Agriculture: Regulation

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, globally, agriculture faces some long-term trends. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, there is a growing population, climate change, changing diet and competition for agricultural land. One would have thought that there were good opportunities for agriculture in the EU, but the EU is going backwards compared with the rest of the world. Our yields are flat. They are growing in America, Brazil and almost everywhere but in the EU due to overregulation. It was madness of the EU to bring in the regulation on chemicals and pesticides when there was no alternative. As a result, billions of pounds of investment and innovation money has gone out of the EU, and particularly out of the UK, which was so advanced in this field, and has gone to America and Canada. Jobs and some of our best brains have gone there—and one cannot blame them when one lives in this highly regulated environment, as we do as a result of the EU.

In the report on innovation in agriculture that we are undertaking in Sub-Committee D, we have evidence from Rothamsted Research, that:

“The disjunction between restrictive regulation in the EU and the lack of resources for agricultural research and innovation is probably the biggest threat to the long-term viability and competitiveness of EU agriculture”.

My noble friend Lord Henley has a huge job to turn that round.

More locally, could my noble friend tell me whether there are any plans to change the highly overrestrictive sheep regulations as a result of foot and mouth disease? Having tags in both ears has caused huge problems, including animal welfare problems, as some of the lambs are running around without ears, having been tagged too early. I have just heard that on Exmoor the tags that have been used, which had been authorised, are now no longer acceptable and farmers have to buy new tags.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about farm inspections. They are highly costly and need to be restructured. But perhaps the greatest threat to farmers is the draconian subsidy penalties, whether for cross-compliance or anything else. Small farmers cannot tolerate that; they make mistakes quite innocently sometimes, and they are not the people to be persecuted, but sadly that is what happens. I hope that the Macdonald report will bring that to the fore and that the Government will change many of the regulations and the severe penalty regime that are currently in force.

Adapting to Climate Change: EU Agriculture and Forestry (EUC Report)

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lord Framlingham—the noble Lord, Lord Lord—on his excellent maiden speech and to welcome him to the House. Besides gracing the green grass at Twickenham, he is a great sportsman because he also captained the parliamentary golfing association and has participated in many other sports. He has also done lots of other things in his life. He has great experience, which he will bring to the House, in local government, having served on North Bedfordshire Borough Council and Bedford County Council before he contested the seat of Manchester Gorton in 1979 where he got over 38 per cent of the vote, and nobody has come close to that figure since then. He was realised as a good bet for the future, and he moved from a Labour stronghold to a fairly good Conservative stronghold in Central Suffolk which later became Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, which he served from 1983 to 2010. More important than that, he brings to this House huge experience in agriculture and, particularly, forestry, and we welcome him for that especially. He graduated from Christ’s College, Cambridge with an MA. Presumably he played rugby for Cambridge rather than for the rather superior Oxford, which I would have supported, although I did not go there. His knowledge of forestry will be important in the future. We welcome my noble friend. We all enjoyed his maiden speech very much.

Turning to the debate, I say to my noble friend Lord Henley that I sympathise with him because he has an utterly impossible job. Far too much is expected of Governments but Governments cannot manage the climate. There is too much sensational press reporting on climate change and utter confusion in the minds of a lot of people who cannot separate climate change and manmade or man-encouraged greenhouse gases. Underlying all that, there is a huge lack of scientific knowledge. What there is is often contradictory.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, talked about air temperature. Just to show that we are not all on the same side, I would rather welcome a change in air temperature and a little warming in Caithness. That would be good. After all, it was much warmer in the days of the bronze age, as can be seen from archaeological evidence. My noble friend Lord Teverson will know that from Dartmoor. I know it from Caithness. It was certainly warmer when my ancestors, the Norsemen, came over to this country and benefited by integrating with the Picts.

