Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, our Benches certainly accept that, if we are to leave the European Union, the Secretary of State or the devolved authorities need these powers to ensure that the legislation, such as it is, does not remain static but moves forward in the light of scientific knowledge and understanding. The number of areas that we are talking about in environmental legislation is reflected in this jumbo statutory instrument, so we also accept that the only way to provide them is probably through the secondary legislation route, given the chances of us being able to get primary legislation slots for all the changes that might be necessary.

However, following what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, we are disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken in this jumbo SI to ensure maximum protection for the environment. That is particularly so when we are having these discussions in advance of an environment Bill that sets the framework for future UK legislation outside Europe; and in advance of creating the office for environmental protection, which, in addition to statutory authorities such as the environment agencies, will be able to hold people to account.

In a slightly different way, I want to pick up a point that the noble Baroness made about changes being made only in response to scientific and technical advances. In some areas—she alluded to one, and I have another on water quality—the regulations pin down how the Secretary of State or devolved authorities can use these powers. Regulation 32(3) alludes to the fact that the devolved authorities can use the powers on water quality by looking to scientific evidence only where there will be possible harm to the aquatic environment. So, this instrument contains provisions on how the devolved authorities or the Secretary of State can use those powers to protect the environment. If it is good enough in the case of water quality to limit the powers that the Secretary of State can use in response to scientific and technical changes—and to do so only to advance environmental protection—why is that not the case in all areas? The phrase about it being in response to scientific and technical changes does not have a rider; it says that it ensures the equivalent or a higher level of protection for the environment. I think we are both making the same point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also mentioned consultation but I want to pick up on a slightly different point. Given the nature of these changes, it is critical that all relevant stakeholders are consulted. However, there is an omission on the issue of environmental noise, which the statutory instrument covers. In his summing up, can the Minister say specifically why environmental noise does not merit consultation? He referred to it in general terms but not specifically. Of course, we can change negative statutory instruments to affirmative ones, but it would reassure us parliamentarians and bring us a degree of comfort if we knew that all the changes had been subjected to scrutiny by all the relevant bodies.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the SI and for the helpful briefing that he arranged beforehand.

As he explained, this is another of the many SIs that we have considered to transfer legislative functions from the EU and the European Commission to the UK. In this case, the functions are transferred overwhelmingly to the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers. We have debated the limitations of this process many times before; I do not intend to go into all the arguments again but there is an undoubted democratic deficit in transferring powers from a complex European process, with all its checks and balances, to one person, however well intentioned that person may be.

With that in mind, I want to raise some issues and ask some questions. First, the department’s written response to stakeholders on the issue of environmental law governance drew attention to the proposals for the office for environmental protection contained in the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill, which is intended to provide continued scrutiny and oversight. That Bill, which is not before us yet, now plays a particularly significant role. Because of where we are politically, the withdrawal Bill, which we spent many happy hours arguing over and which had a large number of environmental protections built into it, will not be taken forward; we seem to be losing it. All we have now to underpin environment guarantees is the office for environmental protection, which does not exist yet. What role will that body play in scrutinising the sort of regulations that are before us today and the Secretary of State’s powers in them? For example, is it envisaged that the OEP will collect data and monitor the effectiveness of the regulations? That includes points of detail; as the Minister said, this is about annexes and so on. Will its role go into that sort of detail? Will it also be responsible for scrutinising the Secretary of State’s performance and delivery in carrying out the functions that we are about to give him or her?

Can the Minister clarify what role this new body will play and whether it will have that oversight? While we are on the subject, can he also bring us up to date about when we will see the OEP? It seems the timetable is slipping, yet an awful lot is riding on the future of that organisation. It would be helpful if he could update us on that because, once that body is in place and we have had the assurances about what we hope will be its all-embracing role, some of these other issues will fall into place and we will not be so anxious about them.

Soil Health

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this will clearly be a collaborative matter between industry and government. I am very pleased that regenerative agriculture is very much the buzzword among the farming community. The two-day Groundswell conference run by the Cherry family in Hertfordshire shows the energy for reduced or minimum till, herbal leys and winter cropping. All that is an indication of the future and the Government are right behind it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, given the increased evidence of soil degradation in the UK and its importance to the very basics of human existence, why does the Government’s 25-year environment plan not have headline targets for improving soil health with the funding to make it a reality, as recommended by the Natural Capital Committee?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am very pleased to say that research was commissioned in November 2018 to develop soil monitoring. It is being undertaken by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which will work on healthy soil indicators—included in the 25-year environment plan indicator framework—and a framework for soil monitoring. It is very important that this is done.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading. I wonder what will happen to these so-called wild animals, some of which have been in circuses for a number of generations and have never been in the wild, so are completely domesticated. Originally, dogs were wolves but, after a long time, they became domesticated. We cannot just let them out into the wild; most of them would starve. What will happen to them?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords said, it is a shame that the noble Lords concerned were not there at Second Reading, where Members from different Benches raised a number of these issues. I must say, we were very satisfied with the Minister’s answer. We were persuaded that the definition of “circus” would be better dealt with in guidance, and were pleased at his assurance that the guidance will be available before the Bill comes into effect so that circus owners’ responsibilities are absolutely clear in advance. That precisely addressed the issue raised by several noble Lords this afternoon: that if we broaden the definition too much, it includes falconry and county shows, but if we make it too narrow, it imposes a burden on circus owners when managing their circuses. We were persuaded that the definition that has been spelled out here would not be helpful to circus owners in the longer term, so we agreed on this way forward.

The noble Lord mentioned wild animals, which we will come on to when we consider the other amendments. The Bill’s purpose is to deal with wild, not domesticated, animals; we should recognise the difference. On that basis, and with the assurance that I hope the Minister can give us once again, I hope that we can move forward.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment seeks to introduce a definition of “travelling circus” into the Bill. As has been said, these matters were discussed at Second Reading. My remarks may therefore repeat what I have already said to your Lordships.

