Forestry Commission

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the expected social benefits from the sale of Forestry Commission land.

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

My Lords, the consultation on the future of the public forest estate, published last Thursday, proposes new ownership and management models which will maintain the benefits which the estate currently provides. There are additional benefits, too. For example, transferring heritage forests to charities will allow stakeholders to have a far more significant role in their care and protection, and providing opportunities for community and civil society groups to buy or lease forests will bring high levels of local knowledge and enthusiasm to their management.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I want to ask him a very specific question. There is currently de facto access on foot to virtually all the public forest estate. There is de facto access by bicycle to virtually 100 per cent of the forest estate. There is also a great deal of access for horses. Will the Minister give the guarantee to the House this afternoon that if there were to be a transfer of land from the Forestry Commission, there would be no decrease whatever in any of those levels of access—on foot, by bicycle or for horses?

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

I should follow the noble Baroness by admitting that I, too, spend more of my time than is good for me watching football matches. In my case it is nowadays mainly non-league football in the north of England. It is a wonderful thing to do, but not to be discussed here today.

This proposal is one of the most mystifying of the proposals in the various schedules to the Bill. We have discussed a number of them so far and we have quite a few more to go. By and large, they fall into one of two categories. There are those which the Government want to abolish and simply close because they are no use any more or because the Government think their functions should no longer be carried out. That is not the case with this body. There are those where the functions are being transferred to the appropriate government department on the grounds that, in the Government’s view, that provides more democratic accountability for their functions than an arm’s-length body, a non-departmental public body or some other sort of arm’s-length body, as at present. That is not the case with this body because the information we are being given so far makes it absolutely clear that the functions will continue, that no staff will be made redundant and presumably, therefore, there will not be any significant savings.

Certainly, the Government have not provided any information about whether they think savings can be made. That is the second group of bodies—those which the Government want to reorganise because they believe that savings can be made. If sensible savings can be made by reorganising quangos, it is difficult to argue against that if the proposals are otherwise reasonable and sensible. However, that is not the case with this body. The functions are to remain, the staff are to remain and it does not appear that there will be any significant savings, although perhaps the Minister can tell us about that. What, therefore, is the purpose of the change?

Some suggestions have been made that it might be better for it to be part of a larger body with a wider remit, although the Private Member’s Bill being put forward would allow for that to happen anyway, as I understand it. So, why is it being done? That is the fundamental question that has to be asked and that the Ministerhas to answer. He has to provide some information about what new structure, what new system of transfer or merger of powers the Government want to bring about. If the powers are to be transferred to some other body, or merged with those of some other body, which other bodies are we talking about? Again, the information we have been provided with is incredibly vague. In fact, it is completely vague; it simply has not been stated.

It seems that this goes back, yet again, to the basic deficiency of the whole architecture of the Bill. Given the architecture of the Bill at the moment, and the way in which these bodies can be closed down, or merged, or have their powers transferred or whatever it is, simply by ministerial order, subject only to a relatively brief take-it-or-leave-it debate in this House and the procedures in the House of Commons, we have no alternative but to try to probe, in Committee, what is going to happen with each and every one of these bodies. That is why it is taking so much time.

As for this body, the information we have been provided which so far is absolutely and utterly inadequate and, unless proper information is provided by Report, the House would be entirely justified in taking this body out of the Bill.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

I intervene briefly to support the amendment of my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Taylor of Bolton, both of whom have long experience in the administration of football. Their introductions were wise and full of knowledge. It is interesting to find myself, yet again, on the same side and making the same arguments as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, as I have so many times during the proceedings on the Bill. He is absolutely right except in one thing. He said that the information provided by the Government as to the raison d’être for proposing this abolition was vague. It was not vague; it was basically non-existent. That is why we have these amendments at this stage.

I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Carlisle United Football Club. I pay particular attention, in that role, to the safety of the ground and of the crowd. Before I venture down that route, I can say that I discussed this proposal with people at various levels of football administration and they are unanimously bemused and mystified. The Government seem to be saying that they are in favour of the work of the FLA but the FLA should not do it. Yet, on the other hand, it is unclear what is the alternative body so to do, as my noble friends have argued this evening.

