Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, my noble friends have set out very well the argument against the abolition of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

I compare the proposed abolition of the two committees with the recently announced cancellation of the Food Standards Agency. To a non-scientist like me, such abolition can only mean that in future people’s diets in schools and elsewhere will be more controlled by the burger manufacturers. Ours is the second most obese country in the world after the United States of America, but that situation looks like it will only get worse rather than better. If the Government’s intention in abolishing the committees is to have less government and to allow the industry to take its course, there will clearly be a risk that the manufacturers of these products—nasty or otherwise—could populate any committees that the Minister may create with academics who are funded by their companies. There is a great danger that we could end up in a similar situation to the one that both my noble friends have outlined.

The independence of such committees is absolutely fundamental. I hope that the Minister can give us confidence that their scientific independence will be preserved. As I have said, the precedent of the Food Standards Agency is extremely important. People will probably only get fat and die sooner without the FSA, whereas the abolition of these two committees will probably have a much more urgent effect. However, a similar principle is involved. I look forward to his comments.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Whitty on Amendment 18 and to use this opportunity to probe the Government’s intentions regarding these two bodies—or, perhaps more accurately, these three bodies, since the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in Northern Ireland is included.

Like my noble friend, I am glad that the Minister who is to reply is from Defra. Given the large number of bodies being modified or abolished by this Bill that are part of Defra’s area of responsibility, it is good that the Minister is responding to the debate on these bodies and, I hope, on the other agricultural bodies listed in the Bill. Given the many bodies that are listed in Schedule 1 that the Government are to have the power to abolish, it is absolutely right that each body should be looked at in turn. In many cases, the bodies in question have existed for a long time, so there certainly needs to be proper consultation about their future and how their work, especially when that is evaluated as having been very valuable, can be taken forward.

First, perhaps I may ask a few questions about the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. The committee not only has a distinguished membership but holds regular meetings and has produced a large number of reports, which I understand have been accessed by many people. The committee has also been very open about its proceedings. I notice that, when Defra first announced the changes to arm’s-length bodies on 22 July, the Secretary of State—the queen of the quango cutters—said that she intended that, as a result of the proposed changes, the subjects covered by such bodies would be dealt with more openly. Having looked at the website for the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, I find it hard to imagine how much more open it could be. Its agendas, minutes and proceedings are made fully available. I understand that it has held a number of public meetings and that it expects—if it is allowed to do so—to hold such meetings in the future. Indeed, I understand that the next public meeting is scheduled for 7 December. Will that be an occasion when the future of the organisation could be aired publicly? Indeed, will the Government be involved in that meeting by giving their view on how a successor organisation might look?

I turn to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Given that the committee was set up in 1985 following legislation by the then Conservative Government, it is fair to ask a Conservative Minister why it is no longer felt necessary to have such a committee. As my noble friends have said, there is a great deal of public concern about pesticides, the use of which can give rise to many problems, particularly if they are not properly evaluated and subject to appropriate expertise at every stage. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned, we need to consider how bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Pesticides overlap with organisations such as the Food Standards Agency. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is concerned not only with the use of pesticides on food and agricultural products but with the health of creatures and plants. The Government are required to consult the committee in certain circumstances. Could the Minister tell us how useful that process of consultation has been?

Flooding: Cornwall

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we look at the lessons learnt from all floods and we have made great progress—as did the previous Government—in getting all agencies, whether local authorities or the voluntary sector, to work together in this field. My noble friend is quite right to refer to the role that helicopters can play, but there is also a large role to be played by the emergency services and the voluntary sector. We greatly praise the RNLI, which I know helped out in west Cumbria, the Red Cross, mountain rescue and many others who help on these occasions.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I extend from this Front Bench the Opposition’s sympathy and support for those who have been affected by the floods in Cornwall, particularly those who had to be evacuated from their homes. Given the concerns expressed by the Environment Agency, the Institution of Civil Engineers and others about funding cuts in the next four years, and given that communities such as those in Cornwall and Cumbria need certainty about which flood protection projects will go ahead, may I ask the Minister what local authorities will receive from the CLG formula grant next year and when his department will publish a definitive list of projects that will receive funding and those that will not?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is referring to the help that we will provide to local authorities under the Flood and Water Management Act. I understand that they will receive some £21 million next year, due to phasing in, but thereafter it will be some £36 million. That will help local resilience forums, which are local authority-based, to do all the work that is necessary. We believe that the £8.1 billion that we are providing for capital work on floods is a pretty fair settlement in light of the deficit that we faced when we came into government. It represents only a very small reduction on what was available for the previous four years.

