Forestry Commission

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my admiration to noble Lords all around the House for managing to make so many telling points within the rigorous confines of a two-minute deadline. I am fortunate in that I have slightly longer, but I none the less share the frustration that noble Lords feel in having to deal with such important issues in such a short time.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere very much on initiating this debate, and on his starring role in recent forestry campaigns, which have been so happily successful. My noble friend, through his previous work as chair of the Forestry Commission, and also throughout his long parliamentary career, has been an unmatched champion for our countryside, for the rural economies of our country, and for the natural environment.

As I was not able to be in the House on Monday when the Public Bodies Bill was debated, I take this opportunity to give my thanks to the Government for removing the forestry provisions from that legislation and to express my delight at the dramatic turnaround in their approach to their forestry policy. The Government’s original proposals, as we know, unleashed a tidal wave of public concern. Like others, I pay tribute to the various campaigns which immediately got under way. I recognise in particular the national petition organised by 38 Degrees, which was so astoundingly effective, but I recognise equally the local and regional campaigns up and down the country, which had such an important influence on Members of Parliament, and indeed on public representatives throughout our country. The campaigns attracted celebrity support as well, and support from people of different walks of life. My noble friend Lord Clark said that he was, in a way, astonished at the scale of the reaction, yet there were reminders during the campaigns of how long the history of public support for our forests is. Some looked back, for example, to the campaigns by Octavia Hill and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century to save Epping Forest.

Certainly, if this was the big society in action, it was very impressive, although ironically for the Government, who see the big society as their cherished idea, in this case it was the big society standing up to and opposing what the Government were doing. The public certainly showed that they were passionate about the future of our forests, and many noble Lords have expressed passion for our forests in the debates that we have had in this House. In considering the Public Bodies Bill and in the debate today, various forests around the country have been mentioned: the Forest of Dean, the forests in the Lake District, and the forests of Delamere and Cannock Chase, which my noble friend Lord Grantchester mentioned. I share that passion for my local forests and woods in the north-east of England—Chopwell woods, Hamsterley forest and, a bit to my surprise, Kielder, which is a very large forest, described by the Minister as containing serried ranks of conifers. I remember being dismayed in the past at some of the very large ugly plantations in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Huge changes have occurred in forestry policy over the years, thanks in no small measure to the work done by my noble friend Lord Clark at the Forestry Commission and by the commitment of the previous Government to make forests an amenity for all our citizens, as well as being important in terms of timber production. That has been seen in Kielder, as elsewhere, with the many sites of special scientific interest and habitats for endangered ospreys and the red squirrel. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, on wearing his red squirrel tie. I do not know whether he has headscarves or other items that might be more suitable for women supporters of red squirrels, but certainly the cause of the red squirrel is one that is dear to the hearts of many of us in this House. It reminds us of one of the most important aspects of this debate which is the promotion of biodiversity. Indeed, that point has been made tellingly in some of the briefings sent to us by outside organisations, particularly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which speaks effectively on the importance of biodiversity. I commend the succinctness of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool in saying that our watchwords should be accessibility, biodiversity and conservation. These are important watchwords when it comes to how to approach this debate.

I took the Minister to task at an earlier stage for his categorisation of forests and the categories of forest that Defra came up with in its original proposals. It is wrong to try to oversimplify whether forests are commercial, heritage, mixed, or whatever. I believe strongly that each forest has to be looked at on its own merits and that we have to look at them not only for what they mean for timber production but for nature conservation and wildlife, public access and amenities, and for what they contribute to the rural and regional economies in terms of tourism, timber production and related issues. All forests should be considered in that way and I hope that the Government will now accept that as the way forward.

While I disagreed with Ministers’ oversimplification of forest categories, I agreed with the point that he and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, made in our debate on the Public Bodies Bill. It is a challenge to reconcile the valid different interests which seek to use our forests, whether ramblers, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, sports interests, wildlife interests, general tourism, and so on. They all need to be reconciled within our overall international environmental commitments.

A number of issues were raised to which I hope the Minister will respond. My noble friend Lord Clark mentioned the issue of the 15 per cent and I hope that the Minister will respond to that. On Monday, concern was expressed that repeated sales at 15 per cent could result in the serious whittling away of the public forest estate. In response the Minister mentioned that a substantial public forestry estate would be retained. In order to reassure people, particularly given the extent of public concern, a definition of what constitutes substantial will need to be given, so I hope that the Minister will respond to that.

Questions have been asked about the composition of the panel and how it will operate. I echo those concerns that it should operate in public and be as inclusive as possible. That has to be the message that results and one of the lessons learnt from the experience of the past two months. My noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon mentioned concern about jobs. We are concerned about cuts in expenditure in terms of managing our forests in all our interests.

I have to conclude, and time is frustratingly short, but we owe it to the public who have shown such strong feelings on this matter to come back to these issues many times and to be vigilant in the months ahead. In the mean time I look forward to the Minister’s reply and his answer to the points that have been made so tellingly today.

Clothing Industry: Ethical and Sustainable Fashion

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, on initiating this debate, and on speaking to it in such a knowledgeable and informative way. I know that she has had a long involvement with this issue through the London College and elsewhere, and has also raised these issues on previous occasions in this House. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh reminded us, she has also been involved in raising the issue in both Houses through the establishment of the all-party group, to which I wish much success.

The noble Baroness raised a wide number of issues, and the debate has been widened even further by subsequent contributions to look at the fashion and clothing industry more generally, as did my noble friends Lord Sugar and Lady Rendell. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke on the history of the industry, which, as he reminded us, has been very important in the past and from which lessons had to be learnt. Indeed, we had some literary allusions from my noble friend Lady McIntosh. The debate has been wide-ranging and there are many points to which the Minister will wish to respond.

