EU: Common Fisheries Policy
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, as my children say to me, I will say to the noble Lord, “Get real”. If we simply try to tear up the common fisheries policy, we are not going to get anywhere. We are in the business of negotiating with others in the EU. We are in a happy state of affairs where we have agreement from a lot of other countries as well as from the Commission that reform is necessary and desirable. Therefore, we will go ahead and see what we can achieve.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, is it not extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, believes that fish know where the international boundaries are in the sea? Does the Minister agree with the words of Commissioner Maria Damanaki at the Fisheries Council last week that reform of the policy in future must lie with science-based management?
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)
We come to Amendment 28. I call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I expected that we were breaking for dinner. Do we not break for dinner in Committee?
Lord Greaves
No? I thought that we were. All right. It is a good job I did not go and have my dinner, isn’t it?
Amendment 28
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
This amendment would leave out the Commission for Rural Communities from the list of organisations in Schedule 1. This amendment, like the previous one, is a probing amendment to ask questions of the Government and, one hopes, to get the Government to set out clearly on the record how they see the CRC’s functions being carried out in future, which of those functions will be carried out in future, and which are to be abandoned.
The Commission for Rural Communities was created by Section 17 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—which many noble Lords, and perhaps refugees from the House of Commons as well, will remember took up a considerable amount of discussion at the time. The Commission for Rural Communities, which was created by primary legislation, was therefore thoroughly discussed and thrashed out in your Lordships' House.
The Commission for Rural Communities sets out its purpose and functions as follows. It is a statutory body,
“funded by government to help ensure that policies, programmes and decisions take proper account of the circumstances of rural communities. We have a particular focus on disadvantaged people and areas suffering from economic under-performance”.
In essence, it has,
“three key functions: Advocate: acting as a voice for rural people, businesses and communities; Expert adviser: giving evidence-based, objective advice to government and others; and Independent watchdog: monitoring and reporting on the delivery of policies nationally, regionally and locally”.
That is a summary of what it does.
The commission's work since it was set up has been widely praised. Much of it consists of research, and the work of the chairman, Dr Stuart Burgess, as advocate for rural areas—particularly disadvantaged rural areas—has been notable. On 29 June 2010, Caroline Spelman, the Secretary of State, announced that the CRC will be abolished and partly replaced with a strengthened rural communities policy unit within Defra.
This amendment, like the previous one, goes to the heart of the way in which the new Government intend to carry out many of the functions that are currently carried out by autonomous bodies. In her statement on 29 June, Caroline Spelman said:
“With an urgent need to drive down debt and reduce Government spending we will have to make some tough decisions”.
Secondly, she said:
“We are committed to improving the quality of life for those living in rural areas and we will put the fair treatment of rural communities at the centre of Government”.
Thirdly, she said:
“Focusing rural policy making within the department will give rural communities and interest groups a direct link to central policymakers and a stronger champion for rural issues at the heart of Government”.
I think that that is what, a few years ago, used to be called rural proofing—the attempt to make sure that government policies across the patch were all checked for their effect in rural areas.
So there are really two main reasons for this policy, and they are both clearly set out in the statement—the first is to save money, and the other is to have a more effective service. The underlying promise is that it will not prejudice government actions for rural areas. Those are the issues that we need to probe, and the first is cost.
There are some questions that I should like to ask the Minister. What is the transitional cost? The Government briefing suggests that it is £2.5 million. Can he tell us what makes up that figure? What is the extra cost of taking on this work within Defra, and therefore what is the net saving? The suggestion, again from the government briefing, is that the existing cost of the CRC is £5.8 million;, that there will be a saving of £4.5 million once the transitional costs have been paid; and that the spend within Defra will therefore be only £1.3 million compared with £5.8 million at the moment. I can believe that efficiencies might be gained by doing this within Defra, and that it might be possible to do it more cheaply; but, nevertheless, that difference is so great—£5.8 million to £1.3 million—that one has to ask what things are being done at the moment that will not be done in the future.
Can the Minister tell us something about the transitional period? My understanding is that the intention is that the CRC should cease on 31 March 2011, but there may be transitional things to be done after that. How will that be managed?
How many staff does the CRC have at the moment? How many have transferred into Defra, and are any more expected to do so? What will be the size of the new unit within Defra which will carry out the work that the CRC has been carrying out?