Abattoirs: CCTV

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there are many factors other than compulsory CCTV; it is important to have vets working in all abattoirs and for inspections to take place at an appropriate level. I can assure my noble friend that any decision on whether to prosecute will be taken by independent prosecution lawyers; Ministers have no say in it. In the case that my noble friend refers to, the independent prosecution lawyer took into account previous court decisions which make it clear that evidence which has been unlawfully obtained cannot be used and will be excluded in such cases.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, given the alarming footage referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the disturbing report in the Independent last Friday, can we have an assurance that despite the decision made on court proceedings, not only will Defra’s commitment to animal welfare be reinforced rather than weakened, but the cuts imposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government will not impact on the ability of local authorities to carry out their important animal welfare role in monitoring abattoirs and markets?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, of course they will not affect the role of local authorities in that regard. What is important is that Defra, through the Food Standards Agency, will continue to make sure that abattoirs are operating carefully, and we will make sure that appropriate funds are available for that. We are also going to consult on whether we should look to a full costs recovery scheme for the costs of monitoring what goes on in abattoirs, but obviously that is something which has to be discussed with the industry.

Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on introducing this debate today. Like many noble Lords, I agree that it is timely, although it might have been even timelier tomorrow after having a chance to look at the Commission’s latest communication. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and others have reminded us, we helpfully had a leaked version of the paper some time ago. I do not know whether the Minister can inform us how similar the new document will be to the old one, but I imagine that there is a great deal in the leaked version that will continue to be in the version published today.

It has also been a very well informed debate with many Members of your Lordship’ House showing their knowledge of the subject, which in many cases goes back a long way. There has been reference to the past and the history of this policy. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, gave us a particularly knowledgeable account of that. Certainly, he reminded us of some of the worst aspects of the old policy, particularly in terms of export subsidies, which harm third-world countries, surpluses and the environmental negative effects of many of its aspects.

We know, of course, that some farmers benefited very much from the old policy but I am also aware that many farmers in sectors such as the pig and poultry industries and horticulture not only did not receive support but frequently found themselves exposed to the full blast of EU competition rules limiting state aids and so on. Therefore, traditionally one aspect of the policy was that it was highly discriminatory, even within agriculture, and that often had very unfortunate effects.

My noble friend Lord Wills quite rightly said that often there is insufficient opportunity to scrutinise the policy as much as we would like. I certainly share the frustration of some noble Lords that, particularly in certain parts of the press, the debate seems not to have moved on at all and that the policy is frequently described as though it has not changed, whereas in fact many considerable changes have taken place over the years. Some of those changes have involved a significant switch away from production support—the decoupling process that has been referred to—and the emergence of the Second Pillar. That was a very important development in shaping people’s attitudes towards how the CAP might evolve in the future—certainly in terms of it being more of an agricultural and rural development policy, a way of rewarding and incentivising good environmental practice, supporting modernisation and diversification, helping farmers to develop new markets, bringing farmers closer to existing markets through marketing and commercialisation help, promoting energy crops and alternative energy systems, and in general promoting agricultural and rural development in a way that did not discriminate against certain sectors of agriculture and did not have the ossifying tendencies that the old agriculture system certainly had. We have also seen a reduction in export subsidies, although some of those regrettably persist and have negative effects. We have also seen a declining share for agriculture in the overall EU budget, and I hope that that process will continue.

We have to look at the Commission’s proposals in the current context, the first aspect of which is the financial crisis and the budgetary crises that Governments across Europe are facing. I think that the public are willing to pay for environmental and countryside policies, but they want to see clear benefits and a clear delivery of public goods in the process. Obviously they want a policy that helps meet the overall environmental commitments that we have entered into. Food security is another important issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said; and the need for increased food production if world food needs are to be met is a very important aspect of this debate.

In the few minutes that I have, I would simply like to press the Government on their view as they approach these negotiations. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, when he says that people’s ideas on the future of agricultural policy are increasingly coming together. I think that there is more consensus than there used to be, and looking at some of the briefing provided to us today by the NFU, the CLA, the RSPB and so on, I was struck by many of the common aspects. There are certain differences, but there is more of a common approach than I recognise from the past. The Minister is therefore in a more fortunate position in starting these negotiations and finding an outcome which we hope will suit the UK and its needs.

In the leaked document—and I think it is likely to be maintained in the document today—there are basically three options, moving from an approach of very little change to one of more radical change. To which of the three approaches are the Government attracted at the moment?

Like one or two other speakers I would also like to raise the issue of co-financing. I understand that there is nervousness among our own farmers as well as farmers elsewhere that it could mean that if Governments do not put in their own share, funding could be at risk and there could be discrimination between countries of the EU. Yet at the same time we have seen some co-financing of regional and other schemes in the EU that can be successful. What is the Government’s thinking on this issue?

A number of noble Lords referred to large farms. I believe that we have to consider this question in a fairly subtle way. It is not just a question of big farms versus small farms but also of whether the subsidies to particular farms can be justified given the overall circumstances. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about what the public regard as unfairness in excessive payments. At the same time I would not want to say that it is the fault only of large farms as such. We have to look at this in a more subtle way and decide what should be supported and what should not.