We chose not to provide a definition of “circus” in the Bill because we believe that it is better to use its common meaning. We believe that the same principle applies to “travelling circus”. Let me expand on that. We do not believe that a definition is necessary. “Travelling circus” is a commonly used and well-understood term; we do not think that enforcers or the courts will have problems spotting one. In fact, my noble friend Lady Anelay went to the heart of the matter. I think that my noble friend Lord Mancroft may not have envisaged the problem with providing a definition: that it could result in a definition that is too wide and takes in other activities that we do not wish to see banned. Alternatively, it could be drawn too narrowly and provide operators with parameters by which to circumnavigate the ban. A common-understanding approach means that it will always be relevant.

Also, in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the EFRA Committee agreed that we do not need to define “circus”. To assist in clarifying what the legislation will cover, we will draw up guidance; the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lady Anelay referred to this. The Scottish Government, who also chose not to define “circus” in their Act, have taken this approach, and we will take a similar one. I can confirm that we will publish guidance to the Bill by 20 November, two months before the ban comes into effect, as I said at Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being present when the Bill first came before the House. I will add only a few words because there is one aspect of the Bill on which the Minister deserves the utmost congratulations; it argues rather strongly against the Bill being shoddy. Will your Lordships kindly notice that this is just about the first Bill that we have seen in the past five years in which no regulation-making power is invested in the Minister? The Government should be congratulated on that alone.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I agree with a number of noble Lords that the Bill is not shoddy. Indeed, it went through detailed and proper scrutiny both in the Commons and here. I have absolute confidence in the way the Bill is worded.

I very much agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Anelay. The amendments suggest that wild animals somehow become tame if they are bred in captivity, but we know and all the scientific evidence shows that this is not the case. It takes hundreds of years of breeding to domesticate an animal; it cannot be done over just a few generations. In the meantime, wild animals retain their instinctive natural behaviours and needs. Those behaviours do not include doing tricks for our entertainment in a circus. We must be wary of what the amendments propose. The British Veterinary Association states:

“The welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within a travelling circus—in terms of housing or being able to express normal behaviour”.


I reject the emphasis of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in the amendments; I do not agree with him. There is a difference between “tame” and “wild”; in fact, I think that he recognises that. His own aside that he wanted the lion to eat the lion tamer is the truth: people sense that these animals are wild. They were indeed wild and there was always that danger. He would not have that sense with a dog doing tricks, but lions are very different. Their natural behaviour is just under the surface. Although we are pleased that the lion-tamer did not get eaten, the lion could very much have done that, so it is right that they are not put in those artificial situations in future. We therefore agree with the original wording.

Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing on this important statutory instrument. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

When we last debated puppy farming and the important measures and safeguards put in place, we raised the issue of regulating the import of puppies. The Government have now conducted their consultation and brought forward this SI to close the circle to help protect puppies and kittens. Although this is not a catch-all, and it is unlikely that any legislation will stop illegal practices, it goes a long way towards protecting young vulnerable animals against third-party sales.

Following the previous SI in October 2018, as the Minister has said, no puppy under eight weeks of age can be sold and it has to be shown with its mother by a licensed breeder when potential buyers come to view. This SI prevents non-licensed breeders selling puppies and kittens before they are six months old. This restriction covers pet shops and commercial dealers that are licensed dealers but not licensed breeders. This provides significant safeguards for the welfare of puppies and kittens.

Enforcement is to be carried out by local authorities who, as the Minister has stated, have powers to charge fees to cover their costs. This is extremely important as local authorities have been cash-strapped for a number of years. I am pleased that he was able to reassure us that local authorities will carry out training and recruitment of the necessary inspectors prior to the enforcement date of April 2020—although I am alarmed by what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, told us. It is also reassuring to know that better breeders can apply for a three-year licence and so avoid yearly costs.

As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, indicated, animal smuggling is a lucrative business, and the inspectors will need to be aware of what to look for when they visit premises where small animals are on sale to the public. My colleague and noble friend Lady Parminter, who is unfortunately unable to be with us this afternoon, asked the Minister in 2017 to make a commitment to increase the sanctions for animal cruelty; this has been referred to already. Can the Minister say why the Government have not responded? It is important that sanctions are sufficient to act as a realistic deterrent to those who mistreat animals and cause unnecessary suffering.

I am concerned that this legislation will not come into force until 2020. I hear what the Minister has said about that but I would like to press him on why this cannot be done sooner. Christmas comes between now and April 2020, and many families may succumb to the pressure to provide a kitten or puppy as a gift. It would be much better if pet shops were not able to display kittens or puppies in the run-up to Christmas, thus avoiding unnecessary misery and suffering. A new pet for Christmas is often followed by abandonment in January.

Can the Minister provide reassurance—the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, hinted at this—that a family discovering that its pet dog is expecting an unplanned litter of puppies will not find itself outside the law if it subsequently advertises its puppies for sale in a local post office, shop or newspaper? It would be somewhat perverse if this resulted in a prosecution; I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on such a scenario.

Currently, Battersea takes in animals, rehomes them and charges a fee for rehoming, which helps to cover their costs. But there are others operating outside the law which set up unscrupulous charities, offering puppies to be rehomed and charging fees way above those charged by legitimate charities. These fraudulent charities bring in animals from abroad—including possibly Romania—for free. They are then able to charge as much as £200 for the so-called rehoming of the pet. For the SI to be effective, it is essential that this practice is stamped out.

I support this SI, which should help to safeguard the welfare of both kittens and puppies and ensure they have a better start in life but, like others, I am concerned about the prevention of online sales and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations today. As he explained, they form a continuum with the more comprehensive Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which we debated and agreed last year.

At the time, we made the case for including the ban on the third-party sale of puppies and kittens in those regulations; it was never clear to us why the Government found it necessary to postpone that decision. Like many other pieces of animal welfare legislation, promised but not yet delivered, the Government seem determined to proceed at a snail’s pace despite the obvious cross-party support for many of these provisions. The Minister well knows our views on this; I am sure he will be pleased to hear that I shall not labour the point again today.