The second broad area of questions has to be about the effectiveness of the new system. The proposal is to strengthen the rural team in Defra, to improve existing policy work, and to carry out the following functions. The first is to support Ministers, who will have much more direct accountability in future for the rural work. The second is to act as a centre of rural expertise. The third is to champion,
“rural needs and issues across government departments and other bodies”;
and the fourth is to work,
“with the civic sector to promote rural solutions at the local level”.
The last one is a quote and I do not understand what it means. Perhaps the Minister can tell me.
The Secretary of State also said:
“Ministers will lead rural policy from within my Department … The Government believe policy advice should be carried out by Departments, not arm's-length bodies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/10; col. 36WS.]
That is okay as far as it goes, but there are questions to be asked. The Campaign to Protect Rural England suggests that the advice to Ministers should be,
“robust, independent and evidence-based policy advocacy”.
That is what the CRC has been doing. For example, its report on uplands, published in June, called High Ground, High Potential—A Future for England’s Upland Communities, was a model of its kind. It was well researched, evidence-based and put forward a series of proposals on behalf of the rural areas of England that are most disadvantaged. It is difficult to see how a unit within Defra could do that with the style and commitment that was evident in that report.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I appreciate that some departments are more equal than others. One of the first things that I learnt sitting at the feet of my noble friend Lord Newton was that the Treasury had a slightly greater say on these matters than other departments. Nevertheless, Defra will play its role in arguing these views in government. I do not think that the CRC would be able to stand up to the Treasury with any greater authority than, for example, my own department, but, as I said in response to earlier remarks, there are a great many other bodies outside that will also make the case for rural communities very strongly. I do not think that spending £4.5 million per year on the CRC is certain to give more prominence to the arguments of rural communities. We will do that, and do it far more cheaply than the CRC.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, before I respond to what the Minister said, I would like to thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was representing the Labour Front Bench because at least somebody apart from me was not a past or present Minister. At one stage, the debate was developing into a past and present Ministers’ club, with lots of gossip that the rest of us did not quite understand. However, I am grateful to everybody and particularly the former Ministers—midwives and everybody else—who have taken part.
I am not one of those who think that Ministers, even at a junior level, do not have any influence and cannot, with enough energy and commitment, achieve things within their departments and perhaps outside. I spent last Christmas reading Chris Mullin's diaries about his time as various kinds of junior Minister, which give a very cynical view of the person with a minor position and no power whatever. I suspect that he laid it on a little. The diaries are extremely amusing, but I think that he probably overstresses his lack of power and influence.
Having looked at it all from the outside over many years, I have seen that Ministers with energy can achieve things, but one problem that faces all Governments and all ministerial teams is that at some stage they run out of energy and new inspiration. I would not accuse the present Government of having a lack of energy or a lack of determination to do things. In fact, I think that they sometimes rush into things far too quickly, when a little more thought and careful consideration might be helpful, although I understand why they do so. However, such energy does not last. The idea that a Minister at a middle or junior level within Defra will have the presence and ability to promote causes on behalf of rural areas, particularly disadvantaged rural areas, that the CRC and its chairman have at the moment is arguable at the very least and possibly wishful thinking.
I understand that the Government have an agenda, which I share to quite a considerable degree, of looking hard at quangos, reducing their costs and doing away with them when they are not doing a useful job or where what they do can be done more efficiently or democratically. I do not disagree with that fundamental wish in any way whatever, but the quangos have to be looked at one by one.
One specific question that I asked, to which I did not get an answer, was whether the State of the countryside report, as a basic piece of essential impartial, independent research, will continue in future even if within Defra. I hope that the Minister might write to us with an answer to that.
I would also like much more information on exactly how the rural champion across government will work. One of the things that a lot of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches have learnt in the past few months is how busy Ministers are and how much of their time is taken up with activities, some of which are clearly extremely vital and some of which I wonder why they are bothering with. I wonder why they do not just say no and get on with doing something useful. It is absolutely clear that competent, keen Ministers have their time and energies fully occupied by the job that they do. Some will cynically say that such Ministers are just being run by civil servants, but I do not think that that is true of good Ministers. Nevertheless, Ministers are very busy people. To have the job of co-ordinating rural policies across government is a pretty big job. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, can tell us how he got on trying to do that kind of thing when he was recently a rural Minister.