I agree strongly on the point about agricultural research which a number of noble Lords mentioned. I hope the Minister will address that point. I would also like him to address the future for hill farmers and the LFA, a subject which I know is of great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and many others around the Chamber. We would like the Government’s view on whether these new areas of natural constraints are the same thing, or whether this is a definition that might go wider. I would also like to say very strongly that we do not want any of the environmental payments to be jeopardised. I hope that the funding cuts for Natural England which the Government are introducing will not undermine the good work that Natural England is doing with farmers in delivering environmental benefits.

I wish the Government well in these negotiations because they are important to our consumers, our farmers and indeed to all of us who love and value our countryside and who want to see a thriving rural economy within the overall economy of our country.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2010

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am pleased to present this order to the Committee. It will be aware that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Natural Environment and Fisheries presented this statutory instrument in another place yesterday. As the Committee knows, better regulation across government and its network of delivery bodies is an important tenet of the coalition Government’s drive for responsible and accountable policy and delivery. This statutory instrument seeks to ensure, formally, that the Marine Management Organisation adheres to a common standard of better regulation by adding it to the existing list of bodies that are subject to the legislative and regulatory format of 2006.

The principles of better regulation stipulate that regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted. I am sure noble Lords will agree that these principles must underpin the effective working of all our public bodies. The MMO has been following these principles since vesting on 1 April this year. The framework document setting out its remit and corporate governance responsibilities, as agreed by the MMO and its sponsors, states:

“As a government regulator the MMO must have regard to the five principles of good regulation … The MMO will have a risk-based, proportionate, targeted and flexible approach to regulatory inspection and enforcement”.

Although the MMO already complies with this, it is nevertheless important to recognise formally its commitment to these regulatory principles.

The Committee will also know that the MMO is the Government’s key delivery body for marine policy, bringing together management for a number of marine activities including fishing, nature conservation, planning, licensing and enforcement. Delivering functions on behalf of a range of government departments, the MMO is jointly sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence, and my department, Defra. The length and breadth of responsibilities that rest at the door of the MMO are huge and range from planning and fishing to aggregate extraction and pollution control. Its influence is felt not only locally but at a national and international level.

That is exactly what we—the Government, the Opposition and all parties—envisaged when the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 passed through Parliament. People right across the political spectrum worked together to put this important piece of legislation on to the statute book. For my part, now that we are in government we want to ensure that the legislation is enacted correctly. It is therefore right that the MMO adheres to the common standards of better regulation, and today this statutory instrument recognises its efforts. I beg to move.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the order and for explaining it. From the outset, I can assure him of the support of the Opposition for the instrument. It is good that, as a result of the delay caused by parliamentary business, the MMO could be consulted; obviously, it is right to add it to the list of regulators and that it should have to meet the key principles of good regulation which the Minister has enunciated.

As he said, the MMO was created as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. It is a cross-cutting body that brings together key maritime decision-making powers—planning, regulating and licensing activity—in the marine area. It has the overarching emphasis on and duty to the promotion of sustainable development. Generally, I strongly agree with the Minister that the Act and the establishment of the MMO are good news for the public, particularly with the establishment of marine protected areas, which have been described as doing what national parks did for enhancing awareness of the natural environment and countryside but this time in the marine environment.

The role of the MMO is very important in fulfilling the terms of the Act. Not surprisingly, the Minister will understand that I, as a north-easterner, very strongly welcome the establishment of the MMO in the north-east of England, with its long maritime tradition, its superb Newcastle University marine research department and, indeed, allied facilities such as the very long-established research facility, the Dove Marine Laboratory at Cullercoats.

I am also glad that the Government have a strong commitment to the MMO. Perhaps, via the Minister in this House, I could congratulate the Minister in the other place who spoke to this order yesterday. He admitted that in opposition he had concerns about the MMO, but he said firmly that his reservations had been resolved after visiting the organisation and that he now had nothing but praise for the motivation of the staff and their determination to make it a success. I, for one, very much welcomed the remarks that the Minister in the other place made in Committee yesterday.

Not surprisingly, I have concerns about the effect of budgetary cuts on the organisation. It was recently established, and it was to be a lean, mean and efficient organisation without lavish start-up costs. For that reason, we are concerned that it should not bear the heavy brunt of cuts in current circumstances, and that it should have the resources to carry out its work and responsibilities.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, again, I begin by thanking the Minister for his explanation of the regulations and for bringing them forward today. They are in many ways a continuation of an existing policy and approach, and derive from EU obligations. As the Minister explained, the targets needed to be updated for the immediate future. In responding for the Opposition, I simply raise a few questions that are largely stimulated by the Explanatory Memorandum. We know that consultation has taken place on the regulations, and I ask the Minister about the level of interest in the consultation and the overall responses to it. Is he happy about how extensive the consultation was and whether those who will be affected by the regulations heard about it and had a fair chance to give their views?