On the importance of the directors of football clubs to the safety of supporters, I take a great interest in the safety aspect. I regularly take fans around and explain what we do and what we are required to do to ensure their safety. At virtually every home match I pay a visit to the safety room and discuss with the safety officer and his staff what is happening and ask whether everything is okay. It is interesting that, when I take groups of fans around, the safety officers tell the fans that, if you are going to be taken unwell, the place to do it, if not at hospital, is at a football ground because they are very safe, physically. We have medical and ambulance staff, and we always have paramedics and at least two doctors—one for the crowd, one for the teams. A great deal of attention is paid to the safety of fans. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is in his place. I have seen him at the same football ground and I will very happily take him to see the safety work that we do at Carlisle United.

My main thrust is to try to tease out of the Minister what he has in mind. The FLA has, perhaps, not struck strictly to its remit. It is the Football Licensing Authority. Its job is to co-ordinate and to make sure that standards exercised by the licensing authorities, which tend to be the local authorities, are standardised and up to standard. That applies not just to football grounds. There have been many examples of the Football Licensing Authority assisting other sports with their stadia, almost ex gratia, and, in doing so, it has protected the supporters of other sports.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He knows my declarable interest and he also knows the very high regard in which I hold him and the role that he has played at Carlisle for many years. I can tell other Members of your Lordships’ House that he is held in extremely high regard. What I am not entirely clear about from the noble Lord is not the history, which was well rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, or the hugely significant difference that the FLA made 20 years ago and built on, but what he thinks would happen to safety at Carlisle if the FLA were abolished. Surely he is not trying to argue that safety at Carlisle United would diminish as a consequence. In which case, what is the point that he is trying to make for the Committee, not 20 years back but 20 weeks ahead?

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

The noble Lord is very perceptive. I am just about to deal with those points. I compliment him on the excellent work he did when he was chair of the Football League. It was much appreciated. He was able to bring to that role the discipline and vision that we all respect.

The key point I want to turn to now is what the Government have in mind when the FLA is abolished. At one stage, there was talk that it would be taken in-house by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I have serious doubts about how viable that would be. The alternative is to look at the safety of sports grounds. I am in favour of that because the point I was making was that the FLA has in the past performed this job which is outside its remit. It would be helpful if all sports grounds were regulated by the same body. I am trying to tease out of the Minister whether that is what the Government are trying to do. If they are, will they give us some ideas about the funding? It is not only about the regulations. One thing the FLA did was to work with City & Guilds to have an NVQ course for people who work in safety in grounds. That is the sort of thing that we ought to be encouraging.

This is not clear. We want some clarity because at the end of the day we do not doubt that the Government have in mind some agency to provide this and to guarantee this standard across the country, but many of us would like to see it right across sports.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lady Taylor for allowing us to debate the Football Licensing Authority. My noble friend Lady Taylor described supporting Bolton Wanderers as being a mixture of highs and lows; of course, as a supporter of Birmingham City, I fear it is usually all too low and very few highs.

I want to start by paying tribute to the Football Licensing Authority. There is no doubt that safety issues are very important in our football grounds and that there has been a huge improvement over the years. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said, there has been an improvement in overall safety culture. I believe that the development of stewarding by the clubs themselves has enhanced the development of a secure environment in a non-confrontational way and that we have seen a big improvement in facilities. However, with all the improvements that have taken place, can we say that the problem has gone away in its entirety? I do not think it has. There have been some incidents—I am sorry to say at my own football club in a derby against Aston Villa only a few weeks ago—where there were issues of concern about safety. That suggests to me that we can never be complacent. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, is that however much—

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newton, because I want to pick up some of the themes which he touched on which I thought were worthy of further reflection. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing the debate and for the manner in which he did so. It was very reasoned, trying to tease out answers. Indeed, he has probably posed most of the questions which I would pose.

