteer its own policy approach to the functions in Section 24.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Byford and Viscount Eccles

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group. I am in full support of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. My amendments dovetail entirely with what he has just said. I want to drop subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 because, in this media age, the idea that an investigation report will be published and that the identity of the retailer will not come out is not workable. Again, it feeds the whole world of suspicion, innuendo and investigation of another kind. On subsection (4), if a retailer’s name is given, apart from the reasons for the decision having been given, the retailer would have been given an opportunity to make a comment and to know which way the report was going, as is normal in order that it could be agreed by one and all to be a well balanced and fair report.

[Baroness Byford]

I will speak to my Amendment 34 in this group. It is a simple, probing amendment to ask whether the wording implies that a supplier will never be mentioned and that, if a supplier is mentioned, he or she does not need or deserve a second chance to comment. For example, if a retailer is mentioned in the draft, it can see the copy and comment on it. As a result, the draft may be changed. Should it not be open to all parties involved in the investigation to know both the original wording and the comments made?