The Minister was uncharacteristically uncharitable yesterday at Question Time in referring to consultations under the previous Government. In my modest experience as a Minister, consultations were very important in arriving at and even changing government policy. It would be interesting to hear how effectively the Minister rates the consultation process that took place on the regulations.

At paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, mention is made of the targets being set higher to offset the exemption for small businesses. Were any problems created through that; were there any specific areas of difficulty? I am not sure what proportion of SMEs are covered by the regulations. Does the Minister consider that the burden that is now on SMEs through the renegotiation of the regulations is reasonable?

In paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government talk about longer-term targets being set. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an idea of the timetable for that process. In paragraph 7.7, mention is made of the revenue that can be raised. It states:

“Reprocessors and exporters are not compelled to spend the revenue in any specific way”.

Was any specific obligation on the spending of that revenue ever considered? Does the Minister have any further information about that?

In paragraph 7.10, the Government say:

“Most of the changes will have a negligible impact on businesses”.

I am happy to accept that that is the case, but since “most” is not all, it would be interesting if he could give us any information about what seem to be the most significant impacts of the changes.

Paragraph 7.11, to which the Minister referred, states that there is to be:

“The removal of the requirement on reprocessors and exporters to be independently audited”.

When I first read this I felt some concern, because independent auditing requirements are often extremely important. However, I understand from a later point in the Explanatory Memorandum that the regulators were happy with this change. None the less, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the regulators have any outstanding concerns about that. I realise that this may not be easy to answer, but can he say whether this requirement for independent auditing happens elsewhere in the EU, given that we are talking about EU regulations?

My final question is fairly basic but important. Can the Minister assure us that nothing in these regulations will affect negatively our recycling targets and the other environmental commitments that we have entered into? We want to be reassured on that point.

Once again, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced these regulations and for explaining the large element of continuity in them, which certainly seems to be in evidence.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the Minister’s speech, except for his excellent final paragraph, but I was caught in the Chamber, having intervened on what turned out to be a rather controversial occasion. Politeness meant that I had to remain there until it had finished. I should also declare an interest—two interests, really. I was the Minister who invented these regulations and drew up the environmental regulations that were accepted by the European Union. This is unusual, because these regulations were created by Britain and France together to avoid the interference in trade that had otherwise occurred. Therefore, the regulations are permissive in the means by which we meet the ends. It is a very British concept. I also declare an interest as chairman of Valpak, which is the largest of the organisations that help businesses to meet the obligations under the regulations. It is a not-for-profit organisation set up by British industry and covers about 65 per cent of those who have to meet the regulations. I declare an interest, but perhaps I also declare knowing something about how these things work, which is not easy because they are somewhat complicated.

I have to say that there is a real and fundamental disagreement with the way in which the Government have decided to proceed. Britain has managed to become not the worst operator of recycling—as the noble Baroness knows, we have not been very good in our recycling record—by having the most permissive system that you could possibly have. It is very competitive and we have managed to do this probably more cheaply than any other country in Europe. Last year, it cost British business roughly £180 million to meet the obligations. It is likely to have cost German business about £1.8 billion. That is the difference in the efficacy of our systems; this is not a heavy burden on our businesses. Indeed, we actually have a positive advantage, because we run the system so effectively. I have to say that that is because we went in for a good capitalist system—it is competitive. Anyone who provides services has to compete with everyone else; if you do not provide or buy the evidence of recycling at the lowest possible cost, they do not come to you, they go to someone else. There is a real reason for this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Quin]

In the consultation, did any of the responses raise some of the concerns that have been raised so interestingly today by the noble Lord, Lord Demon?

[Lord Henley]

“Demon”?

[Baroness Quin]

I think I said “Demon”.

[Lord Henley]

It is the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I think the noble Lord, Lord Demon, might be someone rather different. However, that might be for another life of my noble friend.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that is not the case at all. I have made it clear that we have consulted the Chief Scientific Adviser and he is happy with the consultation. What we are talking about at this stage is a consultation. I also make it clear to the noble Lord that the scientific evidence is clear and suggests that an active badger culling carried out on a sufficient scale—I emphasise the words “sufficient scale”—in a widespread, co-ordinated and efficient way over a sustained period will reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in high-incidence areas.

[Baroness Quin]

May I therefore ask the Minister, in view of his reply, whether there will be a cull or not, because there is confusion within the Government? At precisely the same time as the Minister of State was announcing to farmers that there was going to be a cull, the Secretary of State said that she would await the scientific evidence. Which is it?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there is no confusion in the Government at all. We have made it quite clear that we are consulting on this issue. When we consult, we consult for those reasons. We do not consult, as the party opposite did, having already made up our minds.