I also want to take this opportunity to add my tribute to Stuart Burgess. I worked with him very closely in the days when I was chair of the Forestry Commission. We met regularly, and I found him a tower of strength. He was a most admirable individual, a very knowledgeable man and, above all, a real champion for the countryside—not for any particular vested interest in the countryside but for the people in the countryside, especially the disadvantaged. It is interesting that the report which is imminent, probably the last report from the commission, will be on that issue.

I am a little surprised that the coalition is proposing that action. I read the local papers, as does the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We probably read the same local papers, after we have read the back page, where we share a common interest. I am always finding the coalition partners, whether it is in Penrith and the Border, Westmorland, or wherever, appearing to champion the rural areas and saying that the Labour politicians from the west of the county—although they represent huge rural areas—have no concern for the rural areas. That could not be further wrong.

Indeed, as we have heard, it was the Labour Government who established the Commission for Rural Communities, which I believe did a great deal of good work. The great advantage was that I frequently met Stuart Burgess on the train going on a fact-finding visit, or going to hold a public meeting, a public consultation, in some village hall on housing, broadband, or whatever. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as a Minister I certainly found it incredibly valuable to be able to call in experts, especially people who were as independent as the chair of the Commission for Rural Communities. It was very useful for a politician to be able to call these people in aid because one of the things I found was that—this is just a fact of life in a sense—any politician has a certain struggle, not only with his opponents across the Chamber but, inevitably, with his own department. His own civil servants may have slightly different interests in certain respects than he may have. Indeed, they may be right, because they are there for the long term and most politicians are there for the shorter term.

What I found interesting, and the issue that I would pose to the Minister, is this. I cannot imagine civil servants in a unit in Defra going out into rural communities on winter or even summer evenings, going to village halls, meeting ordinary people and listening to them, bearing in mind that, because of the nature of the occupation, the overwhelming majority of those civil servants, most of the policy people and the people with the real authority are based here in south-east England in the Greater London area. I simply do not believe that they will be going out and collecting the information for themselves. I believe that if the Government really want the big society notion to work, they are really going to have to engage with people and to communicate with them. Quite honestly, I believe that members of a commission are much better at doing that than civil servants in Defra or in any other department.

That brings me to the second point that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made. It is a killing point. It is about who is the lead authority. Let us take broadband, which has been mentioned several times. Broadband in rural areas is difficult, but it can be piggybacked on the school network. In Cumbria, the Member for Penrith and The Border has led a campaign in the north of the county to try to get broadband, quite rightly, into these rural communities. Defra will actually have very little authority when the execution of this plan comes to the fore because, quite frankly, it is not Defra’s responsibility. It is another government department’s responsibility. We heard about the power of the Under-Secretary of State, but it is more than that, it is the power of the civil servants, with their pecking orders, as well. I believe that rural communities will lose out by this abolition.

I think it was my noble friend Lord Knight who made the point about listening. I hope that the Government will listen especially to people such as Geoffrey Lean, who for many years has been the finest environmental journalist in this country and for the past 40 years has been prepared to take unpopular stances against Governments of all political hues. I thought the quote that my noble friend used was most telling, and I hope the Minister will not dismiss this and will listen to some of these points of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester]

I shall speak also to Amendments 35, 36, 38 and 48, which are grouped with this one. Amendment 29 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who apologises to the House that she cannot be present today. I declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire and I apologise to the House for it having slipped my mind to mention this interest on the previous amendment.

The public bodies within the government department of Defra are what we are discussing today. Some, as the previous amendment showed, go to the heart of the Government’s strategic vision for the countryside. I concur that we may well need to look at those issues later as this legislation goes through the House.

One could probably describe the bodies that I shall refer to in relation to this batch of amendments as not of strategic importance; this is more of a tidying-up exercise. Nevertheless, it is important to bring them to the attention of the House and to ask the Minister to try to clarify what he thinks will be the work of the department, how it will be structured and how the activities undertaken by these bodies will be done within the Government, either by independent experts or within his own department as advisory committees.