Air circulation, an issue on which we are short of scientific knowledge, concerns me more. We are told that because air temperature is going to rise it will be more stormy. But the storms that bring the rain to this country, mostly during the winter, arise very much because of the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. The wider that temperature, the greater the storms. If, as it is, the Arctic ocean is increasing in temperature, the gradient between the two temperatures is decreasing and the chances of storms are decreasing. We believe that that is what happened in the times of the Norsemen who went Viking. That could bring positive benefits but it could also mean that we will have very variable rainfall in the future. I am rather more sceptical than the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, as regards manmade climate change but I take the precautionary principle. I think that that is based on the fact that I am more of a countryman. I really believe that we have abused our planet in far too many ways.

On agriculture, the key to adaption, mitigation and changes for the future is the common agricultural policy, reform of which is essential. In her excellent introduction to the debate my noble friend Lady Sharp spelt that out clearly. However, what is more important about changing the CAP is the fact that it is the only way in which the EU will ever get close to playing a part—I hope a strong part—in feeding the burgeoning world population. I believe that to be a much more serious threat than manmade climate change. That is why paragraphs 68 and 69 of our report are so important and I welcome the Government’s reaction to that point.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Henley will work towards a reform of the common agricultural policy that is flexible because each area in Europe is different. Each area in the UK is different. Some of the solutions will need to be quite local. We have talked about the air circulation of the jet stream, which affected our weather this winter and brought on the early snow. Sutherland and Caithness are adjoining counties in the north of Scotland; one has hills and one has not. A local solution will be extremely important. Perhaps I may stress to my noble friend Lord Henley how worried some of us were about evidence that we received from the Commission, which seemed totally to lack comprehension that we are a maritime climate, unlike most of the rest of the continent. Therefore, our problems are different, particularly in the less-favoured areas.

As my noble friend Lord Framlingham said, there is a change of perception of forestry. There also is a change of perception as to how people view the countryside. That is why paragraph 150, in which we say that farmers and foresters must be compensated when they make a provision of public goods, is important. The Government gave a warm response to that recommendation. However, that is the easy bit. The difficult bit is how to value the provision of public goods. If my noble friend can say anything on that, it would be very helpful.

A point that has not been raised is regulation in agriculture and forestry. In our current report alluded to by my noble friend Lady Sharp, we took evidence from Rothamsted Research, which said:

“The disjunction between restrictive regulation in the EU and the lack of resources for agricultural research and innovation is probably the biggest threat to the long-term viability and competitiveness of EU agriculture”.

We will discuss that rather more fully next Tuesday evening, so I will not say anything more now.

I want to say a brief word about forestry, which was mentioned by my noble friends Lady Sharp and Lord Teverson. We do need more trees. That is essential not just for their significance as regards carbon but also for preventing the further degradation of soils. However, unless trees are profitable, they are not going to be planted. If they are not profitable, the taxpayer is going to have to subsidise the landowner or planter of the trees. That brings me back to paragraph 150, which I have just mentioned. Agriculture is one thing: you grow a crop and harvest it in the same year. When you plant a forest you are looking at what your grandchildren will harvest. Therefore anyone who is going to plant trees has to have confidence in the Government. As Governments change, we have seen time and time again that what one Government promise, the next may renege on. More importantly, the woodland owner has to compete with the Forestry Commission. As we discussed the other day, the Forestry Commission is both judge and jury in its own right. It controls anything a private owner can do and can set up in competition to the private owner. My noble friend faces a huge challenge in creating a climate in which people can have the confidence to plant trees for the future. It is necessary, but under the present structure with the Forestry Commission, it is not likely to happen.

I end with a brief word about innovation and research. There is no doubt that our research base, which, as my noble friend Lord Selborne said, has stood us in good stead, is now at severe risk. We were prime leaders around the world, something the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, knows far better than me. British agriculturalists did a phenomenal amount of good work in Africa and elsewhere. Unless we put more into research and allow farmers to innovate by ensuring that the resulting knowledge reaches farming and forestry people, I am afraid that we face a fairly bleak future.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, induces me to get to my feet, if only to correct him. He made that lovely, sweeping statement that all those on this side of the House are landowners and farmers, particularly those who spoke on 1 December. If I may correct him, I am not a landowner and I am not a farmer. I was a land agent. I acted for farmers, I acted for landowners, I acted for tenants and I acted for farm workers. Therefore I have no interest to declare and I do not fall into the category in which he sought to portray me.