Subsidiarity Assessment: Food Distribution (EUC Report)

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, like others, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles for the work of the European Union Committee on this issue, and for the way that the subject has been introduced to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, reminded us of some of the background considerations to the procedure that we will be adopting today, which are very much in line with the debate held last week on subsidiarity issues as a result of the committee’s report. It was the first time that this kind of procedure had been presented to the House. Furthermore, while the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I often do not agree on European issues, I agree strongly that these provisions in the treaty are ones that should be used by national Parliaments. They were included to strengthen the role of national Parliaments in European scrutiny, so it is right that when either House of our Parliament feels that these issues are important, they should be fully aired and voted upon. Certainly, our own House of Lords committee has a very good reputation among national Parliaments throughout the EU for its scrutiny work. That is of long standing, as those of us who in the past were Members in another place or Ministers can testify.

Some of the considerations surrounding subsidiarity have been aired. It is felt it should come into play where legislation at EU level is unnecessary—although obviously the word “unnecessary” can be subject to different interpretations—where such activity can be promoted without following a legislative route and where it is better done by member states. As the Government put it in their Explanatory Memorandum,

“the EU should only act where there are clear additional benefits from collective efforts, or ‘EU added-value’, compared with action by individual Member States either individually or in co-operation”.

I believe therefore that the report makes a strong case. It is right to stress, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, did, that the scheme is voluntary and that the United Kingdom has not participated in it since the mid-1990s. None the less, although we have not participated, as EU members we are fully entitled to make use of the provisions that are available today in making our views loudly heard about this.

I also accept the case in the report that confusion can arise from the parallel operation in a member state of a national scheme and an EU scheme. I also agree strongly that the extent to which purchasers from the market contribute to the objectives of the common agricultural policy in the way that is pursued at present is questionable.

When I first saw the committee’s report I was quite startled because, like others, I remember the circumstances in which this measure came into being. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I was also a Member of the European Parliament—indeed I was a member of the agriculture committee in 1987 when this issue first arose. I remember the senior role that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, had in the European Commission at that time. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the circumstances then were very different from those of today. It was basically a measure to distribute high intervention stocks rather than purchasing food from the open market in the way that it has increasingly operated in recent years and seems likely to operate in the future.

I also accept the Government’s point that there are a lot of bureaucratic procedures involved in this process. It might be interesting if the Minister can say a little more about the costs of the scheme to those who choose to operate it and why that can be a disincentive to countries adopting the scheme in the way that it is currently provided.

I am glad that this debate is much more timely than last week’s debate. Because of the parliamentary Recess, the previous measure relied on the good will of the Commission to accept our view on subsidiarity. That is not a problem with this case, where we are in good time. I understand that, according to the Government, a final decision may not be taken until towards the end of next year. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.

I agree that national Governments and also local and regional authorities are far more appropriate to deal with this kind of issue. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, mentioned the north-east network in my own part of the country.

I hope that from what I have said so far it is clear that we support the work of the European Committee and support the Motions in front of us. The committee’s work is in line with the previous Government’s approach to this issue; there has been quite a history of consistency about this in the consideration in both Houses of Parliament in recent years. However, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, which has also recently considered this subject, has injected one slightly different element into the discussion. This is perhaps worth raising here and asking the Minister to comment.

The European Scrutiny Committee in the other place comments that in its view the argument is more about competence than subsidiarity. The committee accepted that where intervention stocks are relied on for food aid the Commission is competent to act, because of the workings of the common agricultural policy, but where the food is sourced from the open market—as we have heard, that is increasingly the case—the link with the common agricultural policy is much more tenuous. Therefore there does not seem to be an appropriate legal base which would confer competence to act. This is an important point and it would be useful to get the Minister to comment on it. As I understand it, the Government have so far said that there may be an issue of competence, but that even if it was then ruled that it came within the Commission’s competence under the rules, there would still be an issue of subsidiarity. In that case, of course, the Government would strongly endorse the view of the European Union Committee in this House.

Could the Minister also say a little more, as other Members have encouraged him to do, about the support that we might receive from other countries in this area? In the letter that the Minister recently sent to the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, he talked about a small number of countries but certainly more than one—even though only one country has been mentioned here today. It would be useful for the House to be able to consider any further details that the Minister has about that. It would also be useful to know when the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of the European Union will be received and considered.

I noted that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, saw at least part of the problem in a kind of grab for power and territory by the Commission. That might well be the case; however, the Commission makes the point in its Explanatory Memorandum that, as recently as 2008, 13 million people in the European Union apparently benefited from this scheme. Perhaps it would be interesting for the House to know where the majority of those people are. Is it in the new countries—the cohesion countries? Certainly, it seems that certain organisations and populations in the European Union were putting pressure on the Commission to continue this scheme, so perhaps it is slightly unfair to say, “It is just the Commission wanting to extend its territory”, although that may be an element in the equation. Also, has there been any pressure from charities in this country to participate, despite the consensus that seems to prevail that it is actually better to deliver such programmes nationally or even sub-nationally?