The other fundamental question to which I do not think that I have an answer is this: what does the CRC do at present that will not be done in future? The noble Lord, Lord Knight, set out clearly what the CRC does now. What we would like to know is which of those tasks will not be done in future, by Defra or by anybody else. If £4.5 million is to be saved—as the Minister quite rightly said, that is not a small sum, even in these days—what jobs are not going to be done because that money is not being spent? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, “I think that its time has come”. It is probably inevitable that its time has come, no matter how much we debate it in Committee and at later stages, but it is important that we understand who is going to do what in future. I do not think that we understand that yet.
Some of the quangos—the arm’s-length bodies, or whatever they are called—that are being done away with in the long lists in this Bill will not be missed in future. In five or 10 years’ time, we will look back at the list and ask ourselves, “What an earth were they? What did they do?”. Such quangos will not be missed and we will wonder why we argued about them, but some of the quangos will be missed, including, I suspect, the CRC. Life goes round in circles, as we know, and some of those quangos will have to be reinvented in future. It is far better either that we get it right now and do not drive the bulldozer through those that are necessary or, if the organisational arrangements are to change, that we understand at least that robust structures will be set up that will deliver the same kind of thing.
Finally, the Minister said that he did not believe that the CRC could stand up to the Treasury better than a rural advocate within Defra. That may be true in some respects, but the real difference is that the rural advocate within Defra will operate within government and behind the closed doors of government. Some of what he is doing will come out, because we will have debates in Parliament, reports will be produced and leaks will appear in newspapers. By and large, however, that process will take place within government, whereas what the CRC and other similar bodies can do is to take it all out into the public domain so that the research is published. The proposals are public proposals and, as Members of Parliament and your Lordships' House, we can use that information to call Ministers to account, to take part in debates and to take part in legislation. It is much more difficult to prise information from within the department. That is a fundamental difference, which the Government have not got quite right in a number of these issues.
It is customary on these occasions to ask the Minister to write to us and to give us answers to the questions that have been asked that have not been answered. I hope that he will do that after this debate. I will certainly collate the questions that have been asked from all parts of the House, write them down and hope to get more thorough answers from the Government and from the civil servants in Defra and everybody else involved before we come back to Report. We may have to come back to this issue on Report, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we resume our rapid canter through the Committee stage of the Bill. Amendment 19 refers to the,
“Agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees”,
in England and seeks to remove them from Schedule 1. I am not arguing that this is exactly what we should do. This is a probing amendment to establish who will carry out the important role of these committees in the relatively small number of cases involving agricultural tenants of tied housing, in which some 30 per cent of agricultural workers live. They are guaranteed security of tenure in their tied housing for fairly obvious reasons: their housing is tied to their job and their job is tied to their housing. That is a relatively unusual situation nowadays; it used to be a lot more common.
These committees were established under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and are now established under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. They are convened locally and hear about 40 to 50 cases each year. Membership is drawn from membership panels that are maintained by the Defra offices in Crewe and Bristol and the meetings are set up on an ad hoc basis according to the business to be conducted. They are not terribly high-powered bodies in the sense of always being in session and always having a lot of business. They have a relatively small amount of business, but it is important. They consist of one member who represents agricultural worker interests and is nominated by the trade union Unite; one member who represents agricultural employer interests and is nominated by the National Farmers’ Union; and one independent member who acts as chairman and is appointed from a panel of persons approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Agricultural workers living in tied cottages generally have security of tenure, but a farmer may apply to the local housing authority to have a protected worker rehoused if he or she needs the cottage for a replacement agricultural worker in the interests of efficient agriculture. In such circumstances the local housing authority, the farmer or the cottage occupier can ask an ADHAC to advise on the applicant’s case to determine whether it is in the interests of efficient agriculture and urgent. In other words, although the committee can be asked to intervene by any of the parties to the dispute and to the attempt to evict the farm worker from his tied accommodation—in other words, the farm worker or the employer—in practice, the usefulness of these committees is to provide advice to the local housing authority, or the local council, on whether it is a reasonable request.