When I first saw the title of the debate I was somewhat surprised that it was considered a Defra responsibility, although I understand why it is, for the purposes of this debate. It very much arises from the Defra sustainable clothing action plan launched three to four years ago under the previous Government. In that respect, I pay tribute to my noble friend and colleague Lord Hunt of Kings Heath who took a keen interest in these issues when he was a Minister. He helped launch the initiative at the London College, where his catwalk performance was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, as being very much appreciated. That conveys an interesting spectacle to most of us who had not thought of my noble friend as being a catwalk performer. None the less, I know that he was very committed to the action plan within Defra and to the initiatives taken by the noble Baroness. I know that he would like me to pay tribute to the staff in Defra who are working on the road map and who I know he felt were very enthusiastic about the work that they were doing.

Although I recognise the valuable role that Defra can play in this issue, this is a classic case of co-ordination being necessary across various government departments. Many of the issues raised today relate to government departments other than Defra, such as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Department for International Development is relevant in terms of some of the important issues in development, as are departments dealing with education and training, and universities—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—and so is the Treasury when it comes to tax incentives or fiscal measures. What co-ordinating mechanisms exist at present for looking at the ethical clothing and fashion industry? Is there a committee that has representation from the appropriate departments? How would it support Defra in taking forward the clothing action plan and the initiatives that have already been taken?

Have there been any changes to the road map since the previous Government published their progress report in February 2010? I was trying to find out about it from the Defra website and ran out of time before the debate, but I was a little puzzled that there is still reference to the old Defra website. Somehow the new and old websites have not been consolidated into one departmental statement even though we are 10 months on from the election and the change of government. It is a bit confusing for those seeking information about this issue.

When she referred to these issues previously, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about the role of small businesses in ethical fashion and clothing. She was concerned at the time, a couple of years ago, about the economic climate adversely affecting small businesses in particular. What contact has the department had with small businesses in the sector to confront some of the challenges that they face in what is even perhaps a more difficult economic situation?

The noble Baroness also mentioned procurement, a point that was echoed by one or two other speakers. I would be interested to know whether, with regard to Defra, the Government were considering widening the applicability of government buying standards to include the NHS, perhaps, or other parts of government that are not currently included. Is consideration being given to this?

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of what we have been calling the supermarket ombudsman—now called adjudicator. The main inspiration behind this was the perceived weakness of farmers and agricultural producers in negotiating with supermarkets. It was an interesting point as to whether there was a role for the adjudicator in the textile and clothing industry, particularly given that so many supermarkets these days are quite substantial sellers of clothing. Again, I would be interested in the Government’s reaction to that.

A number of issues raised would probably come more within the area of responsibility of the Foreign Office or DfID than Defra. None the less, they are important to raise during the debate. The noble Baroness referred to the alarming reports about the cotton industry and the employment of very young people in Uzbekistan. I read those reports and found them very troubling indeed, and wondered what representations might have been made about this, or if any positive progress has been made. This is of interest not only to Members of this House and to the public but to companies. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Sugar that companies these days are concerned about the standards of production of the goods that they are dealing with and the conditions in which people in those producing industries are employed. That is also reflected by the fact that quite a large number of retailers were willing to sign up to the clothing action plan. We hope that that number can increase in future. Those issues are important, and I hope that the Government will be able to respond.

If we can make further progress on this issue, this can be a win for the environment and for responsible producers and manufacturers as well as for trade and social justice. They are very important issues and, once again, I thank the noble Baroness very warmly for raising them in this House today.

Trees: Sudden Oak Death

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, it is clear that the Forestry Commission is well aware of the risks associated with not treating or responding to this disease. However, as revealed by the commission in a recent memo to staff, it is equally clear that the Government have not given it funding to deal with it. To use its words:

“There is no capacity to deal with costs of disease or other calamity”.

Why have the Government not allocated money to the Forestry Commission to deal with this very real threat, which the noble Lord has outlined? Furthermore, how do they expect voluntary groups to be able to fund these crucial activities on top of buying forests at market rates?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness is being somewhat misleading. I have made it very clear that we have a £25 million programme over five years to identify ways of dealing with this disease. That is the important matter. As with all plant diseases, it is then a matter for the individual owners, whether they be the Forestry Commission or others, to take appropriate action to fell that timber and sell it on the open market because it still has some value, even if that is depressed. Compensation for felling trees has never been paid, under either this Government or previous Administrations, when a plant disease of this sort occurs, and we will continue with that process. However, we think that the Forestry Commission is perfectly adequately funded to do this. Further, parts of FERA—the plant health division—are actively recruiting extra staff, particularly to identify diseases at airports and other locations, to try to prevent any more diseases of this sort coming into the country.

Forestry Commission

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I remember the Bill in 1981. Although I cannot remember specific parts of it, I am aware of the concerns relating to the Forest of Dean. I know that the Leader of the Opposition also has concerns about this. We will look at the amendments from the right reverend Prelate’s colleague when we get to that stage—if we ever do—in the Public Bodies Bill, and we will then respond in the appropriate manner.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, how does the Minister justify the classification of forests in the consultation document and how was it decided? While I hope we all agree on the importance of the Forest of Dean and the New Forest, describing a forest such as Kielder simply as “commercial” flies in the face of the fact that it contains 31 areas of special scientific interest, is home to most of England’s remaining red squirrels and has become increasingly important in recent years for tourism and recreation. How does the Minister justify this?

[Lord Henley]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, it is commercial woodland on an area that used to be open moorland. She and I know that part of the country very well. It is now covered in what people refer to as serried ranks of conifers and should be treated as commercial woodland. The important point is that the manner by which we propose to realise assets from it will mean that we can protect various areas. The sales conducted by the previous Government of some 25,000 acres were made without any protection whatever.

Japan: Whaling

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have no direct evidence of vote buying or corruption, although I have to say that some of the voting at last year's IWC meeting in Agadir seemed somewhat odd and possibly resembles the Eurovision Song Contest. Having said that, we will continue to press our case at this year's IWC, and I hope that we will achieve similar success to what we achieved last year at Agadir.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that despite the change of government, UK policy on whaling seems to have emerged unscathed and unchanged. Given that the UK will be hosting the next IWC meeting, the importance of preparing for this meeting is even more pressing. From his contacts so far, how does the Minister assess the prospects for reform of the IWC at that meeting, and how does he assess the likelihood of getting together the alliance that we need to promote the policies that the UK Government favour?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. We will certainly continue with the policy on which Her Majesty's Governments—of all parties—have concluded for a number of years. We will continue to work with the IWC and hope to achieve success there. The important thing is that we also work within the EU to ensure that the EU speaks with a united voice on these matters. I offer praise to my honourable friend Mr Benyon, who last year at Agadir got the EU to speak as one bloc on the matter. It is very important that the EU continues to do that at St Helier this summer.