Amendment 29 concerns the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. As the Minister said, it is recognised on all sides of the House that the deficit that has been created is consequential on the banking situation, and all sides of the House have proposals to tackle the deficit. We on this side were looking at that committee as a key one to tidy up and abolish in this period. It has not sat for over 10 years and, when it did so, it was largely made up of members of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, which has been instrumental in providing advice to Defra and indeed does so now as part of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which has been carrying on the work of that committee to great advantage. I understand that the group is looking at draft replacement statutory instruments to be brought in on the end of tenancy valuations, concerning such erudite matters as residual manurial values—before all eyes mist over in a glaze of appreciation—and the volatility of fertiliser prices that make this job so important to the nation.

Amendment 35 is on environment protection advisory committees. On these, we understand that the aim is to establish more flexible non-statutory engagement arrangements at a more local level. The Environment Agency must be able to engage more actively locally with society, the public and business. Effective stakeholder engagement and partnerships are key to successful delivery on the ground. With these amendments, we are seeking to engage the Minister to clarify the successor arrangements that will be put in place. We understand and agree that the design of the detail of this new approach is an important next step. The Environment Agency will be working closely with the chairs and members of the current committees to develop thinking on how best to maximise future local community engagement and to ensure smooth transition with partnerships and local stakeholders. Can the Minister tell us what stage these discussions have reached and clarify that, as this Bill passes through its stages in this House and is enacted, these new arrangements will be programmed to come into being in parallel with these committees being wound up?

Amendment 36 concerns Food from Britain and is a tidying-up exercise, as the body has already been administratively wound down. However, once again, it would be instrumental and helpful to be told what headway the successor arrangements are making with the activity that was carried out by Food from Britain. Looking to my interests in the farming industry, I know that that body has been very important in the past in promoting food from Britain both within this country and overseas. It would be helpful to understand how the successor bodies are being taken forward.

Amendment 48 concerns regional and local fisheries advisory committees. Will the Minister advise the House on the successor arrangements in that regard? I beg to move.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 38, which concerns the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. I do so in the same spirit as my noble friend on the Front Bench in that I seek to ascertain whether the Government have the right processes in place to take over any jobs that this body may have undertaken. It would be foolish of me to oppose the abolition of this committee, as we stopped it meeting under my watch as chair of the Forestry Commission. I remember it well because we reviewed all our advisory committees and considered that there was no real justification for the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. According to the Minister’s Answer to a Parliamentary Question, it has not met since September 2005 and fell into abeyance in June 2006 when the members’ terms of office expired. In the second part of the Parliamentary Question, I asked what the cost of the body was. The Minister replied that it had cost £625 since November 2005, which is about £125 a year. I suspect that it does not cost that much and that most of that money was incurred in winding up the body in the latter part of 2005 and in 2006, so in essence it is a no-cost body. That is an important point.

I spent this afternoon looking at the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill on 5 August 1919—I was able to do so in view of the delays incurred when another matter was being discussed in the House—which set up the Forestry Commission. It is interesting how much wise debate took place when the Forestry Commission was being established. One thing that was debated at great length was whether Scotland should have its own, separate Forestry Commission. That has not changed. Almost 80 years later devolution took place to a certain extent and great powers were given back to Scotland and to Wales, as well as to England, to run their part of the forestry estate. Flexibility was also built into that legislation, which was then carried forward into the subsequent Acts affecting forestry. There was no Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee; it was simply a central advisory committee. I have never been quite sure why the Government are so intent on abolishing it.

I come back to my other point about the big society, which seems to be the Government’s underlying philosophy. This committee was a radical proposal for the time, in 1919. A very radical and progressive Liberal Prime Minister, Lloyd George, was trying—

[Lord Henley]

In a coalition Government.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

Perhaps the coalitions in those days were a bit more radical than the current one. But we will let that lie.