We are all extremely grateful to see my noble friend Lady Byford back in her place and active again. She adds a great deal of common sense and a huge amount of knowledge to our debates on farming and the environment. I thought what she said was very soundly based, as indeed was what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said in Committee. I listened with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said. I found nothing new from what she said in Committee, although she did praise the strength of the arguments for those supporting her amendments in Committee. I would only praise the strength of the arguments against.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords that, because the House has made such good progress today, I was not present at the beginning of the debate. However, as my name is attached to the amendment, perhaps I may touch on two issues, neither of which has been mentioned since I have been in the Chamber. If either has already been mentioned, I apologise.

The first point follows on from what my noble friend Lord Clark has just said. The structure that the Agricultural Wages Board sets does recognise skills throughout this sector. The fact that many workers in many parts of the country are paid more than the legal minimum does not take away the need to have that structure. The requirements of agriculture are becoming more and more sophisticated at one end, but less and less sophisticated at another. At the higher end, those skills need to be rewarded. The structure provided by the AWB allowed individual farmers and farm enterprises to base their actual wages on a similar structure.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will know by now that every farmer you meet will tell you that every cost saving that he makes is immediately recouped by the supermarkets. One of my fears in this is that, once it is known that there is a reduction in the legal minimum, which sets a floor above which voluntary payments by employers stretch to quite high levels for some workers, the supermarkets and the big processors will say, “Your labour costs need to go down by the same degree as the legal minimum goes down”—that is, in proportion to the difference between the wages board minimum and the statutory minimum wage. For the total bill, that is an enormous amount of money and therefore a saving to the supermarkets. I know that the Government intend to address other pressures that the supermarkets put on the agricultural sector, but this will be one more excuse for them to lean on farmers to reduce their prices and therefore to reduce their wages. If the noble Lord wishes to start that process, there will be real dangers, and the skilled force will begin to disappear.

At the other end of the labour force, a lot of agricultural labour, and particularly seasonal labour, depends on migrant labour and is operated by a set of gangmasters. There is nothing wrong with labour providers, provided that they obey the rules. But one of the main ways in which the exploitation by some gangmasters of the workforce is identified is that they are not meeting the legal minimum set out in the Agricultural Wages Board regulations. Once that is seen—and it is a relatively simple thing to establish—all sorts of other abuses over conditions of health and safety, immigration status and tax and national insurance become apparent. As a result, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been able to clean up a lot of that end. It has been a very important way in which the authority can do so. If we remove that clear legal minimum, I fear that it is one less lever for us to clean up the supply of labour in what has been, in some parts, a very exploited sector.

There are all sorts of reasons why, historically, there is an attachment on this side of the House and in the Labour movement as a whole to the Agricultural Wages Board. I am a Dorset man myself these days, so I come from a great Tolpuddle tradition, but I am not simply relying on history. I am relying on the effect that the removal of this one remaining legal-minimum, sector-specific wage will have on the quality and quantity of the workforce in agriculture and how it is treated. In the end, if that happens it will be to the detriment of agriculture as well.

Forestry Commission

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, those who expect a rational debate on this, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, has mentioned, will be totally disappointed that we are limited to two minutes, which was the decision of the Labour Party. The recent debate on forestry has neither been measured nor rational, which is in large part due to the Forestry Commission itself.

I ask my noble friend Lord Henley to justify the role of the Forestry Commission today. It is funded by the taxpayer and has always made a loss. With its huge inbuilt advantages, it competes with the private sector for land in the production and sale of trees and timber yet, at the same time, it totally controls what the private sector can do, often through its overbureaucratic and costly regulations. The private sector must have an approved management plan to plant and manage woodlands in order to obtain grants from the Forestry Commission, which are often delayed. That only adds insult to injury for the private sector.