Birds: Farmland Populations

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I did not say that it was an aim of Defra: I said that control of predators where possible was one matter among many that should be addressed by all those involved in farming and the management of land. That would help to increase the diversity around and improve the habitat for the birds that we are so concerned about.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, given the difficulty in halting the decline of farmland birds, despite the huge efforts of volunteers and despite the environmental schemes that we have, will the department bring together all the interested parties to try to work out an effective way forward? Will the Minister also give a firm commitment to continue funding the environmental schemes such as the Higher Level Scheme, which seem to have been more effective in tackling this problem than others?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I would have thought that what we do for the Campaign for the Farmed Environment is exactly what the noble Baroness is talking about in terms of the leadership that she would like from Defra. We will continue to support its work and support agri-environment schemes because we think that they are one way forward to help improve biodiversity for birds. Obviously, they take a very long time before they have any effect on the decline in birds which, as my noble friend made clear, has been going on some 40 years.

Draft United Kingdom Marine Policy Statement

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Grand Committee

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the draft marine policy statement and I agree with others that it is a very useful moment to do so at the conclusion of this phase of the consultation process. This has not been a long debate, but it has been a thoughtful one. A number of challenging issues have emerged and searching questions have been asked. I will try not to ask the same questions as those asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and others, but those issues are none the less important and should be addressed for the benefit of the House.

Obviously, the marine policy statement raises issues that are important to the country as a whole. I do not know whether it is still true that the UK is the EU country with the longest coastline, but our coastline is certainly long and we all have a huge interest in the health and quality of our marine environment. There are also important economic considerations: our fishing industry, which has been mentioned; the link with food supply and food security; the important energy sector, with coastal oil and gas; and the increasingly important alternative energy sector—not just wind but tidal energy—which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. In addition, there are port activities, which have also been referred to. There is also aggregates exploitation and indeed, coastal tourism, which is important to our economy and involves access to our coasts and the enhancement of coastal and marine heritage assets.

All those are important national issues, but they are obviously issues with strong local and regional dimensions. Such issues will be of great interest to communities around the country, especially to those areas affected by, for example, offshore energy developments—either welcome or unwelcome—and will have an impact on the future health of our coastal resorts, many of which have gone through difficult economic times in the past 20 to 30 years. Those areas are interested in the issues of economic regeneration and the importance of tourism for the future.

For all those reasons, a marine planning process of the kind that we are considering is extremely important. Obviously I welcome the fact that the work that the Government are doing is very much a continuation of the work of the previous Government—as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton—and follows the welcome passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act. There is a need to ensure that that Act can be implemented as successfully as possible.

Not surprisingly, given the nature of the subject and the fact that there are diverse and sometimes conflicting interests involved, a number of concerns have been expressed in the debate that it is important to consider. As a result of the consultation, there certainly were requests for more detail on different aspects of the marine policy statement, particularly on the precautionary approach and how that will work in practice. Many speakers referred to how conflicts will be managed. Although we hope that decisions will be based on sound science, we know that that will not necessarily resolve all the conflicts on its own. How such conflicts will be managed is an important aspect.

How to link local marine plans to wider objectives, how to make effective decisions until the marine plans come in, the perceived lack of guidance for marine plan authorities and how to prioritise between different policies and activities are all matters that came up in the consultation and that need further attention in order to take forward the work.

Like other noble Lords, I have received background information for this debate from interested organisations, including the RSPB, which raised a number of issues. Again, I will not repeat those, but I hope that the Minister is aware of the submission and will respond to at least some of the points. There are a great many issues to take forward. The Minister mentioned that the marine policy statement will be adopted by March 2011, which was also referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. That is an ambitious timetable, which I would not dissuade the Government from but will mean that a lot of work must be done.

Some participants in the debate commented on the nature of the documentation. I rather agree with those comments. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, talked about “verbiage” and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about the documentation providing a not-very-clear road map. I do not think that the document is very user-friendly. I am not making a party-political point, because the documentation reflects both work produced by the previous Government and work taken forward by this Government. It is important for documents to be as clear as possible for the wider public. If concerned residents of a coastal town looked at the document, they would not find it clear. Acronyms do not help, although I do not know what the alternative to them is, because it is difficult to repeat the long names of organisations. For example, it is important to realise that the HRA is not the Human Rights Act but the habitats regulations assessment. Other such acronyms need to be looked at carefully.

I gather that further meetings are planned to respond both to the issues in the marine policy statement and to the concerns that people have raised. One or two meetings that have been held were well attended, in particular by organisations. I am glad that the task of getting the message out and starting a discussion in the country is being undertaken. Most of the responses have come from organisations—which I suppose is not surprising—but many interested individuals who are perhaps involved in marine economic activities or concerned about environmental issues will also want to be involved. In the consultation summary of responses, some environmental NGOs expressed disappointment that the consultation for the scoping stage of the appraisal of sustainability was not broadened to include individuals. Perhaps that can be addressed in later discussions on the issues.

This Government, and the previous Government, both wanted the marine planning system to be, as the policy statement says,

“Participative and informed by data provided by consultees, stakeholders, regulators and relevant experts”.

I encourage the Government to go down that route. If we are to get a sense of ownership of the plans and the planning process, it will be important for the participation procedures to be as effective as possible. That includes parliamentary involvement. There will be interest in both Houses in monitoring what happens in taking forward the marine policy statement and in implementing effectively the marine planning system and other provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Act.

Obviously, the overarching principle of sustainability is something that we all feel strongly about, but the interpretation of that principle can give rise to difficulties. That is another example of where the devil is in the detail. In that regard, I know that Wildlife and Countryside Link sent us its views on the marine policy statement, and I hope its concerns can be addressed. In particular, that organisation is concerned that the MPS does not achieve its legislative purpose of clearly identifying those policies that will ensure that the marine planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, raised some of those points, which it is important that we consider.