That is the nub of it. I am not arguing that ADHACs should continue in their present form. It may well be that the number of cases that are dealt with each year is relatively small, and that they could be dealt with in some other way. Some other body could be charged with advising the housing authority, and in this respect I am aware of the position when an application is made for planning permission for a house or cottage to be built in an area of the countryside where it would otherwise not be allowed because of planning rules on building new dwellings in open countryside, on greenbelts, or whatever. What tends to happen is that the planning authority, which is part of a unitary local authority or, in two-tier areas, the district, seeks advice on whether the accommodation is sensibly required from the appropriate department of the local authority responsible for farming and agriculture in the area. In two-tier areas that will be the county council, and in single-tier areas it is another department of the same authority.
There is a duty to advise a housing authority on whether it is reasonable to require the local authority to provide accommodation for someone who is otherwise in tied accommodation, so putting that duty on the relevant department of the local authority—whether it is another department of a unitary or the county council in a two-tier area—is a sensible way forward. It could provide the same safeguards and advice, which the housing authority will need anyway, within the wish of the Government to abolish this particular board organisation. There are sensible ways forward, but they require a bit of care and application by the Government not simply to abolish the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees without having first made appropriate arrangements for other bodies to do what they do because it is a very useful and necessary function. You only have to think of the situation in which you are in tied accommodation because you have been a worker on a particular farm, but you have retired, the farmer needs your house or cottage, you need to be rehoused, and the housing authority needs to have specialist advice as to whether it is a reasonable application to take precedence over all other applications for housing in that area. I hope that I can get an answer from the Government that is sympathetic to what I am putting forward. On that basis, I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, my noble friend Lord Greaves said that this was his first amendment during what he described as a rapid canter through Committee on this Bill. I am not much of an equestrian, but “rapid” and “canter” are not the words that I would necessarily give to it at this stage. But I accept that my noble friend was merely putting forward a probing amendment. Therefore, I will try to set out why we think it is right that we are abolishing these committees.
As many noble Lords have said, ADHACs were set up under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, remembers the Act, as does my noble friend Lord Caithness. Sadly, I was not in the House, so I cannot go back quite that far. But I listened to both of them and they had rather different views. My noble friend made clear that ADHACs were set up to have an advisory role—I was very grateful he stressed that—in the rehousing of agricultural workers. To get on to the whole problem of accommodation in rural areas is stretching the point a bit too far. We are talking only about ADHACs and the advisory role that they had.
The purpose of the Act was to give those who lived in tied houses, such as agricultural workers, former workers and their successors, security of tenure and protection from eviction by their employer. Under the Act, a landlord can make an application to a local housing authority to rehouse a protected tenant on the grounds that the property is required for a new worker; that he is unable to provide suitable alternative accommodation for the existing tenant; and that the housing authority ought, in the interests of efficient agriculture, to provide suitable alternative accommodation. The landlord, the tenant or the local authority may refer such applications to the local ADHAC for advice on the agricultural need and the urgency of the application. However, there is no statutory requirement to consult an ADHAC. Again, I am grateful to my noble friend for stressing that point. Where advice is sought, the housing authority is currently obliged to take that advice into account when considering its housing priorities. But it is only a matter for the housing authority to take that advice into account.
Since the Rent (Agriculture) Act came into force, there have been significant changes to housing legislation, which have enabled farmers to let cottages to farm workers using an assured shorthold tenancy. As a result of these changes and changing employment practices within the farming industry, the use of ADHACs has fallen from what used to be something of the order of 500 cases per year in the 1980s to something fewer than 10 this year. To assist the noble Baroness with those figures, I can tell her that in 2007 there were nine cases, in 2008 there was a dramatic increase to 12, and in 2009 there were a further 12. So far we have had eight this year. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, put it, demand for this service is diminishing—and it is diminishing pretty fast.
In the light of this, the Government consider that, as the functions of the ADHACs are largely defunct, it is difficult to justify the retention of 17 different committees. Again, my noble friend referred to 16 different committees; I can assure him that there are 17 different committees covering England and Wales, with the associated administrative burden of recruitment and training of members. I appreciate that the cost is relatively low. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, asked whether it was just £13,000. That is the figure I have for the direct administrative costs, but there will be other costs to the department in terms of the secretariat needed for 17 different committees in England and Wales.