Finally, the Government make a strong case about this being a social measure and therefore not appropriate to the European Union. While I accept that argument on this occasion, I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised that I do not accept that all social measures are inappropriate at EU level. Indeed, to go back to the European Coal and Steel Community treaty of 1954, social measures were quite an important element in the help to the coal and steel community and to coal and steel-producing areas, so that actually has a long history within the European Union.

I note that, later on, the House will be looking at the European Social Fund after an excellent report that was also from the European Union Committee, so although our support for the Government’s stance on this occasion is genuine I hope that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition, despite the reservations about particular directives from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will none the less keep the pressure on the Government not to have such total hostility toward anything with a “social label” in the European Union. However, on this occasion, as happened last week, it is obvious that there is widespread consensus in the House and we are therefore happy to support both the work of the European Union Committee and its conclusions on this matter.

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

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in saying how grateful I am to both the noble Lord, Lord Roper, as chairman of the EU Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, as chairman of Sub-Committee D, for this report. I make it quite clear at once, as I think our Explanatory Memorandum made it clear, that the Government share the committee’s concern that the regulation concerned is not consistent with the subsidiarity principle. That means that much of what I say may repeat what other noble Lords have said this afternoon, because there has been general agreement around the Chamber. Still, it is important that it is on the record that these are the views of Her Majesty’s Government.

As the noble Lord, Lord Roper, made clear, the then European Community’s food distribution programme was introduced back in 1987 and its main aim was to help run down the stockpiles of basic commodities that had been purchased into intervention stores under the common agricultural policy. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, went on to stress that it was the stocks of butter, milk powder, beef, sugar, rice, all those mountains and lakes that we remember—I cannot remember whether it covered wine lakes, but it did cover a whole variety of mountains and lakes—that were released to charitable organisations in participating member states annually to distribute to poorer sections of the community.

As has been made clear by a number of noble Lords, we in the United Kingdom last participated in the scheme in 1998—everyone referred just to the mid-1990s, but I can give the precise date. We withdrew both because of the sharp decline in intervention stocks in this country and because of the high administrative overheads, for government and charitable organisations alike, which made participation unattractive. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, that we still believe that, under the scheme that is being looked at at the moment, there would still be high administrative burdens, which would make it unattractive. I also assure her that we are not aware of any charitable organisations having asked us to participate in this scheme, or, for that matter, to go back into the scheme after the withdrawal by the previous Administration back in 1998.

The main purpose of intervention systems, as my noble friend Lord Caithness and other noble Lords made clear, is to support market prices. However, a side-effect—in practice, it turns out to be the dominant effect—is to encourage overproduction and distract farmers from making market-based production decisions. Successive reforms of the CAP have reduced the role of intervention and, together with improvements in world commodity markets, have resulted in significantly reduced EU intervention stocks. Consequently, the Commission proposes to adapt the scheme.

The main stated purposes of the Commission’s proposals are to align the legislation to the Lisbon treaty and to modernise the scheme. The CAP is now more market-orientated and price support will play less of a role in future, so, as I have said, the accumulation of large intervention stocks is less likely. The proposal therefore provides for CAP funds to be used to purchase goods on the open market and for a wider range of goods to be purchased by participating member states on the basis of nutritional criteria rather than limiting them to the products for which intervention applies. The other major change is the proposed introduction to the scheme of cofinancing by participating member states. Under current proposals, this will be a minimum of 25 per cent of the eligible costs, with lower ranges of cofinancing, such as 10 per cent, applying to more disadvantaged areas of the European Community.

As before, participation in the new scheme—I think the noble Lord, Lord Roper, made this clear—will remain voluntary, so that, even if it goes ahead, the United Kingdom will not be obliged to participate. Providing effective help to disadvantaged people is clearly an important objective, but, as the Explanatory Memorandum explains, we remain unconvinced of the merits or the appropriateness of the proposal. In particular, we believe that the expansion of the scheme to procuring goods on the open market will mean that the new scheme is essentially a social measure—that is an assurance I can give to my noble friend Lord Caithness—which, by its design, would make it a matter for member states to decide rather than for the EU itself.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, a longstanding element of European treaties that is currently enshrined in Article 5 of the treaty on the European Union, the Government consider that the EU should act collectively only where there are clear additional benefits, or EU added value, compared with action by member states either individually or in co-operation.

We consider that social matters are a matter for individual member states, and that measures to assist the neediest members of society are more properly and efficiently delivered through domestic social programmes that take account of the prevailing situation and available funding in individual countries. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, for example, mentioned a scheme, Healthy Start, which is run by the Department of Health. I assure him that that scheme is still there; it is under review by the department and subject to a consultation about various changes in it.