The devolved institutions surfaced during this debate. I note that the Fisheries Minister in another place talked about the need to have good co-ordination across the UK on fisheries and marine issues. Politically, that is something of a challenge given that we have a Conservative Fisheries Minister, a Sinn Fein Minister in Northern Ireland, a Scottish National Party Minister in Scotland and a Labour Minister in Wales. However, my impression is that the process is working well, and I applaud that. Such co-ordination will be important—I say that with a personal interest, as I come from the border area of the north-east of England. I remember that, when I first became interested in fisheries issues, I had a lot to do with an organisation called the Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation, which existed because fishing on both sides of the border was rather similar and there was a common marine area. I hope that in the new system the welcome existence of devolution will not be a barrier to joint working when that is clearly in the interests of particular communities and areas in the country.

The role of the Marine Management Organisation was mentioned during the course of the debate. In an earlier debate, the Minister and I both expressed strong support for the MMO and the work that it has to carry out, but some things are slightly puzzling to me. I understand that the MMO has designated the first two planning areas—east coast inshore and east coast offshore—and is busily planning at the moment, but this is in advance of the guidance under the marine policy statement. On what policy is planning being based at the present time? That is not clear to me. People need to know what is happening now.

I wish the MMO well in its tasks, but I understand that, as well as the change in personnel that was referred to earlier in the debate, there have been changes in the teams developing MMO planning policy and strategy. I hope that some of the staffing issues in the MMO are not going to prevent the effective action that we want to see.

I shall pick up the point that was made on the funding of the MMO. When the Minister and I discussed that at an earlier stage, he said that he would keep us informed about the situation affecting the MMO’s funding. I do not know whether he can comment on the question directly put to him about whether the departure of the chief executive and the chairman was related to funding, but it would be interesting to know that. There was general consensus that, as the organisation was set up recently when we knew of the financial crisis and its implications—in a lean and, I hope, fit-for-purpose way—for it to be subjected to any deep cuts would be unacceptable. There is a good case for saying that, as its budget was set up so recently, the MMO should be able to continue with a degree of certainty about its funding level.

Time does not permit me to deal with the issues surrounding fisheries policy, which are obviously related to the marine policy statement. A couple of weeks ago a very good debate was held in Westminster Hall on the common fisheries policy, and I hope that we will get an opportunity to debate that policy in your Lordships’ House as well. There are a number of important issues—regarding the regionalisation of the policy, whether there should be a move towards catch quotas and the move towards ending the annual wrangle in the EU about quotas—that need to be addressed. I will understand if the Minister feels that it would not be relevant to address those issues today, but again I hope that we will be able to consider them in some detail, particularly as we move towards the 2012 review of the common fisheries policy, which will be a key moment.

I agree with what the marine policy statement says on heritage protection, but obviously I hope that it takes into account existing activities. Even though this might lead to complications, I agree with the statement that,

“Many heritage assets with archaeological interest in coastal and offshore areas are not currently designated as scheduled monuments or protected wreck sites but are demonstrably of equivalent significance. The absence of designation for such assets does not necessarily indicate lower significance and the marine plan authority should consider them subject to the same policy principles as designated heritage assets”.

In conclusion, the debate has shown that there is general support for the overall approach, but we would like to see clarity about the way ahead, particularly so that those who will be deeply involved in these processes know what the priorities are and how the system will work. I accept that hard choices will have to be made and that conflicts cannot easily be resolved, but ultimately we all have a strong interest in a clean and safe marine environment and in a policy that is clearly sustainable over the long term. I am very supportive of the overall approach being taken, but I hope that some of the real issues and concerns that have been raised can be properly addressed.

Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations implement Council directive 2007/43, which establishes for the first time rules governing the conditions under which meat chickens are kept and the monitoring of the birds in slaughterhouses for poor on-farm welfare. The directive is unique in that it looks not only at inputs but at welfare outcomes.

A small section of the directive dealing with mutilations will be implemented through the regulations which the Committee has just discussed.

These regulations apply to holdings with 500 or more birds. They do not apply to breeding stocks of meat chickens, hatcheries or chickens marketed as extensive indoor, free-range or organic. However, these birds are subject to the provisions of Schedule 1 to the welfare of farmed animals regulations 2007, which sets down general conditions for the way in which animals are kept. For the purposes of these regulations, we have defined the chickens in scope as “conventionally reared meat chicken”.

Meat chicken welfare is an important issue. Around 850 million meat chickens are produced in the UK per year and 4 billion across the European Union. The United Kingdom is one of the largest meat chicken producers in the EU, and the total value of the UK industry is estimated at £1.6 billion. There has also been an increase in public awareness of meat chicken welfare over recent years, reflected in significant sales of chicken produced to higher welfare standards by major retailers.

The directive came into force on 30 June 2010. There has been a delay in implementing it in English law due to the change of government and the new processes that have been put in place to ensure the close scrutiny of all new legislation. However, I know that the industry and enforcement bodies have started to take account of the EU legislation in their activities, including training, and I much appreciate their commitment and good will in working with us on implementation. It has been an example of partnership working at its best.

Currently, there is no legal maximum stocking density for meat chickens in England. The directive permits member states to allow a maximum stocking density of up to 42 kilograms per square metre provided that certain criteria are met, including a challenging cumulative daily mortality figure over seven consecutive flocks. Therefore, a producer would have to meet these criteria and provide the evidence before being allowed to stock at 42 kilograms per square metre.

We have decided not to take advantage of this derogation on animal welfare grounds. The draft regulations set instead a maximum stocking density for conventionally reared meat chickens of 33 kilograms per square metre, with the opportunity to stock up to 39 kilograms per square metre provided that additional house documentation requirements and environmental parameters are met. This is in line with the commitment in the coalition agreement to improved standards of farm animal welfare.