I recall that when we privatised water my late friend Nicholas Ridley, Lord Ridley of Liddesdale, made the bold decision to break up the river management authority organisation and separate the regulator from the producer. I hope that my noble friend will be equally bold in looking at the Forestry Commission. Who, for instance, would support the idea that the Bank of England should not only be the Bank of England but should run high street banks? Why is the Forestry Commission any different? It is not. It is acknowledged by everybody that we need to plant more trees in the UK but there is no way that those trees will be planted by the private sector unless it can be assured that it can produce managed, sustainable woodland at a profitable price. With the present structure of the Forestry Commission, that will not happen.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I agree with the general thrust of the approach by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am certainly not arguing for the status quo, although this body has helped to solve a number of acute cases for individual retired farm workers, farmers who desperately need the accommodation to attract further labour and local authorities faced with the housing crunch to which my noble friend Lord Clark referred, so it has been a useful institution. The demand is diminishing, but it is important that we know what will replace this body.

I will make an additional point to the Minister because it goes to the heart of the way in which we are dealing with the Bill. In Schedule 1—and the same will apply to some extent to other schedules—each body has a particular situation to deal with and the Government appear to envisage different consequences of the abolition of those bodies. It is important that this House knows what is in the Government’s mind to replace what has hitherto been an important, if diminishing, function. It is important that we have this in writing, not simply as a reply in the debate. Some of us argued for a Select Committee procedure that would have allowed that to happen away from the Floor of the House, if necessary, and on a different basis of consideration. In this, as in so many other areas, we need to know the total picture. I make a plea to the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Taylor, that as we go through the stages of this Bill, and it looks as though it will be quite a lengthy process, they provide us with that kind of information so that we can have a more rational debate. I make the point on this institution because it is one about which I do not disagree with the Government, but we need to know in all cases what is intended to replace these bodies.

[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 ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in so far as the Agricultural Wages Board has done a good job in the past, when it was badly needed. However, I cannot follow him in the rest of his arguments, except possibly his last statement, when he said that a legal minimum wage must be retained. Well, it will be retained, because there is the national minimum wage as the base floor. That solves the noble Lord’s last point.

Besides the national minimum wage, there are the working time directives and regulations that have emanated from and will continue to come out of Europe, as we are increasingly bound in our employment laws by Europe. I firmly argue that the days of the Agricultural Wages Board are otiose. It can all but be done by the farmers with the current legislation in place, which gives the workers the security that they certainly did not have when this came in 1948.

Nobody has really mentioned Amendment 21 on the agricultural wages committees. Nobody has sought to defend those—not even the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It is worth reminding the Committee of the hard work that these committees do. The only thing left to the agricultural wages committee is to appoint the members of the ADHACs. As we discussed in the last amendment, there are only eight applications for ADHACs, while there are 17 ADHACs. So a lot of people are wasting a huge amount of time and money. Perhaps it is the best thing that we get rid of them soon.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I do so in the same tone and with the same approach. The real point of these amendments at this stage is to try to ascertain what the Government’s real intentions are. What do they have in mind for the agricultural wages in the years ahead? This House has a high reputation because it is comprised of people who represent, often, the top of their professions—eminent people. As I look around and look across the House, I see so many people who know a great deal about this subject from the other side of the fence from the one that I occupy. I see a number of landowners from my native county of Cumbria. My only locus in speaking for this is that I started my working life under the Agricultural Wages Board and still remember when we used to glean The Westmorland Gazette—I think it was in October—for the advert that would tell us what our wage would be for the following year.

That was 50 years ago. I accept that times have moved on. However, as we heard from my noble friends Lady Prosser and Lord Whitty, there may still be a case for that certainty. My noble friend Lady Prosser made the point very clearly and graphically on the relationship between the small teams—often a farmer and his employee—that work on so many farms. It is difficult because they do work for a team; it is embarrassing and awkward for both sides. That has been the substance that has kept the Agricultural Wages Board going for the 62 years that it has been in existence. There may be a case for that certainty to continue.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, quite rightly made the point that 154,000 individuals are covered by the Agricultural Wages Board. However, it is much more significant than that, because the Agricultural Wages Board provides the yardstick and benchmark for many other workers in rural areas. While they might not be encompassed by the Agricultural Wages Board, they are influenced, and their wages determined indirectly by it. Again, we are talking about a great many people.