That advisory committee was a link in the new concept of state forestry—forestry belonging to the citizens—being challenged by and running side by side with the private forest interest. The Act said that between six and eight members of the advisory committee would be appointed after consultations with forest owners—who I suggest were not exactly supporters of the Labour Party or the Opposition—and that six to eight would come from the timber merchants and allied trades. It was a genuine attempt to try to draw in expertise and to be aware of the interests not so much of those who were involved in state forestry but of those who had great knowledge of the industry. It certainly served the state forest service very well, helped to build up the Forestry Commission and also helped private forestry. That is one reason why, even today, a large body in private forestry wishes to retain the state forest service. However, we will come back to that in later amendments.

I am simply suggesting that this is perhaps a little more than tokenism. Perhaps it is just tidying up—I concede that straight away—but if the committee does not cost anything, why abolish it? Interestingly, the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee was not set up until 1939, when there was the threat of war and the need for timber. It was established to try to ensure that that need was met. It resonates today that the first edict that it set out, facing the demands of war—it sounds obvious now—was that one should go first for the mature timber, then for the semi-mature timber, and, lastly, for the timber which should be used only in dire emergency. It classified the various parts of the country as to where the main felling should take place. It is relevant today that the two areas that the committee singled out for more or less immediate felling, because the trees were mature, were the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. I was interested that the Business Secretary in the other place, Dr Cable, who I think has a cottage in the New Forest, said recently that the New Forest certainly would not be privatised. I know also that the Forest of Dean is of great concern to my noble friend Lady Royall. We should bear in mind that forestry is a long-term game. It is many years since the end of the war, and those trees that were replanted just after it are now coming to maturity.

I will make a further point about tokenism. When the 1919 Bill had its Second Reading in this House, much of the discussion was about devolution. The term was not used then, but that was what the discussion was about. One of my early tasks at the Forestry Commission was to devise a system of governance that allowed us to have a devolved forestry enterprise, yet at the same time keep a GB entity. We did not have a sufficient critical mass of timber in the three separate countries to sustain a viable body. We had a lot of difficulty with this until we discovered that, just as there was a central advisory committee, it was possible under the original Act to establish three national advisory committees. By reviving these committees that were there in statute, we were able to form a system of governance that has withstood almost a decade and, depending on this Bill, will probably stand the test of time for a while longer. My overall point is that if you have a system of governance with a certain amount of flexibility, it will allow you to deal with contingencies that are unexpected at the time, but which occur in long-term businesses.

I will make two or three further points. The reason why the Forestry Commission and the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee were established was that in 1919, after the war, only 4 per cent of the land in Britain was covered by trees. That figure was almost the lowest in Europe. Over the past 91 years, it has increased to 12 per cent. One may not think that is a huge rise. However, bearing in mind the long-term nature of forestry, it is true that Britain is one of the few countries in the world—if not the only country—that has reafforested. It is quite remarkable, and is recognised by bodies such as the United Nations and by countries such as China that are trying to move into the reafforestation process. Bodies such as the advisory committees have been very helpful to the Forestry Commission in developing that expertise.

My next point concerns the flip side of this, which is timber. We still use a massive amount of timber, even in this world of plastic and synthetics. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture in 1919 told noble Lords of the day in this House that Britain imported 92 per cent of the timber that it used. The situation has got better—but not a lot. We now import in the region of 85 per cent of the timber supply of this country. This is an important reason why we need advisory committees. We are trying to establish timber and wood-using industries in this country. These are often very labour-intensive. When these companies are considering establishing themselves in the UK, their first question is: can we guarantee a sufficient supply of timber? They almost always come to the Forestry Commission—often through its advisory committees—and say, “Will you guarantee us that supply of 30 or 40 per cent?”.

I cite as an example the quite large wood-using power station that was built on Teesside. People would not have gone ahead with that if there had not been a sufficient supply of timber from the state forest to guarantee a critical mass. One might ask, “Why just the state forest?”. The answer is simply that the elasticity of supply and demand very much applies. Timber prices go up and down. When they fall, any private owner thinks, “I am not going to put my timber on the market. I’ll withhold it and, when the prices rise, I’ll put it on the market then”. I accept immediately that that makes sense to the forest owner. However, it does not make sense to the timber and wood user, whether it is someone making pallets, chipboard, paper or whatever. Therefore, we need that critical supply. Is the Minister confident that without advisory committees—we should remember that this is only an advisory committee—there will be sufficient advice for government?