Nevertheless, we welcome these belated, catch-up regulations, which put one further nail in the coffin of exploitative and often illegal puppy farmers and unscrupulous third-party traders, who show no compassion or concern for the puppies they are marketing. That has resulted in puppies being taken from their mothers before they are weaned, not learning proper socialising skills and suffering a wide range of health and disease-related issues that can blight their health and limit their well-being.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill today and for arranging a helpful briefing with civil servants beforehand. I say at the outset that we support the Bill, which, as several noble Lords have said, has been much delayed in its arrival. Nevertheless, we have it here now. It reflects the ban on wild animals in circuses, which has been our party’s policy for some time, and is virtually identical to a Private Member’s Bill that was co-sponsored by our shadow Secretary of State in the other place.

While the Bill’s arrival is of course welcome, it also highlights the Government’s lack of action on the broader issues of increasing penalties for animal cruelty and recognising animal sentience, which seem to be stuck in some sort of legislative limbo despite the cross-party support for urgent action on them which we know exists. While my noble friend Lady Mallalieu will not be surprised that I do not agree with much of what she said, I agree that if we were going to prioritise our activities properly, priority could have been given to a Bill on animal cruelty at this time.

While we pride ourselves on being a nation of animal lovers and having the most advanced animal welfare legislation, the truth is that on this issue we are falling behind many other nations. It is no surprise to hear that at least 30 other countries have already placed a ban on wild animals in circuses. As we heard from the Minister, it seems the main reason the Bill is being prioritised is that the existing Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 are set to expire on 19 January next year, which would leave a legislative vacuum. We welcome the fact that that vacuum is to be filled but it raises questions about why the Bill was prioritised.

Not only is the Bill the right thing to do but, as noble Lords have said, it has huge public backing. Some 94% of the public supported the ban in the consultation carried out by the Labour Government in 2010. Most people are amazed to discover that wild animal performances are still allowed. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said that people think that wild animals are long gone, particularly lions and tigers, and therefore feel the issue has been resolved. But when people in this country are confronted with the reality, the vast majority say that they do not want wild animals in circuses. The Bill also has considerable support from animal welfare organisations, which have argued on ethical and welfare grounds that wild animals need a suitable environment to live in, with the ability to express normal patterns of behaviour and associate naturally with others of the same species, particularly if they are herd animals. Again, this was an argument that the Minister made.

It is impossible to imagine how life in a travelling circus, constantly being transported to new venues in cramped conditions, can ever replicate life in the natural world. Most people find it abhorrent that these animals are then expected to do tricks for our enjoyment. It is not surprising that the scientific review of the welfare issues for the Welsh Government in 2016 by Professor Stephen Harris concluded that wild animals in travelling circuses not only suffer poor animal welfare but do not have “a life worth living”.

I am of course aware that the circus operators are vehemently opposed to this Bill—several noble Lords referred to this—and I read their evidence to the Commons Committee with some interest. Although some of their statements was rather concerning, I do not doubt that they look after the animals in their care and have some affection for them. Circus owners also sought to complicate the interpretation of the Bill by describing their animals as exotic rather than wild. It is important that we pin down that definition so that no loopholes on that matter can occur. We may need to return to this matter at future stages of the Bill.

However, the circus owners also admitted that standards of animal treatment in circuses around the world vary enormously and that there is still a great deal of bad practice and suffering elsewhere. It is therefore important that we maintain high standards in the UK for any touring circus wishing to come here and display animals in this way. As a number of noble Lords have said, thankfully, we are talking about only a small number of animals in the UK being affected by this Bill—a total of 19 at last count—with no big cats or elephants currently involved, although, as I understand it, as recently as 2015, Chipperfield Circus was touring the UK with two lions and two tigers as part of that show.

My noble friend Lady Mallalieu portrayed the Bill as an attack on a long-standing tradition of travelling showmen. I disagree with her fundamentally; nobody is attempting to do that. The Bill will not affect circus owners’ operating model or their economic viability. Domesticated animals will still perform in their circuses. Furthermore, it could be argued that more people would be inclined to go if they felt assured about nature of the spectacle that they were about to see, which might boost attendances.

In the Commons, our colleagues raised a number of concerns that will need to be addressed during the passage of the Bill here—they have been echoed around the Chamber during this debate. First, there was concern that some circus owners would seek licences for a last big tour with wild animals, perhaps including big cats, prior to the implementation date of January 2020. Our proposal was for a moratorium on issuing new licences before that date, but there may be other ways to achieve it. The Minister may be able provide some helpful advice on what measures are in place to prevent this happening.

Secondly, the Bill allows for appointed inspectors to enforce this legislation—again, this issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I seem to recall that during passage of the Ivory Bill a legal difficulty arose in relation to granting civilians the power to enter properties and make arrests. We need to ensure that the same problems do not occur here. Our proposal was for the powers in the Bill to extend explicitly to police constables. I know that the Minister partially addressed this matter in his opening speech, but it was not clear why the proposal for police constables to be written into the Bill has been rejected up until now.

Thirdly, we proposed that if a wild animal was found in a travelling circus in breach of the ban under this legislation, there should be an opportunity to remove the animal immediately to a safe place where it could be cared for properly with a view to rehoming it permanently. We know that a number of animal welfare organisations have already offered to provide such a service. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could address that.

Finally, we sought to provide more clarity in the definition of a travelling circus to ensure that the common definition, which we would all recognise, could not be misinterpreted. I know that the Minister in the other place said that he planned to address this concern through guidance to back up the Bill. The Minister here has referred to the issue today, so it would be helpful if he could set out in more detail the timetable for producing the guidance. He mentioned that it would appear “in good time”, but I think we all know that “in good time” in respect of legislative processes could be a long, expanding Elastoplast.

As I said at the outset, we support the Bill and want to aid its passage through your Lordships’ House. It represents a symbol of our ethical commitment to strong animal welfare legislation in the UK and has huge public support. I can see that we are heading for an extended debate on the ethical grounds of this legislation at later stages of the Bill. I am happy to be part of that debate if noble Lords so desire. In his closing remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, began to recognise that this is only a small Bill and addresses only one ethical challenge. Of course, there are wider ethical challenges about how we treat animals to address in the future, but he did not particularly make the point that we should not cut off our nose to spite our face. There is a strong ethical reason for addressing this issue now and we can return to some of those wider issues on other occasions. While I listened to what he said with great interest, and he may well be right about a number of the other ethical challenges, this does not undermine the need for the Bill here and now.