There is evidence that meat chicken welfare can be compromised at densities higher than 40 kilograms per square metre. A Defra-funded study at Oxford University showed that, while mortality and leg defects were not compromised at higher stocking densities, other measures were affected, such as jostling, a reduction in growth rate and fewer birds showing the best gait scores, which is an assessment of chicken walking ability. The Farm Animal Welfare Council has also advised against the adoption of a maximum stocking density of 42 kilograms per square metre. In addition, more than 90 per cent of domestic chicken production is currently subject to assurance scheme requirements, which operate at stocking densities at or lower than 38 kilograms per square metre.

Adopting this approach allows us to show leadership on animal welfare. The industry should aim to provide consumers with this information and promote the fact that English chicken meat meets the higher welfare standards set by this Government. Consumers can then make an informed choice. We are not alone in setting a maximum stocking density of 39 kilograms per square metre. I understand that Wales and Scotland have also already taken this approach.

However, we are not going to set this stocking density and walk away. The maximum stocking density will be reviewed as part of the post-implementation review of the regulations. In addition, the EU Commission will publish a report in 2012 looking at the directive’s application and influence on chicken welfare.

We intend to commission a socioeconomic research project to assess the impact of implementing the regulations on the relevant monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits identified in the impact assessment. As part of that, the analysis will look at the impact of the regulations on the industry, enforcement body activity, the effectiveness of slaughterhouse welfare triggers, welfare outcomes and the experience of other member states, some of which will be operating a maximum stocking density of 42 kilograms per square metre.

As I mentioned earlier, the regulations are unique in that they will also look at the welfare outcomes for the birds. All birds will be subject to post-mortem inspections in the slaughterhouse for possible indications of poor on-farm welfare.

For flocks stocked at over 33 kilograms per square metre, mortality information will also be assessed as an indicator of poor welfare. “Poor welfare” will be defined through the setting of welfare triggers for mortality and post-mortem inspections in the slaughterhouse. Any concerns will be communicated to the producer and to Animal Health in order for them to take appropriate action. That might include the drawing up of an action plan in conjunction with Animal Health to outline how a welfare problem will be addressed.

This system of welfare triggers will allow for a more consistent approach across slaughterhouses to the identification of potential on-farm welfare problems. The welfare triggers have been based in part on a pilot study that saw some of the largest meat chicken companies working with us and Animal Health. This is another good example of people working together to improve welfare.

As highlighted, these draft regulations are certainly an important step in improving the welfare of meat chickens and I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, the Opposition are generally supportive of these regulations and the directive behind them. Indeed, the directive was agreed in European Union negotiations under the previous Government, and the regulations implement the directive here. The Minister is correct in saying that this is a useful and important step forward. This is the first time that rules governing conditions under which meat chickens are kept have been agreed at EU level and there is monitoring of birds for poor on-farm welfare. That incorporates some of the animal welfare concerns, which are very recent concerns in EU legislation, so I welcome that.

The Minister was also right to stress that this is an important industry for us. Very often in the EU context we tend to think that other countries are more agriculturally focused than we are, but in terms of this industry, as the Minister pointed out, the UK is one of the largest chicken producers in the European Union. The industry's total value has been estimated at £1.6 billion.

Obviously, the regulations also relate to public concern in terms of the increased demand for food that is produced to higher welfare standards. There has been an increase in the number of consumers wanting assured produce in terms of animal welfare as well as other things. Speaking as a consumer rather than a parliamentarian, I find that the labels can sometimes be confusing with all the different assurance schemes that exist. I know that this has been tried for a number of years, but it would be good if we could move towards more simplification and greater certainty for consumers in this respect. None the less, the trend that we have seen overall is a welcome one.

In general, the Government have tried to strike a balance between animal welfare concerns and the dangers of getting into a situation where we become over-reliant on imports that do not meet the same high standards. It has been a difficult balance to strike. I agree with the Government that the limit of 39 kilos per square metre should be supported, as should not going up to 42.

The Minister rightly said that Wales and Scotland are working along similar lines. I understand, however, that in Northern Ireland a limit of 42 kilos per square metre has been sought. While I fully respect the devolution settlement and the ability of different jurisdictions to decide on their policies, it none the less would be a desirable goal for the UK to operate similar conditions for trading reasons, just as it is a good idea for similar high standards to operate throughout the EU as a whole, even though that is a much more ambitious goal. I do not know whether the Minister has had any discussions with his Northern Ireland counterparts about this, or whether there are special reasons for this of which I am not aware.

The Minister also said that we are not going to walk away from trying to improve standards as time goes on. I think that those were his words. While we have not gone much beyond the minimum standards of the EU in these regulations, what does the Minister see as the possibilities for reducing stocking densities further—from, say, 39 to 33 kilograms per square metre? Does he see us moving in that direction over the next few years?

The regulations are slightly late in being introduced to Parliament but that is not surprising, given that an election took place earlier this year. Does the Minister have any information about whether the regulations and the directive have now come into force in other member states, or whether there are some member states that have not yet adopted the legislation in the way that they are supposed to?

Information from the British Veterinary Association raised some concerns that it originally had about the proposed regulations. It wanted more detail on environmental enrichment to reduce the risk of leg problems in poultry, on litter management to maintain optimum conditions and on the importance of floor temperature. Does the Minister know whether the various concerns raised by the British Veterinary Association have been met?

I recognise that there are costs attached to these regulations. What I did not quite understand from the Explanatory Memorandum is how much of the costs involved are on-farm costs and how much are off-farm, relating to slaughterhouses, inspection processes and so on, to see whether animal welfare issues have arisen. If the Minister does not have that information immediately to hand, I would be happy for him to write to me. It could be, however, that it is in the information and I just have not managed to spot it.

Compliance with these regulations will be very important. The impact assessment accompanying the directive states that there was a 19.1 per cent failure rate for compliance with existing meat chicken welfare standards. Do the bodies concerned, which I understand are the Food Standards Agency and Animal Health, have the resources to try to ensure full compliance with these regulations? I know that the Minister in another place said firmly that he was determined to stamp out abuses in animal welfare practice, but it would be good if the Minister could give us any further information on this.

Finally, repeating something that I said earlier, which the Minister was kind enough to agree with, building alliances for higher welfare standards will be very important at European Union level. I wish the Government well in that task.

Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft regulations, which we hope will be agreed by the House later. The coalition Government are, as always, committed to improved standards of animal welfare. It certainly forms part of my own department, Defra’s, structural reform plan.

These regulations remove the ban on beak-trimming of laying hens which is due to come in on 1 January 2011, to allow for routine beak-trimming of day-old chicks intended for laying to be carried out using the infra-red technique only, with other methods restricted to emergency use only. I recognise that this issue has generated a lot of interest in another place. A Written Statement was provided to both Houses last month setting out the background behind these amending regulations, explaining the Government’s determination to work closely with the industry with the objective of making a ban on beak-trimming possible in 2016. That is a commitment that I made and that my honourable friend Mr Jim Paice made in a Written Statement some two months ago.

The current position is that the UK makes use of a derogation in the EU Council Directive 99/74/EC on the welfare of laying hens, which allows for beak-trimming of laying hens that are less than 10 days old if carried out by qualified staff. The procedure is only permitted to prevent feather-pecking and cannibalism, which is a common but unpredictable behaviour in commercial flocks of laying hens and a significant welfare issue. The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 implement this derogation but only allow routine beak-trimming to be carried out until 31 December 2010, after which beak-trimming of laying hens would be banned.

The ban was put in place when the laying hens directive was implemented in the UK in 2002, allowing eight years to develop a strategy to manage birds without the need to beak-trim. The Beak Trimming Action Group—comprising representatives from industry, welfare groups, Defra, scientific and veterinary professions—was established to develop this strategy. However, progress in the control of injurious pecking in England has not been sufficient to implement a ban on beak-trimming without causing a significant risk to animal welfare. In the mean time, a new infra-red technique was developed and is now used to beak-trim birds commercially, as an alternative to hot-blading. Currently, the infra-red technique is used on 95 per cent of all beak-trimmed laying hens.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council reviewed the evidence in 2007 and 2009 and recommended that the ban on beak-trimming should be deferred until it can be demonstrated reliably under commercial conditions that laying hens can be managed without beak-trimming, without a greater risk to their welfare than that caused by beak-trimming itself. The FAWC recommended that infra-red beak treatment should be the only method used routinely, as the evidence indicated that it does not induce chronic pain.

The Government’s long-term goal is to ban routine beak-trimming, but FAWC’s advice represents a sensible and pragmatic approach in the circumstances. A ban on beak-trimming for laying hens at this time would result in significant welfare problems through outbreaks of feather-pecking and cannibalism. It is therefore right that the legislation needs to be amended to remove the impending ban, which would otherwise come into force on 1 January 2011.

The Government see the proposed removal of the ban very much as an interim solution. The previous Government’s consultation on proposals to amend the legislation did not propose any dates to review the policy or for a future ban. This Government have taken heed of the strength of feeling on this issue and decided to adopt the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s recommendation of setting a review date of 2015. We will assess the output of this work, with the objective of banning routine beak-trimming in 2016. The Beak Trimming Action Group will be reconvened; its first meeting has been arranged for January. We are committed to working with the group to find solutions to this very complex issue. The group will establish an action plan to include the key milestones which were laid out in the Written Statement, leading up to a full review of beak-trimming in 2015.

The review will consider results of ongoing research projects that are investigating practical and realistic ways to rear laying hens without the need for beak- trimming. Bristol University, for example, funded by the Tubney Charitable Trust, is carrying out a three-year intervention study. It is developing a trialling and advisory package to help producers reduce the risk of injurious pecking through changes to housing and husbandry. All the key stakeholder groups are on the steering group for this project, with representatives from industry, welfare organisations, researchers, economists and Defra. The Beak Trimming Action Group will begin to consider the outputs from this study next summer.

We recognise that any future strategy will have to identify the lessons that can be learnt from those countries that already have a ban in place or just do not beak-trim, such as Austria, Sweden and Switzerland, so we have asked the industry to undertake some study tours to such countries. Feather-pecking is greatest in systems of management which do not house birds in cages. Therefore, the risk to the welfare of laying hens from injurious pecking is likely to increase after the ban on conventional cages comes into force on 1 January 2012. A review in 2015 will allow producers time to increase their experience of managing flocks in alternative systems.

The review in 2015 will assess the achievements on eliminating beak-trimming to date and advise whether a ban on routine beak-trimming of laying hens will achieve the maximum welfare outcome, which is what we desire, with a view to reinstating the ban in 2016. These regulations will improve existing welfare standards for laying hens in the short term while we work hard to find a lasting solution, which will bring an end to the need for routine beak-trimming. They also complete the implementation of Council Directive 2007/43/EC by implementing the mutilations provisions for meat chickens and I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the instrument. We fully support the aim of ending beak-trimming and the general desire across government to do so. As the Minister explained, without this instrument the ban would legally have come into force although, given the difficulties, I imagine that even had there not been a change of Government we would have been in a similar situation, particularly given the responses to the consultation that the previous Government held earlier this year. There is the difficult equation of balancing a possible deterioration in animal welfare standards by not continuing with the derogation and the concern that changing the system at this point could have meant that we would have had extra imports coming in from countries with lower welfare standards. I can therefore see some of the difficulties that were involved in calculating how to take this issue forward for the future and, for that reason, I understand the action that the Government are proposing in these regulations.

As the Minister said, however, there is considerable public and parliamentary interest in this issue. That is not surprising because there is a strong degree of commitment to animal welfare among the public and in Parliament and to seeing increased animal welfare standards for the future. Certainly, that concern was reflected in an Early Day Motion in the other House, which was proposed by a Conservative but endorsed by Members from many parties, particularly my own. Their desire is that beak-trimming should be brought to an end as soon as practicable. Indeed, that underlines the idea of creating some kind of deadline for this to happen, which the Government have done in deciding on the review period and the ban date as the Minister outlined to us.