Furthermore, it should be made clear that the function can be, and indeed is, carried out equally effectively by the local housing authorities on their own account, as my noble friend Lord Greaves seems to suggest. Many local authorities already take decisions on rehousing without the advice of an ADHAC. I can assure the Committee that the abolition of ADHACs will not remove any of the protection afforded to agricultural workers and their successors in tied housing. The only change will be when a local authority receives an application for rehousing a worker in a tied cottage; the local authority will need to determine the agricultural need and urgency of the application on its own account, as it does now in the vast majority of cases. Again, I stress, we have had eight uses of ADHACs in this year. I imagine, as we are already into December, that figure is unlikely to increase by that much.
There is no intention to change the provisions in the 1976 Act which give security of tenure to protected tenants; tenants will not be disadvantaged by the proposed abolition of ADHACs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, asked about devolved Administrations—obviously in this case we are talking only about Wales, because this part covers only Wales. Yes, we will consult the Welsh Administration in the appropriate manner.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Caithness asked whether—or seemed to imply—we would need 17 different orders to abolish these. My understanding is that the power is such that there will be only one. I think that we—the noble Baroness as the opposition spokesman, and I as the Minister dealing with this in the Moses Room—will have to deal with only one rather than 17 different ones; I cannot remember whether the procedure is affirmative or negative. I hope with those reassurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody for the constructive and consensual way in which the amendment has been discussed. The question of the number of individual cases per year has been raised. I am sorry if the figures I cited were rather larger than is actually the case. The figures came from what I took to be an official authoritative source on the internet, but perhaps that is a lesson for us all. I will go back and check that source, but that is clearly what it said.
A question of general interest was raised. I deliberately did not call the bodies “quangos”, for the very reasons that noble Lords mentioned; that is, that their scale and cost are small. In many ways, they strike me more as part of the big society than as quangos, but perhaps I should not pursue that very far. Perhaps there are parts of the big society which have performed a useful function in the past and are now redundant.
The Minister responded to my use of the phrase “rapid canter”. It is always a little dangerous to try to use irony in your Lordships' House, not least because Hansard has not yet got round to the use of smileys, which, as many of us know to our cost, are necessary if you are trying to say something ironic because a lot of people will otherwise read it absolutely flatly. I therefore make it quite clear that I was being absolutely ironic in talking about taking a rapid canter through the Bill, but—who knows?—it may be a rapid canter by the time we have finished.
I am very grateful for the Minister’s assurances that the legal protection for people who have tied tenancies will not change in any way. On that basis, and on the basis that I think that we have had the kind of discussion that I would have hoped for to make the position absolutely clear, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is a much more substantive and important amendment—not that the last one was not important, but this one is much more so. I shall speak also to Amendment 21, which is grouped with and linked to it. Amendment 20 is about the agricultural wages board, whose purpose is to set the scale of agricultural minimum wages and related minimum terms and conditions of employment. It is an independent statutory body established by the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, and it goes back in its lineage as far as 1924, when there were far more agricultural labourers than there are now.
The question posed by the amendment is: are the functions of the AWB still needed, in whole or in part; and if they are still needed, in some way at least, is the best way to carry them out through the continued existence of the AWB or in some other way? There has been pressure for its abolition. The NFU has called for it, although not all farmers who employ agricultural workers would welcome that because it provides them with a clear framework of what they should be paying without having to negotiate. Its abolition was promised in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. It was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and was not in the coalition agreement. It is opposed by the relevant trade union, Unite. That information sets the amendment in its political context, but, as we know, the manifestos on which the last election were fought are probably redundant following the formation of the new coalition Government.
Liberal Democrat spokespersons, including my honourable friend Andrew George in the House of Commons, have expressed concern at the abolition and the potential removal of existing protections. The proposal to abolish the body was announced by the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, on 22 July, but it was done so, to the best of my knowledge, without any prior consultation. Any consultation would still have to take place.
The agricultural wages board consists of 21 people, comprising eight representatives of the employers, nominated by the NFU; eight representatives of the workers, nominated by Unite; and five independent members, including the chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly Government. I shall not speak much about the regional agricultural wages committees, which are the subject of the second amendment in the group, but they are linked to the AWB and basically set up by the same legislation.