My final point relates to one that I made earlier and it concerns the amount of forest cover. Again, when I was at the Forestry Commission, we decided to look at carbon sequestration and the question of meeting our carbon demands. I start with a couple of statistics which I have used in this House before but which I think are worth repeating. Twenty per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are due to deafforestation, and that is equal to the total emissions from the world’s transport industries. Reafforestation is a win-win situation and, because we have reafforested our country to a certain extent and are acknowledged as having done so, we believe that we have a role to play. However, that role is effective only if we have advisory committees.

In order to challenge ourselves on that premise, we established an eminent advisory committee to look at the issue under the chairmanship of Professor Reed. The committee was composed of foresters, climatologists and scientists. We basically came up with the recommendation that a great deal of carbon capture was involved in afforestation. The committee came up with the second statistic that I shall cite to your Lordships. A 4 per cent increase in tree cover in this country would allow us to capture 10 per cent of our carbon emissions. It is something that the previous Government committed to do and I hope that this Government will pursue it. However, without advisory committees, it would not have been possible to come to that conclusion.

I simply ask the Government to bear these points in mind. Instead of abolishing the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, which I view as tokenism, why not leave it as an advisory committee and it can be used for some unforeseen contingent problem that may occur in the future?

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, I defer to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Clark, for his distinguished period as chairman of the Forestry Commission. He has made a very powerful case for the role that forestry plays, whether in the public or the private sector. However, the question for the Committee today is whether the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee will contribute to carbon sequestration and whether it will add to the contribution that forestry makes in this country. A moment’s thought suggests that a committee that has not met for quite a long time is perhaps past its sell-by date.

Having said that, I do not want to denigrate in any way the contribution that forestry makes to land management and to meeting some of our essential needs. It is very important that the forestry estate be increased. Whether the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee has a role to play, I rather doubt. Looking at this group of amendments, we recognise also that the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, reminded us, has not met for over 10 years. I think that we can assume that that is a committee that has also met its sell-by date.

I speak, very briefly, to draw attention to Food From Britain. I have enormous admiration for the work of my late friend Lord Walker, who created Food From Britain when he was Minister of Agriculture at a time when he was appalled by agriculture’s inability to react to the markets. We had been used to the socialist concept of marketing boards. The farmers—I have to declare an interest, as a farmer and an apple grower—were lamentably incapable of reacting to the needs of supermarkets as those were evolving and to the demands of the market. He pointed out that, unless we had an organisation within Government—within the Ministry of Agriculture, as it was then—that could relate the farmers’ priorities adequately and make farmers more aware of the realities of the market, we would lose out to our competitors. That was very successful.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lady O’Cathain is not in her place because I remember vividly that she was one of the five advisers that Peter Walker—as he was then—appointed. While recognising that all good organisations have to recognise the realities of time, I would not wish this provision, which will consign Food From Britain to history, to go without record. I am personally enormously grateful for the contribution that it made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

I just want to make myself absolutely clear. The Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee was not set up until 1939. The original Act did not include such a body, but it did include an advisory committee that could be used for different purposes. My point is: if it is not costing any money, is it not useful to have in your armoury an advisory committee that can change its interest to face the problem that you may have to deal with? That is the thrust of what I am arguing.

[Lord Henley]

I see things differently from the noble Lord. If it is not doing anything, if it has not met since 2005, if it is what I have described in Monty Python terms as a dead parrot, why do we not get rid of it? We do not need to have it in our armoury. Should we need such a thing again, we can set up an appropriate panel as necessary. It is not necessary to keep it going as the noble Lord wishes.

We have dealt with quite a few dead parrots. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, would accept that they are dead, dead and very dead, particularly the one that has not sat since 2005.