In the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I must say that one thing that has disappointed me most about the Agricultural Wages Board in committee issues has been the lack of consultation. I was amazed to read a letter from Mr Jim Paice, who I know well and respect a great deal. He is a thoughtful and considerate man. In a letter dated 8 September 2010, which was circulated to the members of the Cumbria, Northumbria and Tyne and Wear AWC, he responds to comments about a lack of consultation. The letter states that,

“we do not consider it would be productive to have a consultation on the proposals, although individuals will be welcome to continue to submit their views to Defra”.

That is not written in the same spirit in which Ministers have advanced their case in this House. I ask them to think a little more about this. With more consultation we are more likely to get a better result and a better conclusion. I hope that that negativity will disappear. As I say, I am very surprised that Mr Jim Paice wrote such a letter.

I stress the other main point that has been raised—that the Government argue that there is no longer a need for an Agricultural Wages Board as agricultural workers are protected by the national minimum wage. Of course they are; every worker in this country should be protected by the national minimum wage. However, as has been said repeatedly, that applies only to the basic agricultural wage, which currently is one penny an hour greater than the national minimum wage, so the amount is not great. However, modern agriculture is a highly technical industry involving a great deal of skill and often a great deal of expertise. That is recognised by the agricultural industry and is certainly recognised by the Agricultural Wages Board. While it is true that the national minimum wage would protect a worker on the basic rate, what about the five higher grades? What protection would people on those grades have? Mr Jim Paice states in the letter that,

“on the abolition of AWB, the six different grades of worker will not be retained, as agricultural workers will be covered by the national minimum wage rate, as for all other workers. It will be for individual workers and employers to agree different rates while taking into account experience and qualifications alongside the needs of the business and individual circumstances. Agricultural workers will continue to be protected in the absence of the AWB by bringing them into the framework of the National Minimum Wage”.

Again, I am worried by the tone of the letter. If I am right in my submission that the agricultural industry is a modern, highly technical industry, we need to encourage and reward skills. However, I submit that if we leave this matter to individual negotiations, bearing in mind the points raised by my noble friend Lady Prosser, there will be an erosion of skills in the agricultural industry.

I will not go on for much longer but I am probing the Minister to try to ascertain how the Government foresee the future for agricultural workers and related workers in forestry and other land-based industries. There may be a case for rationalisation but I seek reassurance that the Government have thought this through.

Subsidiarity Assessment: Food Distribution (EUC Report)

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of Sub-Committee D. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has given a very extensive introduction to this rather erudite matter. That is certainly going to shorten what I was going to say quite a lot and I am grateful to him. He is right to take us back to the history of the CAP, and it was perhaps right in the late 1980s and 1990s to utilise the surpluses that we had under the inadequate CAP policy of the time. But as he so rightly said, times have changed and reform of the CAP has taken place. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the committee’s report in 2008 on the future of the CAP, which states in paragraph 6:

“The mid-term review of the Agenda 2000 agreement resulted in the 2003 CAP reform, which marks the culmination of a gradual shift in farm support from product support to direct income support”.

So the CAP has changed, but that has not stopped some in the Commission trying to perpetuate the bad old ways.

A similar proposal to what we are looking at today was presented in the 2008-09 Session and the scrutiny reserve was lifted then. But the committee supported the then Labour Government in their opposition to the proposals and there was a blocking minority in the Council. Following discussions with the European Parliament, the Commission has tweaked its proposal and sent it back to us, and this is what we are discussing today. I would summarise the Commission’s proposal as grandiose empire-building by a few who wish to preserve their jobs in view of the 2013 spending review, which is coming up. I can see them all shuffling papers on their desks, looking to preserve their jobs.