In years to come, people will look back on our practice of subduing these increasingly rare animals and subjecting them to performing tricks for our entertainment with considerable disbelief. The time has come to address this issue, so I look forward to passing the Bill in a very short time. Indeed, I also look forward to passing all the other animal welfare Bills that we are still waiting patiently for priority to be given to. In the meantime, we support the Bill and will encourage its safe passage.

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

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Lords
Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s thanks. I personally thank him for his extreme courtesy and resilience in the face of the bombardment that we gave him over what seemed like a very simple Bill. He took the concerns of Members in all parts of the House extremely seriously, and we are all very grateful for the diligence he showed in carrying out those duties. I would also like to thank the civil servants and the representatives of the board of Kew, who played their part in making sure that we were fully briefed for the discussions we needed to have.

I know it was a very simple Bill, but we amended it, and I thought this was your Lordships’ House at its best. We had a very serious and well-constructed debate and reached a consensus, which is what we always aim to do when we can. I thank the Minister again; it would not have happened without his leadership.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I would also like to thank the Minister and Defra officials for their time and patience in providing the very useful briefings. These were very welcome and greatly assisted the process of understanding what the Bill was about for those of us not steeped in the history of Kew. Many of your Lordships are, and it was a great comfort to know that so many Kew experts were taking part in the debate, thus ensuring that this short Bill was improved and provided the necessary requirements.

Children’s Health: Vehicle Emissions

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling this debate and for the persuasive way in which she and all noble Lords have made the case for urgent, practical action on this issue. I declare an interest through my involvement with the charity ClientEarth which, as noble Lords will know, has successfully taken the Government to court on several occasions for their failure to act on harmful vehicle emissions.

As noble Lords have said, as well as a UK problem, polluted air is a global crisis affecting predominantly the poorest and most disadvantaged urban dwellers, who are powerless to stand up for their right to breathe clean air. That is why we support the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David Boyd, who has described air pollution as a violation of human rights and has criticised Governments across the world for their failure to act on the right to breathe clean air. That is why we also support noble Lords’ call for a legally binding commitment to meet the World Health Organization guideline levels for particulate matter pollution by 2030, with a binding commitment to ensure that no school, nursery, playground, care home or hospital should be in an area with pollution above WHO guidelines by 2022.

Just because air pollution is a global problem, it does not exempt the UK Government from showing true leadership. This requires a fresh approach to the problem which puts the rights of children and all citizens to breathe clean air ahead of the rights of car drivers. Time and again, when we have debated this issue in your Lordships’ House, there has been a reluctance from the Government to take a firm stand on the major causes of pollution. They have sought voluntary solutions and devolved the problem to individual local authorities. They have, in essence, put the interests of powerful lobby groups before the health of the nation. That is why the courts have ruled against them on so many occasions. We know, as we have heard in this debate, that there are solutions which the Government could take but are reluctant to do so.

Meanwhile, the evidence of the dramatic impact of harmful emissions on children’s health is compelling and growing. As we know and as we have heard today, an estimated 40,000 people a year in the UK die prematurely from the long-term health problems caused by toxic air. But that is only half the story. Each year in the UK, tens of thousands of children develop asthma as a result of traffic fumes, with the rate in Britain being the highest in Europe. Children’s lungs are particularly susceptible to damage from air pollution, causing lifelong health problems and occasionally death. Some studies even suggest that dirty air can affect their ability to learn. I believe that in the future we are likely to see more inquests formally recording air pollution as the cause of death.

It is not surprising that there is an increasing call from health professionals and parents for urgent action to protect children from these toxic fumes as the evidence mounts. It is a call that the Government cannot afford to ignore.

Thankfully, there are some good examples of local leadership on this issue around the country that illustrate what can be done if you have the political will to act decisively. I am pleased that my own local council, Labour-run Brighton & Hove, which has one of the best bus services outside London, has targeted the funding to roll out cleaner, less polluting bus fleets. It has already delivered a 25% reduction in roadside nitrogen dioxide in the busiest areas and is continuing to upgrade its vehicles to deliver ultra-low emissions.

Of course, the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, on top of the low-emission bus fleet, is rolling out ultra-low emission zones for cars, imposing a £12.50 a day charge to drive in central London for all but the cleanest cars and vans. This move alone is expected to reduce road transport emissions by about 45%.

However, relying on these localised initiatives is not good enough. The Government’s latest clean air strategy relies on local authority actions, many of which have already been demonstrated to be in disarray—through lack of money or political will—and so far there has been no comeback on those that are blatantly ignoring their targets. At the same time there is the shocking news that Highways England has spent only £8 million of the £100 million of its air quality fund four years after it was unveiled. This fund should have been used for roadside barriers to block toxic fumes and more electric car charging points along the 4,500 miles of roads that it maintains.

Therefore, it is clear that we need a national government plan to protect the health of our children for the future. This should be based on new clean air laws that are themselves based on a framework for action that enshrines the right to breathe clean air in domestic law. It should include binding targets to reduce children’s exposure to air pollution. We support the widespread calls from noble Lords today and from many voluntary organisations for a national “clean air for children” programme that would audit schools, nurseries and playgrounds, bring in traffic exclusion zones around schools, provide a proactive alert system of pollution spikes for parents and teachers, and promote walking and cycling on routes to school.

More urgently, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, the Government should follow the evidence of their own technical report, which recognised that a national network of charging clean air zones is the most effective and quickest way to tackle existing illegal levels of pollution.

Finally, the Government need to switch their priorities from cars to people with a huge policy drive to deliver cleaner forms of transport. This will require some bold decisions that have been lacking in the past, but should include tackling the legacy of “dieselgate” and ensuring that all cars caught up in the scandal are retrofitted; making cleaner cars more affordable and reforming the vehicle tax system to incentivise clean-car ownership; a targeted diesel scrappage scheme; better consumer information to enable buyers to make choices based on real-world emissions data; and a ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine cars and other vehicles by 2030, rather than the much less ambitious proposal of 50% of new car sales to be ultra-low emission by that date.