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I made clear, I do not think that it is necessary in this case to carry out an impact assessment. If it was necessary, we would do so. What I am saying is that, after the abolition of the wages board, it is open to the industry to look at its own arrangements. That is why I was grateful for the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who said that the NFU could do this, but I do not see why the NFU cannot do it along with Unite and all the other representatives of the industry.
I appreciate that we have now spent an hour and a half discussing these matters. We will no doubt come back to this in due course. My noble friend Lord Maclennan said that there was still much time to discuss these matters. There certainly will be time, because noble Lords opposite wish to make sure that there is. We will discuss these matters further, therefore, but I have not heard anything yet this afternoon that would encourage me to say that there was a case for preserving the agricultural wages board or the agricultural wages committees. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in an excellent and sensibly tempered debate with a huge amount of expertise on an important issue. It is curious that we are having this kind of debate on the Public Bodies Bill, which is not, on the face of it, about agricultural wages or, indeed, about many of the other things that we will debate in the course of its consideration in Committee, except that it is about everything. It is a curious Bill about everything and nothing but, if it leads to debates like this, the Committee will be doing the Government a service as well as the country generally.
I was particularly taken by the range of expertise in the debate. I do not want to reply to everybody, because it would take far too long, but I was slightly amused by what the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, said in her excellent contribution. It took me back to the great Liberal Governments of a hundred years ago, who had a great deal to do with the introduction of wages councils. However, times have changed and the solutions of a hundred years ago are not necessarily the solutions of today.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is one of a large number of speakers with ministerial experience, particularly in this area, who are distinguished Members of the House. He referred to the possible involvement of the Low Pay Unit as part of the solution to this conundrum. I am aware that such discussions are taking place in some areas. Whether they will come to anything, I do not know, but at least there is some time to pursue them and other discussions in the mean time.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, got me wondering about what I would do if I had my time again. I thought that I would perhaps have liked to have had a more outdoors life. If it were a choice of looking after sheep on a Scottish hillside or looking after the cattle of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, there would be no real choice: I would spend my life on the noble Duke’s Scottish mountainside and probably enjoy myself more than I have done, although I have enjoyed a great deal, especially being able to stand and make speeches in your Lordships’ House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised an important question: do the Government have the facts about agricultural wages at the moment? How many agricultural workers are at the moment on the basic levels of pay set out by the agricultural wages board? I have not seen this information, but it must exist somewhere. How many of them are working for more enlightened employers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, or perhaps for employers who are exposed to a market that requires that they pay higher wages, or for a combination of both? We need that information before we can get to the bottom of how much the existing protection is required. Unite, among others, is saying that it has evidence of farmers telling their existing workers that if the protection is removed their wages will go down. I do not know whether this is tittle-tattle or hard evidence, but we need evidence to probe and investigate in the mean time.
Some noble Lords have argued that the legislation is not needed because they know of lots of people who are paid more than the level set out or, indeed, who employ people who are paid more than the level set out. I take that with a slight pinch of salt because you could apply that argument to the national minimum wage. Most people in this country are paid more than the national minimum wage, a lot of people are paid a great deal more than the national minimum wage and some people are paid astronomical sums—millions of pounds a year, according to what we read in the newspapers—but just because a lot of bankers are apparently paid these huge salaries is no argument for saying that the national minimum wage is not necessary or is not a good thing, because it protects a lot of other people who need protection. Again, I think that we need the kind of facts that the noble Viscount suggested that we should have. I hope that the Government will find it possible to dig out those facts, circulate them and write to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate.
Having said that and having said what an excellent House of Lords debate this has been, with propositions made, questions asked and debates enjoined, I should add that the other part of the equation that is traditionally necessary in the House of Lords is for the Government to listen to what has been said, think about it and respond to it. I thought that I detected in the Minister some softening and some willingness to continue to take part in the debate. I hope that that is the case. He said that we will discuss these issues again further. I hope that he did not mean that we will have to wait until Report, when we can have a set-piece battle with everybody lining up with their pitchforks or whatever people use nowadays instead of pitchforks. I hope that the discussion will take place in the several weeks that will be available to us before we get to Report.