I now turn to the two remaining bodies: the environment protection advisory committees and the regional and local fisheries advisory committees. They are statutory committees that advise the Environment Agency. The Government's aim in proposing the abolition of those committees in Schedule 1 is not to remove that advisory function. Indeed, both committees have provided valuable advice to the agency, and it will continue to need that advice. However, having two sets of committees on a regional, statutory basis creates a degree of inflexibility and inefficiency that is now proving unduly restrictive.

Defra now wishes the Environment Agency to establish more flexible non-statutory arrangements that will enable better local engagement of all interested parties at the catchment level, including in delivery, together with a more integrated approach between environmental protection, conservation and fisheries. Such a structure will have the flexibility to evolve as needed, without the constraints of a prescriptive statutory remit at the regional level, and will better address local priorities while working with partners and communities to deliver improved local engagement. That will enable civil society to take the lead where appropriate, rather than continue the current focus on advising the Environment Agency.

I hope that noble Lords will accept that. I appreciate that those two bodies are slightly different from the earlier ones, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept my basic premise that certainly three out of the five are very, very dead parrots indeed. I therefore hope that he will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, I follow in the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who moved this amendment in a very moderate way. He said “necessary” provision. The role of the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees is very limited and focused. Nevertheless, it is critical to the individuals affected. Indeed, over the years the committees have helped greatly to facilitate on the one hand the evils of tied housing and on the other hand the needs of the farmer to get access to his tied house for his necessary employees. So there is a real difficulty there. We are talking about agricultural workers, but the tied cottage also applies to other related employees, such as gamekeepers and gardeners. I am conscious that tied-housing problems remain in urban areas, but the problem is probably not as great in those areas because there is more alternative accommodation in the form of affordable housing, council housing, and so on. In many rural areas the provision of affordable housing is quite low. So the demand is there. This may not be the vehicle to meet the demand, but we need to be reassured that the Government have thought this through and are certain that the new system that they need to put in place will meet the necessary requirement to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred.

I well remember the Labour Government’s 1976 Act at that time, how it seemed to be a major step forward and how it increased the work of the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees. Over the years the numbers have clearly fallen and the system seems to have worked, but the housing problem in rural areas is deteriorating. Increasingly, there is a demand for people to live in rural areas, a demand for second homes, and a demand for holiday homes as well. Often these are not only the modest cottages that one was used to in the past but increasingly ex-council houses as well. I see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is here. He is aware that in parts of Cumbria many of these council houses are now used as holiday homes, so the reservoir of affordable housing is decreasing.

All Governments have recognised, in a different sense, that servicemen leaving the services should have priority in affordable housing. The decrease in the number of available houses for rent in rural areas plus the increasing demand for the remaining houses lead us to ask the Government whether they have thought this through. I can see their feeling, need and desire to get rid of the statutory bodies and understand it completely, but we must be convinced that the alternatives of the big society and localism, which the Government seem to espouse so much, will apply. I see nothing in the Bill or in what I have read to convince me that this has been thought through, but I remain to be convinced by the Minister later this afternoon.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I rather rashly intervene to express my general support for the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I declare an indirect interest as my wife is a member of the planning authority in the area in which we live—Braintree in Essex—and I know that some of these problems occasionally land up with that committee. I am not an expert, but I think what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about the need for some kind of expert advice in areas where the issue is whether there is an agricultural need is important. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench can meet it.

--- 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.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate on these amendments, to which my name is attached. I will not detain the Committee for long. I declare an interest in that 10 of the happiest years of my life were spent working for Farmers Weekly, during which time I gained a lot of experience of the work of the Agricultural Wages Board. I was provoked to intervene in this debate by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. There is a profound misunderstanding that the national minimum wage can take care of the proper pay rates for agricultural workers. As my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere has said, there are six grades of pay. As he pointed out, if it is to be left to those on the five grades above the minimum rate to negotiate with the farmer who employs them, it is not beyond the wit of man to imagine that some farm workers will face pay cuts. This must be the logic of it. The noble Earl shakes his head. If I have this wrong, I will gladly sit down and he can put me right on it, but the minimum wage does what it says on the tin: it sets a minimum wage, but takes no account of the grades above that. As my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere has also said, those grades are there for a purpose. They are accepted by the employers, farmers, who recognise that increased productivity and the higher levels of skills that are needed must be rewarded, which means that there must be different grades for different levels of skills.