I would like to mention national charitable organisations, such as FairShare. I visited one example of its outlets in the north-east, not far from the former constituency of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. Many noble Lords will know of the valuable work that bodies such as FairShare can do in distributing food to the less advantaged. To return to the north-east, I was grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said about the north-east food action programme. It is those kinds of measures—national from the Government, from local government and from charities—that we believe we should be looking to work. I commend those bodies to those who do not know about the sort of work that they do.

The proposal itself was discussed in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 27 September. That was followed, as I understand it, by technical consideration by officials. A number of policy and technical issues have been identified. At present—I give this assurance to my noble friend Lord Caithness—there is no qualified majority in favour of it. There might be a blocking minority against, but certainly I assure him that no member state at the moment actually supports the scheme; some oppose it for one reason, some for another. Also, as I understand it, the European Parliament has not yet given its opinion on the proposal.

The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, asked about the timescale. I assure her that we still have quite a long way to go before we get to any final decision, what with the European Parliament having to consider it and some sort of qualified majority having to be found on the Council, which does not seem likely.

In addition to subsidiarity, there are two main concerns among those member states. First there is the legal base.

[Baroness Quin]

I thought that the proposal reflected some of the amendments that had been passed in the European Parliament, so I am somewhat puzzled that the Minister says that the European Parliament has not considered it.

[Lord Henley]

As I understand it, the European Parliament has not yet considered the stage that we are currently at. It might be that it considered earlier examples of it. At the moment we are at the stage where it has been through the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, which talked in September about co-financing at the 25 per cent or 10 per cent level, but that has not yet gone on to the European Parliament. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Baroness to correct it. My point is that we still have quite a way to go before any of this gets through, which is why it is important that the views of this House and another place—and those of 26 other parliaments and all the Houses in them, should they wish, although we understand that only Sweden is likely to do this at the moment—should come forward so that we can reach various red lights, green lights or whatever, as appropriate.

I return to the concerns of the member states. First, I was talking about the legal basis. The new proposal is made under Articles 42 and 43(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the EU. This is similar to the existing scheme. These articles would be appropriate if the predominant purpose of the scheme was the supply of food from intervention. However, given the expected focus of the revised scheme on the purchase of goods on the open market, it is very difficult to argue that its predominant purpose is in line with the use of these articles as the legal base. A number of member states share our concern about that.

Secondly, the concept of cofinancing, which I referred to earlier, is strongly opposed by a number of currently participating member states that believe that the scheme, quite naturally, should be wholly community-financed. The Government believe that, were the revised scheme to go ahead, cofinancing would be very important to ensure that each participating member state reaches an informed judgment on how best to support its deprived communities, and because it would likely improve the governance of the scheme.

In conclusion, I emphasise that Her Majesty’s Government have not taken part in the existing voluntary scheme for many years and have no intention of taking part in the revised scheme if it were adopted. Given that there is presently no qualified majority on paper in the Council, there seems little immediate prospect of the proposal—at least in its current form—progressing that far. The effect would be that the existing scheme would continue to operate. I understand that there is a challenge before the European Court of Justice on whether the legal base for the operation of the 2009 programme is appropriate. That has yet to be heard. The point remains that it is not an activity that is best undertaken at EU level or, in our view, an appropriate use of common agricultural policy funds. Therefore, I stress that I welcome the committee’s report and support the Motion on the reasoned opinion.

Food: Labelling

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend always has the best suggestions. I did not say that we should increase the number of words on packages but, rather, that we should make sure that the wording on any package is user-friendly and can be accessed by as many people as possible. That is why we believe that voluntary, rather than compulsory, agreements are often the better way of addressing this issue.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, given that labelling is the subject of European as well as national decision-making, and given that the Government, like the Opposition, have said that they are in favour of clear labelling and a colour-coded traffic-light system, can the Minister tell me why Conservative MEPs voted not only against such a traffic-light system for Europe but against continuing such a system here in the UK? Should not the Government be consistent in pursuing policies in the interests of Britain and our consumers?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness will be aware that, although I was formerly a Chief Whip in this House, I have no responsibility for Conservative MEPs on the other side of the channel. However, we are continuing to negotiate on the EU food information regulations and will ensure that they are as user-friendly as possible. We will also try to ensure, for example, that it is made quite clear where meat comes from. Therefore, even if, for example, the labelling says that bacon is British when the meat itself comes from Denmark, it will also say that the primary product, the pork, comes from another country—that is, Denmark.

Rural Communities: Prince’s Countryside Fund

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, perhaps I should I begin by apologising for the state of my voice. Despite suffering the effects of a cold, I very much welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, and to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, on securing it and on introducing it in the way that he did. It has been frustrating that so little time has been available, but I hope that the noble Lord will at least find solace in the fact that the debate attracted such a large number of speakers, and was therefore certainly the subject of great interest.