The more we find out about the health implications of toxic air on our children’s health, the more of a scandal it becomes. If we carry on as we are, future generations will look back in despair that we took so little action on a public health emergency. There is still time to get this issue right, and I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade us this afternoon that the Government are up for the challenge.

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

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “for” insert “residential use for”

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 would restrict the use of extended leases to residential properties on the Kew estate. This amendment follows up on our earlier debates, which have tried to ascertain the longer-term implications of providing longer-term leases of up to 150 years across the Kew estate. As it stands, this short Bill could enable any lease, whether commercial, scientific or residential, to be extended in this way, potentially creating welcome additional income for Kew but also increasing the risks that the special and much-loved site will lose its focus.

Throughout the earlier discussions the Minister constantly quoted the immediate priority, which is to extend the leases on the seven residential properties overlooking Kew Green. As has been said, this is estimated to bring in additional income of some £15 million. I think we all said, in our different ways, that we did not have a problem with this; it seemed to make perfect sense. If this were what the Bill proposed, it would have sailed through its scrutiny stages without amendment but it is not what the Bill says. Instead, it gives powers to the Secretary of State to grant new leases and extend existing leases across the estate for up to 150 years.

At earlier stages of the Bill, a number of noble Lords sought to understand the full implications of this new power. For example, what was the total number of future properties that might be considered for longer leases once the seven residential properties have been refurbished? Were there plans to develop the car park adjoining the river? Were there other residential properties on different parts of the estate in need of refurbishment and which could also benefit from longer leases? Were there sites within the boundaries of Kew which were being considered for commercial development as well? In his response in Committee, the Minister was able to say only that Kew does not have any immediate plans beyond those for the seven residential properties. But he went on to add:

“Obviously, the Bill does not stop future plans for any other property on the non-core estate”.—[Official Report, 21/5/19; col. 1878.]


However, he also acknowledged when asked that there was no clear distinction between core and non-core properties on the estate.

In the absence of further details about the longer-term plans of the trustees for other lease extensions, and taking on board the Minister’s repeated reassurances that the priority of the trustees is to create extra income from the initial seven residential properties, we are proposing this simple amendment to limit any extended leases to residential properties on the estate. It would seem to meet the objectives of the trustees while providing reassurance that there will not be long-term commercial lets on the estate, which might change the ethos and character of the site as a whole. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will see the sense of this amendment and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, with the greatest of respect, none of us can command the certainty of what our successors may do. We are here, doing what we can. That is why I am pleased that in the next amendment we will be discussing our protections, which I have already outlined in considerable detail. I have taken great care and attention when discussing this with the trustees and the executive, all of whom have the ultimate bona fides with regard to the future of Kew.

I believe that Parliament, in its scrutiny, is undertaking what is right: the Bill gives Kew the capacity to reduce its maintenance liabilities and running costs, which must be desirable. It generates additional income from property that will help Kew to achieve its core objectives—which is desirable—maintain its status as a UNESCO world heritage site, and to improve the quality of its estate. I do not mean to be facetious, but resources are not infinite. I do not yet know any noble Lord who truly thinks that we have infinite resources, however wonderful Kew is. Therefore this approach must be right. I go to Kew often, and there are buildings there which we are not looking after as well as any of us would wish. This is what Kew wishes us to do, because this is the way that will help it to fulfil its statutory functions.

I say in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, having spoken to those at Kew, I have given examples of buildings that they believe could be better suited to a commercial let but with all the current protections and what I believe we may well go on to. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I very much welcome the steps the Minister has taken to listen to the concerns that have been raised around the Chamber in the earlier debates and again today. I know that he has done his best to answer all the issues that we have thrown at him over that period, and he has done so again today. It was helpful to hear the examples that he gave. I felt that in earlier debates there was a bit of a black hole, but he has populated that black hole with some credible examples. None of us wants buildings on the site left empty, obsolete or run down, and if there is a plan to deal with those in a constructive way, I think we would all want that to happen.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours was right to say that the lawyers will pore over these debates in years to come, so it has been helpful to have that on the record as Kew’s general intent. The Minister caveated his comments by pointing out that we will shortly have another debate. On the basis that there is more than one way to skin a cat—this was only one way and another is coming up—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I obviously support any amendment that in any way restricts potential future development, but I want to clarify how, in my view, these amendments will be interpreted. If a developer surfaces who wants to build a block of flats on the edge of the Thames, who can go through the planning hurdles and all the covenants and somehow satisfy all these restrictions, he is left with this final restriction:

“The Secretary of State may grant a lease in reliance on subsection (1) only if satisfied that the lease would not have an adverse impact on”,


paragraphs (a) and (b). Would a block of flats on the Thames have an adverse impact on,

“the outstanding universal value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, as a World Heritage Site”?

I can see lawyers on behalf of applicants going to an inquiry and saying, “We don’t think it will have any adverse effect. We are not in any way interfering with the heritage site. It might even enhance it, because it is a beautiful block of flats. It’s some of the finest accommodation in the country and fits nicely into the Kew Gardens arrangement”.

Secondly, in relation to,

“would not have an adverse impact on … the ability of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to carry out its functions under section 24 of the National Heritage Act 1983”,

I cannot see how building a beautiful block of flats on the side of the Thames could in any way have an adverse impact on the,

“ability of the Board of Trustees to carry out its functions under section 24 of the National Heritage Act 1983”.

In the future, lawyers may drive a coach and horses through those words. I still support them, because at least someone is trying to introduce some restrictions.

I am sure the Minister was very pleased when he had to deal with this amendment because his officials may well see the dangers in the amendment that I see. We support it because it is a little shift in the territory—at least lawyers in the future will have to argue their case before some kind of inquiry. That is my case. I support the amendment but with huge reservations.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to these amendments and to hear the support that the Minister has now pledged for them. I am thankful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for the well-crafted words he put forward, which seem to be receiving widespread support around the Chamber.