Obviously, 2016 is some time off. I am not trying to make a party-political point because I know that the process has already been a long one. None the less, if there are any other ways of trying to shorten the timetable I would certainly encourage the Government look at them. One aspect of the work that needs to be undertaken between now and then is the study tour of EU and other European countries that do not have beak- trimming. I would have thought that that work could start soon and I understand that it will be proceeded with expeditiously. I understand what the Minister said about the three-year research project. That obviously takes us to some time in the future. However, having said that, I certainly hope that at the very least the timetable that has been set out can be adhered to.

I do not know whether the Government considered putting the deadlines in the regulations, but I hope that it will be made very clear that this is the deadline to which the Government are working. It would not be good for a signal to be sent out that nothing much will be happening immediately so therefore people do not need to worry about it. That has been a problem in the past and we do not want it to be a problem in the future.

On another issue, I strongly support what the Minister said in terms of favouring the infra-red method as opposed to the hot-blade method. As he said, 95 per cent of production is subject to the infra-red method. However, the regulations say that in the case of a sudden outbreak, it would be possible to use the hot-blade procedure. I understand from the debate that took place in the other House that such emergencies have not occurred recently. None the less, I note that the British Veterinary Association, in its response to the Government, is concerned that the regulations could be interpreted as allowing the arbitrary use of hot-blade beak-trimming after 10 days to control moderate or even minor outbreaks of injurious pecking. The association felt that in order to counteract that, the term “emergency” should be more clearly defined. Has consideration been given to that as a way forward? Or is it that, as was described in the other House, the concerns of the British Veterinary Association are not causing too much worry to the Government at present because this procedure is not really being used at the moment?

The regulations state that holdings with fewer than 350 birds are exempt from the regulations. I would like to ask the Minister a little more about that. Why should not the infra-red technique be prescribed for those holdings as well? I do not know whether there is routing beak-trimming in holdings with fewer than 350 birdsI note that in the debate in the other place the Minister said that such holdings would in any case be covered under the Animal Welfare Act, which was passed by the previous Government with all-party support. If the provisions in that Act were sufficient, why would these regulations be necessary? I am not quite sure why the older Act is sufficient in the case of holdings with fewer than 350 birds but not for holdings with more than 350 birds. The very helpful Explanatory Memorandum says that there are 1,323 holdings housing more than 350 laying hens. Does the Minister have any statistics for how many holdings have fewer than 350 birds? I could not see that information in the Explanatory Memorandum. If it is there, I apologise for having missed it.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, I remember the 1976 Bill coming through Parliament. I was on the Benches that he is sitting on now. I thought it was a bad Bill then, and it has remained a bad Act, in particular with regard to ADHACs. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that this body is necessary. If it had been necessary, it would have been compulsory to have consulted an ADHAC. As it is, it is a purely voluntary agreement that an ADHAC can be used for consultation with the housing authority if necessary. The vast majority of cases are dealt with directly with the local housing association, so “necessary” was not the right word to use in this instance.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that there are 40 to 50 cases a year. I question that. My information is that the number is almost in single figures now. Sixteen ADHACs have some 10 cases a year in total. That means that half of them are not doing anything at all. It is high time we got rid of them, and I thoroughly support my noble friend in this. Could I just ask him whether, when we come to the follow-up legislation, he will propose to get rid of all 16 ADHACs at once, rather than one by one?

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in having tabled this amendment, which allowed this issue to be aired through this short debate. I know that he had some support from my noble friends who added their names to his amendment, which is symptomatic of a wider concern than if the amendment had simply been tabled in his own name. It shows concern that the issues that the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees have been dealing with are still important to address for the future in whatever way the Government are envisaging. We will be very interested to hear how the Minister responds to this debate.

It seems to me that the scale of the issue is quite important, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just said. As I understand it, 30 per cent of agricultural workers live in tied accommodation. Given that there are some 150,000 agricultural workers, we are talking about a considerable number of people who could avail themselves of this service. Obviously, there is some dispute about the figures; I am also aware of the figures cited by my noble friend showing that the advisory committees deal with about 40 to 50 cases each year. The noble Earl has given us different figures. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, might like to give us the official Defra figures for this process.

Even if the figures are lower than I and my noble friends believe, that does not necessarily mean that all the committees should disappear. There might therefore be an argument for rationalising the structure. I do not know if this is something to which the Government have given consideration. If there are cases—sensitive cases, because they concern people’s accommodation and whether they are going to be able to stay in their homes or be forced to move—being dealt with properly by the committees in a sensitive and efficient way, then it would be very unwise to simply disband the committees without having some very clear assurance as to how these matters will be dealt with in future. Perhaps the Minister can give us some figures showing whether the tempo of consultations and referrals to the committees has increased or decreased in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was quite right to stress, as the major point of his argument, the importance of how these issues are going to be dealt with in future and whether there will be people who know of the special circumstances of agriculture and the agricultural industry who will be able to deal with them.

Consultation is also important. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is in his place. Much to the House’s pleasure, he gave it some assurances about the consultation process to which he was committed while taking forward the provisions in this Bill. It would therefore be interesting to know what consultation has taken place so far on this issue with those likely to be affected and those who are members of the committees at the moment, and to know whether they judge their work likely to decrease or increase. After all, there are quite a number of different and even specialised aspects to agricultural tenancies; for example, the different types of tenancy—protected, statutory or assured. We need to know that there will be people who understand how the system works and will be able to operate it in future. The point has also been made to me that when farm workers come up for retirement but want to stay in their homes, that can be a difficult time. Therefore, we are entitled to ask who will represent and support farmers at that stage of their lives and in those circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I reinforce the argument made by my noble friend. I drove a tractor some time ago—1943, I think it was. Whether I was underage I will leave the House to decide. I remember that we were very happy if we got 30 hundredweights an acre. We stooped it, then it was put in a stack, and it was then thrashed by a threshing machine that came around at about this time of the year.

Today, you have a computer-controlled combine harvester that does the whole thing on its own. It is about two and a half times the width of the old cutters that we used to have. I will gamble that there are very few farmers that own one of those combines. There are some in Norfolk, in the grain area of the east of England, but in my part of England—in north Yorkshire—none of the farmers owns their own combine harvester. The contractors own it—and they do the potatoes as well. There are no labourers left in north Yorkshire in agriculture. No such person exists any longer. If there is not a skill, then you cannot employ anybody in agriculture in north Yorkshire—I am not sure about north Scotland.

