Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Williams of Elvel]

My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships with other matters, but I should like to ask the Minister about my noble friend Lord Clark’s question on the cumulative 15 per cent, which was followed up by my noble friend Lord Judd. My understanding of the Minister’s reply was that it was a question of the interpretation of the Forestry Act. I have always assumed that the Government, who are responsible for the administration of the Act, have some idea of what it actually means. Will the Minister be kind enough to write to my noble friend Lord Clark explaining what the Government think the Forestry Act actually means in that respect?

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Henley, for their interventions this afternoon, and for the Secretary of State’s intervention in another place some time ago. I speak as one who would have supported the amendment in the name of my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, had the question been put.

Your Lordships’ House will be anxious to move on fairly quickly now, so I make one simple point as someone who has taken a close interest in the Forest of Dean in particular and in the general debate about forestry. I refer to the process of preparing Bills. We have heard about the huge public response to the proposals as they have been understood, or even misunderstood. Had the section on forestry been researched with close attention to the debates in your Lordships’ House in 1981 and in another place, almost all the issues that have been in the public domain and which have been debated so fiercely and strongly—although, I agree, not always accurately—would have put an amber light in the preparation of the Bill. Therefore, to save further embarrassment in government and policy, I gently propose that looking at what Parliament did on the previous occasion on an issue such as this would help in the construction of Bills.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief, but first perhaps I might follow the right reverend Prelate’s comments by saying that I have been puzzled from the very beginning of this Bill. I find it extraordinary that the New Forest has been protected by primary legislation dating from 1877 through to 1970, yet essentially a process of statutory orders can overtake and indeed overrun those original primary Acts. Therefore, my first question is how such Acts can be so easily set aside and whether one should reconsider the way in which consultation on legislation takes place.

My second and only other question concerns the impact of the Localism Bill. Those of us who care about the forests have now established that this legislation was very unwise. However, I am not clear whether that Bill will insist that decisions on forests are taken at the most local level. The regions where the feeling is greatest are the ones that are most closely related to the forests on which they depend. That is probably where the decisions should be taken, rather than statutory proposals being made centrally.

Let us bear in mind the lessons of this Bill—the deep lessons of how the British public hold forests as very dear and very important—and let us make sure that, when the Localism Bill emerges, there will be no attempt to go back to central control over the future of the forests.

Forestry Commission

Lord Bishop of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am not sure that there is a Defra Bill in the pipeline, but I cannot comment on that. We are seeking powers to take the appropriate steps with regard to the Forestry Commission and the forestry estate in the Public Bodies Bill. We are looking not at an immediate sell-off of the entire estate, but at a process that will take place over a number of years. My noble friend need not worry about that.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the rights—or, rather, the lack of them—of those who live in or by our forestry estates and of the reasons why Parliament in 1981, with the support of all sides of your Lordships’ House and the other place, exempted the Forest of Dean from, I use shorthand, “sale”, and thus the reasons why the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, my brother, will present an amendment to the Public Bodies Bill? I speak as a householder in the Forest of Dean.

[Lord Henley]

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

Rural Communities: Prince’s Countryside Fund

Lord Bishop of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, William Cobbett—not a favourite politician among the Bench of Bishops at the beginning of the 19th century, but a great conservative reformer—was one of the closest observers of rural life in his times. In supporting greater awareness of, and support for, the Prince’s Countryside Fund, we can learn a lesson or two from William Cobbett—to whom we incidentally owe the initiative of the publication of parliamentary debates, which became Hansard—who naturally thought Guildford,

“the prettiest, the most agreeable, and happy looking town that he ever saw”.

In October 1825, Cobbett journeyed through Surrey, and his account is in his Rural Rides. He deplored the demise of the yeoman farmer and the increasing social and economic gap between the farm worker and the newly rich squire, due largely, he argued, to the economic protectionism of the Corn Laws—eventually, as your Lordships’ House well knows, to be repealed by Robert Peel. My point is not antiquarian: Cobbett not only observed, wrote about and deplored the increasing crisis of rural poverty at the beginning of the 19th century, but he also analysed its economic causes and campaigned for reform.

The Prince’s Countryside Fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, calls attention, has three goals. The first goal is to improve the sustainability of British farming and rural communities, especially those in greatest need. We heard something about that in relation to upland sheep farming from the previous speaker. Analysis of the causes of contemporary rural deprivation—often hidden, even in affluent Surrey—will be part of this goal. Disparities today include the gap between the largely arable agricultural units, often in the eastern and southern regions of Britain, as compared with what is virtual subsistence sheep farming in the uplands and, again, the smaller, family dairy farming in the west and in Wales. There are also issues to do with the power of purchase of supermarkets and with rural housing, about which we have been eloquently addressed by an earlier speaker.

A further goal of the Prince’s fund is to support farming and rural crisis charities in emergencies. Before I was Bishop of Guildford, I was Bishop of Stafford, covering north Staffordshire from the border with Shropshire and Cheshire to the Peak park—the Staffordshire moorlands. That was at the time of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001. Staffordshire, after Cumbria and Devon, suffered devastatingly. Local livestock markets closed permanently. Farmers lost all their animals. It was not always noticed that on farms peripheral to the outbreaks beasts could not be sold or moved but still had to be fed. A farmer in this predicament said to me in a black-humoured way that he wished that I had brought foot and mouth with my wellingtons. Then at least he could have got compensation. Farmers could not leave their land; children were sent off to relatives so that they could go to school; churches and halls had to be temporarily closed; depression and suicide haunted communities. Clergy, doctors, social workers and the National Union of Farmers all had vital pastoral roles of support. Curiously, after I moved to Guildford—I trust that it was in no way connected to me personally—Surrey also had a contained, accidental outbreak in 2007 from a research institute in Pirbright, which your Lordships may remember. Local churches sent small hampers of goodies to the farmers concerned, not because there was a real need of food but as a gesture of concern. A farmer wept when he received one. The wider community was thinking of him. Pastoral care in rural emergencies is essential. Rural chaplains and pastoral care networks are at the heart of such care. The Prince’s fund will support such organisations as can offer this.

The other goal is to connect consumers with countryside issues. Cobbett, born in Farnham, knew the countryside from the inside. Today, this is not a matter simply of “townies” on the one side and the Countryside Alliance on the other; it is more complicated. In areas such as my diocese, most of Surrey and north-east Hampshire, people who work in the City or Canary Wharf, or who commute globally from Heathrow and Gatwick, like to live in rural villages. But the gap between the “newcomers” and the old villages can be vast. Churches are one place where bridges are made, where mutual understanding can be fostered. I conclude with a cautionary tale. After the foot and mouth outbreak in Surrey, I went to the reopening of a farm shop. The farmer told me that after Defra’s closure of his farm had been effected, with perfectly clear markings and notices of closure of footpaths and bridleways, some people—I am sorry to say, living locally—still insisted on crossing over the temporary barriers to walk their dogs and to ride their horses over affected land in spite of the clear danger of cross-infection. That demonstrated the disastrous lack of connection between many who now live in the countryside and the farming communities who work and preserve the countryside that people wish to live in. That gap is serious and I especially welcome therefore that goal of the Prince’s fund as well as the others.