In contrast to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I argue that it provides a double lock on future extended leases because, first, they must not endanger Kew’s status as a UNESCO world heritage site. UNESCO does not grant world heritage site status lightly; it looks at integrity, beauty and function. Before a block of flats was even built in the middle of Kew, UNESCO would have made its views very clear. Having looked at the UNESCO judgment on Kew, I was very impressed by the detail it went into before it made its final recommendation about world heritage status. I am pretty confident that it would intervene before anything that would be considered a scar on the site was allowed to be developed.

Secondly, the National Heritage Act 1983 states that development must not endanger research, education, open scientific access and public enjoyment of the site. The public enjoy visiting Kew because it is such a beautiful site. I think the comments we have made in the Chamber would be echoed and magnified if we asked the public what they thought should happen on that site. I am sure they would have very strong views and would be quite conservative about any proposed developments. I have more confidence than my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that the provisions about UNESCO and the National Heritage Act provide the reassurance for which we are looking.

Of course, nothing is ever watertight—as we said in the previous debate, lawyers will pore over the wording, the intent of our discussions and so on—and we cannot legislate for the future or the difficult choices that the trustees and the Secretary of State may face. I accept that this is a compromise, but these amendments go as far as could reasonably be expected at this time. This is a good way forward and I am grateful that we have resolved this matter so effectively.

Office for Environmental Protection

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the criticisms made by the Commons EFRA Committee, whose Conservative chair said recently of the draft environment Bill:

“There is also little point in setting up an environmental watchdog if it is unable to fulfil its essential function of holding the government to account”.


Does he recognise that criticism and, if so, what is his department doing to address those shortcomings?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

First, my Lords, perhaps I may wish the noble Baroness a very happy birthday.

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

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I agree that it is important to have safeguards, and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, scientific research is one of the six major functions at Kew. However, it needs funding, and this amendment is unnecessarily restrictive. The trustees’ implementation of the MoU, when implementing the leases, must ensure that the ethos of the trust and that of the Charity Commission is adhered to, and there needs to be trust that they can do that. If an asset needs significant investment on a 31-year lease, which these seven houses probably do, it is not an asset but a liability, because there is no long-term plan for the asset. A longer lease of no more than 150 years will allow the leasee to invest in the property and allow for proper management of that asset.

I will listen to the Minister’s response with interest, but at this moment I do not feel obliged to support the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have considerable sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We have also tabled amendments which are another way of trying to address the same issue. Our concern is that this short Bill puts too much individual power into the Secretary of State’s hands, and we need to make sure that the right checks and balances are in place so that that power is used wisely. We seek to have an external body, such as UNESCO, to oversee the powers being allocated, with the Secretary of State unable to influence what UNESCO is doing. However, I appreciate that the noble Lords are coming at this from a different direction.

The point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was well made: it is not about now but about the future, about other times and places when other players will be in post, and we need to make sure that they exercise their responsibility wisely. Whatever statements were made about the current Secretary of State, this is about future Secretaries of State and indeed future members of the board, and the need to make sure that they have the correct relationship.

This is also about different circumstances. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that people juggle with choices, and that is absolutely right. They will always be under pressure and there will always be a shortage of money, so we need to make sure that the financial demands on the shoulders of the individuals concerned do not lead them to make short-term choices which would damage Kew in any way. I therefore have considerable sympathy with the amendment; I am interested to know how the Minister will respond to this and thank the noble Lord for raising this issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords, particularly my noble friends. The amendment seeks to apply consultation by the Charity Commission to the actions of Defra and RBG Kew, which, I should say, is a charity specifically exempt from direct regulation by the Charity Commission under Section 22 of and Schedule 3 to the Charities Act 2011.

I say this with passion: there is very little difference between what we are trying to achieve in protecting Kew when granting these leases and what we are trying to achieve for future generations, whoever has responsibility for these matters. The Bill does not affect any of the high protections already afforded to Kew; it is about changing a figure of 31 to 150. All the protections will continue to apply. I absolutely understand my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s point, and that of my noble friend Lord Eccles, who has great experience in this field; their intention clearly is not to attack the Bill or Kew—quite the reverse. It is in everyone’s interest to look after Kew.

I need to set out something by way of legal advice on the amendment; I received the advice from senior departmental government lawyers and counsel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to be brief, but I am afraid I will revert to many of the points which were touched on under the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and I am not entirely sure that the Minister has entirely convinced me.

There is a central point. I am all for simplicity of legislation, but the Minister keeps referring to the seven cottages on Kew Green and the wish to extend the existing leases. Everybody understands that, and I do not think there has been any great dissent in the Committee about the desirability of so doing, but the Bill refers to,

“the power to grant a lease in respect of land for a period of up to 150 years”.

That to me means all land. The Crown can and does give leases. The specifics on the two royal estates which make up Kew add complexity to the issue, but as it stands we could have 150-year leases on any of the land that Kew covers. There is no distinction in the drafting of the Bill between core and non-core land. I appreciate the Minister’s assertions that this one of the most protected pieces of land in the nation. I accept that there are all sorts of protections built into the current situation. I also deeply appreciate the Minister and his staff and the staff of Kew meeting me and discussing this at some length, but I come back to the text of the Bill. There is no difference between us on the objectives, but for the first time 150-year leases could be granted under this Bill, without restriction, on any piece of land which the botanical gardens now cover.

I understand all the protections that are built in, but I go along with the French of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Times change. Secretaries of State change. The arrangements for the Charity Commission will change. It may be that the implications of being a world heritage site change. It may even be possible that the political control of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames changes dramatically—that is slightly less likely. Kew Gardens need to be protected against change. In so far as this Act will continue to be the basis on which leases are granted for 150 years over an unlimited period forward, we have to have rather more protections here.