There is no question in my mind that the justification put forward by the Commission is weak and very unconvincing. It fails on two grounds. It goes against the recent trend of CAP reforms, and there is the budget reform in 2013 that I have alluded to. It is quite wrong for the EU to be buying food on the marketplace rather than using intervention stocks. If the intervention stocks have dwindled, and rightly so, then the policy ought to be discontinued from the CAP point of view. If it is felt that this policy ought to continue, then—as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said—it ought to be down to member states and Governments, but it is a social policy and not a common agricultural policy. It also fails on the grounds of subsidiarity because there is no justification that the Union can do this job better than member states. The fact that it is voluntary and that Britain has not been participating since the mid-1990s shows that it is not something the Union ought to take up.

I have two questions for the Minister. When we held this matter up for scrutiny a couple of weeks ago, we were informed that the Council had yet to adopt a position. I would be grateful if he could tell us what the position is in the Council and whether there is still a blocking minority for this, and whether the Government are still of the view that this is a social policy measure rather than a CAP measure.

Queen's Speech

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friends on their appointment as Ministers, particularly my noble friend Lord Henley on going back into the job. I served with him in government some time ago; to see him back on the Front Bench is a delight. He has a difficult job at Defra. I hope that he will pay attention to what the coalition wants and that there should be no gold-plating. Defra has been notorious for gold-plating some of the many regulations.

I know that another aspect will be drawn to my noble friend’s attention. It was highlighted by this House’s sub-committee on agriculture and the environment in discussing animal testing to try to get a level playing field across Europe. So often gold-plating is not necessary in the UK but Europe is not doing the same as us, which leads to added costs. My noble friend has a difficult challenge ahead with CAP reform. That has been talked about, but to try to undertake CAP reform in a period when one has to feed a growing world population will be an even harder job.

I shed absolutely no tears that we see the end of home information packs. I fought them tooth and nail all the way through the House. They were a complete waste of time and money by the Labour Government.

I notice that the coalition will,

“deliver an offshore electricity grid in order to support the development of a new generation of offshore wind power”.

It says nothing about wave and tidal power. Can my noble friend say anything about the proposals for wave and tidal power, particularly those that will affect us in the north of Scotland on the Pentland Firth? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool talked about renewables in the north-west of England, but the north of Scotland is also an area where the grid system is absolutely vital to development.

I watched with interest the relief on the faces of those in the Labour Party as it lost power, knowing full well that it had landed the new Government with what is called, in rugby terms, the hospital pass. Yet again, a Conservative Government must pick up a worse financial situation than they handed on to a Labour Government, and this one is particularly bad.

Our Government want to make the banking system better,

“to serve business, not the other way round”.

The words that are missing from that are “the individual”. I do not think that the banking system serves the individual. However, I was delighted to read that the Government,

“will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and investment banking in a sustainable way”.

Many of your Lordships will know that I have been banging this drum since, I think, 1997, when I made a speech on the issue from these Benches when the Conservative Government were still in power. In 2008 I introduced the Safety Deposit Current Accounts Bill, which—if it had been agreed—would have saved the banking sector from some of the financial problems that it came into.

I am a great believer in separating the retail and investment sides of banking, but it is not an easy solution. It is fraught with difficulties and I wonder whether this Government have the determination to do it. Separating retail from investment banking means that in the retail banking system the depositors should retain control over their money. At the moment, as your Lordships will be aware, if you deposit money at the bank, it no longer belongs to you; it belongs to the bank. You become an unsecured creditor. This is the result not of government legislation but of court cases in the 1800s—in 1811 and 1848. If we are going to reform the banking system, let us not tinker with it but look at what the real problem is. The real problem is how the banks work. There has been much criticism today of greedy bankers and the lack of regulation. That is true to an extent but the real problem is that the banking system itself is wrong. That is what needs to be reformed.

The ownership of deposits must return to the person who made the deposit rather than to the bank. That will also affect the money supply and inflation. By and large, it is the banks that create inflation. My noble friend Lord Ryder was absolutely right to drum that into us. It is something that we must avoid. Separating retail from investment banking and getting the banks to hold money for their depositors and not use that money for gambling purposes will reduce the money supply and go a long way towards stopping inflation. That is a courageous and bold step if the Government will take it. I hope that they will, but I fear that they will not.