I contend that—never mind the £8-something—you will not get that combine driven by anyone paid anything less than £10 an hour. The statistics that I would like to understand are the actual wages in agriculture today, because—believe you me—they do not bear much relationship either to the minimum wage or to the wages that were set on 1 October by the board which we are discussing.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I, too, support strongly the amendment and pay tribute to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, introduced this debate. It has been an interesting and powerful debate, and noble Lords from around the House have certainly brought their experience to bear on this issue. We even had the personal experience of my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere, who, at an earlier stage in his career, was affected by the decisions of the agricultural wages board.

We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the board, in one form or another, was established a long time ago—in 1924—and has been a tried and tested institution. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also referred, as I think did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to industrial action. Happily there has not been industrial action in the agricultural industry since 1923—significantly, the year immediately before the establishment of the board. However, I support the agricultural wages board not simply because it has been here for a long time. The Minister misquoted me in our last debate when he said that I had said at some point,

“that everything should continue as it is just because it always has existed in the past”.—[Official Report, 29/11/10; col. 1360.]

I can assure him that I have never said anything remotely like that, and I am very often persuaded of the need for all kinds of change. I hope, after what has been said today, particularly by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the Government will think again about the decision to abolish the agricultural wages board. I think they should reconsider it very seriously indeed in the light of this discussion.

A number of noble Lords mentioned consultation, and there certainly has been next to no consultation on this decision. The Minister, in answer to a Written Question from me, said:

“No specific consultation was undertaken prior to the decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board”.—[Official Report, 26/10/10; col. WA 245.]

It is my understanding that the Welsh Assembly Government criticised their notification of this as being totally inadequate; they were given one week to respond. Indeed, in an answer to a Question from the former Defra Secretary of State in the other place, Hilary Benn, again the lack of consultation was clearly evident. Given that the agricultural wages board has been a very long-standing feature of our economic and agricultural landscape, to have no consultation is very serious indeed.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Would the noble Baroness agree that the debate has been forceful in indicating that consultation would be advisable and helpful, and that perhaps it would be sensible not to reach a conclusion on this matter in this debate, because evidently there is still a great deal of time left to consider the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Quin]

The noble Lord makes an important point. Obviously, how we proceed is up to the author and introducer of the amendment to decide. None the less, given the number of questions that have been raised in this debate on all sides, and given the fact that there has been a very strong feeling in the Chamber that this is an issue about which there should be proper consultation, I am inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his comments. I am sure that, in the light of whatever response we get from the Government, we would very much want to return to this in any case, because it is obviously of great concern and interest to many Members in this House and, of course, to many people outside.

The issue of cost has once again been referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his introductory comments, said that the cost of abolishing the board was very limited. In answer to a Parliamentary Question in the other place by Willie Bain, I understand that the Government said that the costs would be “negligible”; indeed that the,

“changes to include agricultural workers within the scope of national minimum wage legislation”,

were,

“expected to be cost neutral”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/10; col. 14W]

Therefore this has not been brought forward to save a great deal of money, again like some of the measures that we were considering earlier. In many ways it seems to be part of a political agenda—a political decision—which I must say I very much regret. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, himself said that the abolition of the agricultural wages board was part of the Conservative manifesto but was certainly not part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. It was not part of the coalition agreement, and for that reason I think that it would be very good if it were not part of government policy here and now. I know, having looked at the Liberal Democrat Voice on the internet, that there is a concern generally about the Bill among Liberal Democrats, but also about some of the specific proposals, including this one.

I know that some farmers have come out very much in favour of abolition of the agricultural wages board, including the NFU in England. It is interesting, however, that the National Farmers’ Union in Wales has come out more in support of the retention of the agricultural wages board. Indeed, it and some other farmers have made the very important point that the agricultural wages board actually lifts from individual farmers the burden of negotiation. Quite understandably, this debate has focused on the effects of abolition on agricultural workers, but there is also a negative effect on many farmers who find the operation of the agricultural wages board helpful and valuable in terms of the recruitment and retention of skilled labour. The Government have said in the past, in debates in this House, that they value professionalism in agriculture; yet I fear that, by going down this route, we will undermine agriculture and show it as a low-paid profession where there is not proper protection for workers. We already know that agriculture is a dangerous industry in terms of accidents. We need to tackle that issue, which I think the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, referred to. At the same time we want agriculture to be seen as an industry which is attractive for new employees in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I do not think that it is necessary for that work to have been done. As I said, we believe that with the abolition of the board the industry will be able to operate more flexibly, which would lead to more job creation and better opportunities. What the noble Lord and others have been asking us to do is describe what picture, as they put it, we see for the future. I believe that it is one where it is open to the industry to come together to set up its own system. Again, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who said that the NFU ought to be out there seeking to put something together. What I did not hear from the representatives of Unite or Unite’s predecessor, the Transport and General Workers’ Union, was whether they were prepared to come together with the NFU and put something together. I do not see why the NFU, Unite and other industry representatives cannot come together and create their own advisory committee to discuss these matters. We do not think that it is necessarily a matter for the Government.

[Baroness Quin]

If I could follow up on my noble friend’s point, I thought that the Government had said that they would routinely carry out impact assessments in coming forward with legislation. I do not understand why they do not seem prepared to do so in this case.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I made clear, I do not think that it is necessary in this case to carry out an impact assessment. If it was necessary, we would do so. What I am saying is that, after the abolition of the wages board, it is open to the industry to look at its own arrangements. That is why I was grateful for the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who said that the NFU could do this, but I do not see why the NFU cannot do it along with Unite and all the other representatives of the industry.

I appreciate that we have now spent an hour and a half discussing these matters. We will no doubt come back to this in due course. My noble friend Lord Maclennan said that there was still much time to discuss these matters. There certainly will be time, because noble Lords opposite wish to make sure that there is. We will discuss these matters further, therefore, but I have not heard anything yet this afternoon that would encourage me to say that there was a case for preserving the agricultural wages board or the agricultural wages committees. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.