The regulatory structure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has identified is complex. Therefore, it is almost certain that departmental structures and memoranda of understanding will change over the next 150 years and beyond, and rightly so in many respects. However, we are dealing with the Bill as it stands. As I said, I do not object to Kew’s ability to raise money. In many respects, I think that it will greatly benefit from private finance coming into the organisation—or more so than is the case at present, although it has been quite successful at raising money in recent years. However, we need a restriction on the way in which the land will then be used.

My amendment recognises the multifaceted aspects of Kew. Essentially, it is scientific, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, but Kew’s objectives relating to science, the environment, education that stems from that science, and the amenity and enjoyment value—the sixth function, as the noble Viscount called it—all need protection. Therefore, my amendment stipulates that the use of the land should not challenge or undermine any of those objectives and outcomes. It is couched in pretty broad terms. It says that the use of the land must either contribute to or support Kew’s objectives—support can mean bringing in the finance for those objectives—or at least be compatible with them. The word “or” there in my amendment should perhaps be “and”, because in a sense compatibility with those objectives is my central point.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked whether a developer could build possibly unsuitable residential buildings on those sites. The Minister said that everybody would object to that, so it would not happen. However, under the Bill it could happen. That is my point. At Second Reading I explained my ancestral and childhood love and affection for Kew, and that is shared with a wide range of people. However, certain developments in the rest of London, including those along the Thames in, say, the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth, which we can look at over the bridge down the road, have not exactly been compatible with their surroundings.

If anything impinged on Kew, it would be detrimental to its amenity value, it would probably undermine its UNESCO world heritage site designation, and it could change the public’s attitude towards it. I completely accept the Minister’s view that such development is unlikely. In the short term it is almost impossible because Ministers will have the present apparatus of regulation and planning controls at their disposal. I have no desire to challenge the intentions of the Minister, the department or the Kew trustees in bringing forward these proposals. However, this House and this Parliament need to say, “Well, yes, do all that, but let’s write in a general restriction to ensure that these probably imagined and scaremongering possibilities do not arise”. I would feel a lot safer, as I think other lovers and supporters would, if those restrictions were put in.

I hold no great attachment to the precise wording of my amendment. I would be delighted if at the end of this debate the Minister said, “We accept the principle but we will ask parliamentary counsel to draft an alternative form of words that will achieve the same objective”. That outcome would be very helpful and I would welcome the Minister saying something like that at this stage. If he could bring something forward on Report that achieved those objectives, I would very much welcome it. However, in default of that, I would like the Minister and the House to take my amendment seriously. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I have my name to my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment but I also have Amendment 4 in this group so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I introduce it at this stage; it addresses the criteria to be used for any lease extensions.

I should say, as is implied, that we support Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. This goes back to the Second Reading debate, where—I agree with the Minister—we are more or less on the same page; we are trying to find a way around some of these issues. During the Second Reading debate there was some concern from around the Chamber, expressed in different ways, about what was perceived as an inevitable weakening of controls over the use of the land and property, which could indeed result in developments which adversely impact on Kew’s global status and reputation. I heard what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I am not sure that anybody will try to build a high-rise block of flats, but there could be issues around the commercial development of restaurants or shops and so on which could—not necessarily at the outset but as time went by—damage the reputation of Kew. These are some of the issues that we need to extract, and ensure that they are put to rest.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report on the balance between income generated by leases granted under this Act and grant funding provided by Her Majesty’s Government to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.”

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendment 3 addresses the future Defra grant to Kew. It follows on from the very useful debate on this issue at Second Reading, which I thought reflected a great deal of consensus around the Chamber. We all recognised the importance of the vital research and educational work carried out at Kew, and were united in wanting to consolidate its world heritage site status. We also recognised that the additional money which might be generated by longer leases, initially estimated to be in the region of £15 million, could provide valuable additional investment in its infrastructure, scientific endeavour and visitor experience.

But there was also in that debate a common concern about substitution—the possibility that any additional funds could simply be used by government to cut the Defra grant further, leaving Kew in a no-win position and no better off. We have tabled this amendment to try to address these concerns.

Of course, there was only so much that the Minister could say to reassure us on this point at Second Reading. As he himself admitted when asked about future cuts,

“at times of national difficulty, all institutions and departments must play their part”.—[Official Report, 7/5/19; col. 1168.]

As we know, different Governments over many years have taken different views on how much should be spent from the public purse and on when to put the squeeze on expenditure through a policy of enforced austerity and cuts. So there is no guarantee that the Defra grant, which has been falling steadily over the years—from 90% in 1983 to 37% in 2018—will not fall further. As we heard in that debate, this has been the subject of real parliamentary concern, with a House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report warning in 2015 that cuts in government funding were placing Kew’s world-class scientific status at risk.

Our amendment is a simple one which seeks to ensure that the additional income which Kew generates from the careful management of the extended leases should go direct to the trustees for future investment on the site. At this stage this is a probing amendment, and, again, I do not claim to have worded it perfectly, but I suspect that all noble Lords share the sense of its intent. I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister and beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, transparency is really important, but I am concerned that a set of accounts should be produced just for the income from the leases on seven properties. That seems quite bureaucratic to me. I accept that the noble Baroness said that this was a probing amendment, so I will be interested in what the Minister has to say. I would have thought that these accounts could have been incorporated into the consolidated Kew accounts, rather than being a separate set. That would be a better way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that all the information that I understood that the amendment required will be available to the public under the mechanisms already in place. As I say, to impose an annual requirement would simply produce a further burden, in most cases with a nil return. Although the amendment is probing, it has given me an opportunity to emphasise that, as regards the two existing accounts, the matters relating to this legislation would be covered. With that explanation, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the Minister. The report was just a hook or mechanism to try to flush out the issue of the distribution of the funds; in itself it will not add greatly to the parliamentary knowledge of income. However, I noticed that the Minister carefully skipped the point I raised about the distribution of funds between Defra and the money that Kew will raise in other ways in the future. That continues to be a concern but I recognise that just reporting on it is not necessarily the way to flush it out. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for that comment, and I may reflect on whether there is a better way of raising that issue at a future stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

5: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement to publish information
Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment including information about the property portfolio at Kew affected by the Act, the associated financial liabilities and income projections.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 in this group are in my name. All of them are probing amendments, and and we already began to address some of the issues in the other debate, so I will try to amend my notes as we go along. They all address the need for more information to be provided about the financial impact of the Bill and the management of the longer leases.