We have been privileged during the course of the debate to listen to three very high-quality maiden speeches, and I congratulate all three new colleagues who have spoken in today's debate. Besides bringing a great wealth of experience, in particular to the rural issues that we have been considering, it was good that they come from very different parts of the country and therefore gave a good overall perspective of the important issues that we have been considering.

As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out, this debate follows and continues the themes from some of our previous debates just before the Summer Recess, including the debate on rural communities introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the debate on biodiversity in the UK introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. However, this debate rightly focuses on the new and, we hope, important element in rural and countryside affairs: the Prince's Countryside Fund. We on this side welcome the fund and agree with its aims. As the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said in introducing the debate, it is an initiative which presents an opportunity to draw attention to the very real challenges facing rural communities, and the importance of rural communities to the future economic and environmental well-being of our country as a whole.

The new fund has excellent precedents in the form of the Prince's Rural Action Programme and that other initiative of the Prince of Wales, a countrywide rather than countryside initiative, the Prince's Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, said that the Prince has trodden where Governments sometimes fear to tread. I know from my experience representing in the other House a disadvantaged urban area that the Prince’s Trust was brave enough to go into areas where banks and other financial institutions had singularly failed. Its record of helping people, particularly to start new businesses, has made a huge difference to many people in many parts of the country.

It is good that this new fund is concentrating its efforts on the hardest-pressed areas. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who has just returned to the Chamber, talked about defining more precisely the areas that are most in need of support and hit the right note in that respect. It is important that the fund helps areas where help is most needed. As a north-easterner, I was very glad to see that the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services scheme is benefiting because it helps farmers with administration and making the best use of IT. Broadband was mentioned by a number of speakers. It would be good if the Minister could say something more about the rollout of superfast broadband that noble Lords are keen to see implemented. I also welcome the Cumbria and Yorkshire Dales scheme which, despite the current difficulties, looks to the future of hill farming and, in particular, to the needs of new entrants with high-quality training. A number of speakers mentioned the Pub is the Hub scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, mentioned a pub that he felt is particularly worthy of praise, so I shall cheekily mention my local pub in Harbottle, Northumberland—the village where I have been living—the Star Inn. It is very much the village hub and, like many other pubs, plays a vital role in supporting the local area in enterprising ways and provides a range of valued services which would otherwise probably have ceased to be available to local people.

We know that problems in agriculture and in rural areas, such as outbreaks of animal disease or natural disasters such as floods and droughts, can crop up unexpectedly and sometimes with devastating consequences, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. I am therefore glad that the Prince’s fund is also channelling resources to crisis relief, building on some of the schemes we have seen and on some of the acquired knowledge about how best to deal with some of these very difficult situations.

I pay tribute to the way that we have already seen farms and rural businesses respond to challenges to diversify. I was very impressed as a Minister—quite a few years ago now—by the way farmers and others were working at adding value to existing products or using modern methods, such as the internet, to link up with customers, despite being sometimes physically far removed from them as they were based in fairly isolated areas. The recent publication by the National Farmers’ Union, Why Farming Matters, underlines this point. It states that,

“some 51% of farms in England have diversified beyond their core farming activities”.

I hope the Government will support and applaud this initiative.

Given that a number of wider rural issues have been raised in this debate, I shall add a few thoughts on some of the Government’s recent policies and decisions in the rural sphere. There has been concern about the abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities, which was mentioned in our debates in July. This chimes with one of the questions at Question Time today when we looked at the work of outside agencies being incorporated into departments. I have heard it said that because some current Defra Ministers are farmers or involved in farming, they understand these issues, but I would be very worried if decisions about the future of advisory organisations were to be taken on the basis of who happened to be Minister in a particular department at a particular time. One thing we know about government in Britain is that Ministers come and go. For all Ministers, whatever their background, we need to have good sources of independent advice.

Over the summer, the Government also announced the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales. I am concerned about this because we want to see the skills of farm workers fairly remunerated and recognised, and we certainly do not want to see a drive downwards to poorer conditions or a poorer level of wages. I am sure we will revert to this issue in future. There is strong feeling on the Opposition Benches about this.

One of the aims of the Prince’s fund is to reconnect consumers with the countryside. I applaud that and also applaud the involvement of various supermarkets in this initiative. I hope that they will enthusiastically embrace the idea of the supermarket ombudsman and will look closely at the price relationship between themselves and the farming community. This was referred to by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. I have never accepted the rural/urban divide in the way that some people have described it because people in both areas have common problems: making a decent living, having access to affordable housing, transport, good local services and so on and we all have a common interest in the future of our country.

I conclude by wishing the fund much success with its various initiatives and goals, and I again congratulate the noble Lord on giving us the opportunity to debate it and wider rural issues today.