Most farm workers—they are a dwindling number—work in groups of two, three and four, working closely with their employer, the farmer. It is only when you get into the poultry packing plants and the vegetable processing plants that you can measure workforces in the dozens and the hundreds, but that is a very different atmosphere in which to negotiate. Are the Government really suggesting that a father and his two sons, who make up the workforce on a mixed farm, will make an appointment with their employer, the farmer, to talk about rates of pay? This is not the real world because there is no equality there. In my submission, the Agricultural Wages Board was put in place in the interests of farmers and the industry as much as in the interests of farm workers because it levelled the playing field. The industry got great value out of the Agricultural Wages Board. The other day I was astounded to hear a former president of the National Famers’ Union, with whom I spent many a happy hour in the old days when I worked for Farmers Weekly, rely on exactly the same argument. He said, “No, Robin, it does not matter because the national minimum wage is there”. I take it that the official view of the National Farmers’ Union is that it now wants to see the destruction of the Agricultural Wages Board. I say simply that it will live to regret that because it could result in immense chaos, let alone unfairness, for the industry. A very heavy price will be paid if the board is abolished.

The last report of the Agricultural Wages Board that I could find in the Library was for 2007-08. It makes the point that the board does not deal just with wages. There have been demands from the workers’ side for an all-industry pension scheme. How will that be dealt with now? What are the unions supposed to do now? To whom do they write? Will they write to the president of the National Farmers’ Union of England, the president of the National Farmers’ Union of Wales and the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the NFU in Scotland? Is this the way that they are meant to proceed? Given the row about tithe cottages, who decides the value of the accommodation provided under the contract of employment to employees who live on the farm as part of their job? The national minimum wage will not take care of that. Who will take care of that? Will this be negotiated farm by farm across the length and breadth of England and Wales? This is a ridiculous way to engage in human relations and will cause immense resentment. I do not believe farmers are bad employers but they are not overgenerous with their money. As the last report of the Agricultural Wages Board notes, this is traditionally a low-pay industry, which is why the Agricultural Wages Board was established.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my understanding is that when breeding cattle are imported—the same would be true of export—the single test would be used. As I have said, that test can be more accurate, but it leads to more false positives. However, in the cases to which my noble friend refers, a false positive would be better than missing some of the others.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned budgets. Will he update us on the Government’s latest position on making progress against badgers if they are going to do so?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we are looking at all the relevant key evidence, including the published scientific evidence from what was referred to as the “randomised badger culling trial” and subsequent post-trial analysis. Having looked at that, we will draw up proposals. We will then consult on them and consider the best way forward.

Agriculture: Farm Animal Disease

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, like my noble friend, I remember that outbreak well; I live up in Cumberland, where it started. We will take on board all that we learnt from the 2001 outbreak. If I may correct my noble friend, the cost to the United Kingdom was in the order of £8 billon, while the costs to the Government—to the taxpayer—were something like £3 billion. We will do everything that we can to ensure that such an outbreak does not happen again, but that if it does, we will react to it in exactly the right manner.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, as the Minister is well aware, many of these animal diseases are episodic and, thankfully, those such as foot and mouth occur perhaps only every 30 or 40 years. One of the problems is that lessons are lost with regard to the administrative experience and the backup necessary to deal with them. Will the Minister ensure that his department has in place a lesson-learning system so that, if ever we face foot and mouth again, we are prepared for it? This applies to the non-veterinary side.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord and I are both old enough to remember the 2001 outbreak. I can just about remember the 1967 outbreak—I was in short trousers—and other Members of this House who are older than me might also remember it. The noble Lord will also remember that there was a good report from, I think, the Duke of Northumberland into that outbreak from which lessons could have been learnt, and lessons could have been learnt from the 2001 outbreak. I appreciate that these outbreaks happen only rarely; I would have hoped that they would have been even rarer, but we will certainly want to continue to learn lessons on each occasion.