Amendment 5 addresses the fact that the Bill does not include an impact assessment, and the background details of the financial consequences of implementing the Bill are indeed rather sparse. For example, as we know, the original estimates for additional receipts from the extended leases was quoted as £40 million, and this figure has now been scaled down to £15 million. However, we have not really had an explanation for the disparity between these two figures, or indeed an explanation of the basis on which that new figure of £15 million has been calculated.

The statement on the financial implications of the Bill in the Explanatory Memorandum is equally vague:

“Incomes from the change will depend on further development of Kew’s Estates Strategy and third party partnerships”.


However, in his response to me at Second Reading, the Minister reported that:

“The estate strategy is not in the public domain”,—[Official Report, 7/5/19; col. 1171.]


and is therefore not available to us, although he said that he would be happy to talk to me about it.

At Second Reading and earlier in this debate, a number of noble Lords asked for further details of the property portfolio at Kew so that we could assess fully the potential for future lease extensions beyond the seven residential properties initially identified, but they have not been forthcoming so far. In addition, the Minister referred several times to the difference between the core and non-core estate, which I know he is beginning to regret. At some point, we need to flesh out both that difference and how much of the non-core estate could be affected in future. There is a black hole where that information needs to be. I hope that he will come forward with further details on that at some point.

I moved the amendment not to be unhelpful but to understand the potential for future income generation—not just for those seven properties but for what could be in the pipeline beyond that. We would all benefit from knowing that. At the moment, it feels as though we are being asked to sign up to an open commitment with little in the way of financial guarantees to underpin it. We felt that the mechanism of an impact assessment would be a helpful way of getting that information.

Amendment 6 would require the lessee to gain permission from the Kew trustees before undertaking any refurbishments. The Minister addressed that issue in his earlier answers. Obviously, one advantage of bestowing longer leases on properties is that it gives the lessee more freedom of opportunity to improve the property they lease. It is important that we tie down the approval process for those refurbishment plans to ensure that they will all receive prior approval.

Amendment 7 would require the criteria for the grounds on which longer leases would be granted to be published. Again, we touched on this at Second Reading; there was a concern that, although proposals from the holders of very long leases may seem reasonable at the time, the holder of that lease—for 150 years, say—could, over time, deviate from the core values underpinning Kew’s activities. As I said, that is particularly true of commercial leases rather than residential ones. It is obvious to say so but 150 years is a very long time to share a world heritage site with a commercial leaseholder. There is concern that their activities could become more at variance in the longer term. Again, we touched on this issue in earlier debates. We need to be clear about the criteria for extending longer leases and to be assured that there will be more sensitivity here than for a standard lease in terms of the leaseholder’s expectations in respecting the property and the activities they carry out there.

Finally, on Amendment 8, we asked the Secretary of State to publish the criteria under which Kew could end a lease prematurely. That follows on from previous amendments, which address the need to be able to terminate a lease prematurely if the activities of a leaseholder, particularly one holding a long lease, are no longer acceptable to the trustees at Kew. Again, this may concern activities beyond those traditionally imposed on leaseholders but which could nevertheless damage the intrinsic values and behaviours expected of those using the Kew estate. Indeed, it could require automatic break clauses.

I am trying to tease out the basis of the argument. We all feel that this is not a question of having a standard lease as you would for a standard residential property. We may expect other expectations to be built into the lease, with special requirements to honour Kew’s mission. I am interested to know whether the Minister envisages having special leases of that kind. I look forward to his response on these issues. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I am broadly supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, except that the time limit is a bit short. It is not like me to give the Government a lot of time to do something, but the period of one month set out in Amendments 5, 7 and 8 is not realistic; it should probably be closer to three months.

Amendment 6 is unnecessary because six of the properties are listed and all of them are in a conservation area. Richmond council, which was referred to earlier, will have to give permission for any refurbishments because the buildings are listed and certainly, during my time dealing with these things, I know that you have to consult with the people who are affected by the works. I would therefore expect the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew to be an official consultee anyway, so the amendment, as I say, is unnecessary.

As regards Amendment 7, the reasons were clearly set out at Second Reading why Kew Gardens wants to lease these properties for longer. Obviously it is to increase the income and to remove the maintenance costs, thus reducing its liabilities so that it can concentrate on its core values, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Again, the period specified in Amendment 8 is too short and three months might be better than one month.

--- Later in debate ---

To echo the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the protections for Kew are of the highest order. It is an extensive parcel of land, and we are very proud of this 350 acres of Crown land and its world heritage site status—incidentally, I can confirm that the car park is part of the world heritage site. As a nation, we should be very proud of this world heritage site, and I see it as our duty to for ever protect it. In the meantime, I hope that the detail I have gone into reassures the noble Baroness that some thought and consideration have already gone into protecting Kew.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for spelling that out in the detail he did. Many of the points he raised provide some reassurance. I was particularly pleased that he talked about bespoke conditions, and that leases will not be just standard residential or commercial leases but will have a bespoke element that applies specifically because of the unique nature of being within the grounds of Kew. I am very grateful for that.

A theme has come out of our discussions on the various amendments. We have assumed, and the Minister has talked about, this relating to seven properties. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said earlier, none of us has a problem with the original seven residential properties that have been earmarked for a longer lease. Our concern is what happens after that, and I still feel that we have not really been enlightened on that point.

I cannot believe that Kew has no other information about its portfolio and other properties that it may want to put into the mix in future. We are still trying to grapple with the Minister’s phrase of “core” and “non-core”, and I think we need more information. I would welcome the chance to sit down with the Minister and figure out which properties are “core” and “non-core”, and what other properties might be in the pipeline. I realise that this may not happen immediately but in the medium to longer term, and the Bill will relate to aspirations that Kew might have in future. I feel we are still in the dark, and I would like more information, but this is obviously not the time to go into that in more detail. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.