Let us keep talking and let us have further discussions wherever we can. Let us bring the matter back on Report if we need to, but in the mean time let us hope to find a way through the issues that have been raised today and find some sort of compromise. Let us distinguish between closing down a quango, which the Government are adamant they want to do, perhaps saving quite a bit of the £250,000-plus that it costs to run, and keeping at least some of the functions, which might be carried out by somebody else. Even if that is not possible, let us understand what kind of negotiating system and procedure there might be in future between employers and employees at a national level and what sort of guarantee there might be that that will result in solutions that will stick rather than advice that can be ignored.
There is a great deal to be discussed further. The burden to business is being exaggerated a little, but with reform, modernisation and streamlining of the system it might be possible to reduce quite a few of those burdens without taking away the essential safeguards of the floors that exist to protect a group of people who, as many noble Lords have said, are more vulnerable than many other groups nowadays. The world has changed, so let us change the systems in response to that without taking away what is valuable.
I think that there is a general view around the Committee that we should not divide on this occasion. Indeed, in view of what I have said, it would be totally inappropriate for me to ask for the opinion of the Committee at this stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Abattoirs: CCTV
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will encourage or require the installation of closed circuit television cameras in abattoirs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, we recognise that CCTV can play a role in helping slaughterhouse operators monitor welfare and we welcome recent industry-led initiatives to install CCTV on a voluntary basis. We have no powers to require CCTV installation in abattoirs.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that half-helpful Answer. Has he seen the appalling CCTV images which have been put on to the internet by the charity Animal Aid, and does he agree with Tim Smith, chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, that they are,
“sickening … It doesn’t really matter how this footage was obtained or how it came into our presence”?
He went on to make it clear that what is important is that something should be done about it. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Morrisons on agreeing to install CCTV in the three abattoirs it owns and controls, including the Woodhead Bros abattoir, which is a major employer in the Lancashire town of Colne where I live.
Lord Henley
My Lords, obviously I offer my congratulations to Morrisons because we would encourage all owners of abattoirs to install CCTV if that is necessary. However, I stress to my noble friend that although I have not seen the film, we do not condone animal cruelty of any sort. We will ensure that all allegations of the ill treatment of animals are fully investigated and, where necessary, prosecutions are made.
Common Agricultural Policy
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To call attention to proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and to move for papers.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is a good opportunity to start a parliamentary debate on the reform of CAP, which is clearly going to last over the next two to three years while the decisions are being made. Today is particularly opportune, as we understand that the Commission will publish its proposals today.
The long and tortuous history of the common agricultural policy is approaching one of its periodic turning points. A new phase in the CAP to the end of the decade is due to start in August 2013. The details of that have not yet been agreed in any shape or form, so the next two years are going to be interesting. In introducing the debate, I want to give a fairly broad-brush overview. I am not going to talk about much of the technical detail. I am grateful for all the briefings that have come from various organisations and bodies and I hope that other noble Lords will fill in some of the detail. I want to put forward a series of propositions with which I have considerable sympathy and which I think should form the basis of a great deal of the discussion that is taking place.
The European Parliament has already agreed its position, based on a report from my Liberal Democrat colleague, George Lyon MEP. I am grateful for the many insights of what I am saying now, which are based on discussions with him. The Commission communication is due out later today. There has been a well leaked draft from commissioner Dacian Ciolos and I have no reason to doubt that the communication will be based on his views. However, there could be changes, so I do not want to talk about that in detail until we see exactly what is said.
Legislative proposals are due in 2011. There obviously will be interesting discussions during that time in the Council of Ministers. The CAP is subject for the first time to co-decision between the council and the European Parliament. Decisions have to be made by the end of 2012 or in early 2013 in order for the new system to come into operation in 2013. Clearly, a major part of deciding what will happen will be the overall European budget and the size of the pot, which will be decided by member states in the mean time.
My first major issue is the urgency for the United Kingdom Government, working with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, to negotiate. It is clear that the line that was taken by the previous Labour Government has been abandoned—rightly so, because it isolated this country in the discussions on the future of the CAP within Europe. Will the Minister give me some idea of what the Government see as the timetable for coming to views on UK government policy with a view to negotiation and discussion with the other European countries and, as part of the Council of Ministers, with the other European institutions?
In trying to give an overview of the position, I will try to avoid using as much Euro-jargon as I can. It seems to us that sustainability and fairness have to be at the heart of a new CAP. The CAP has to be economically and environmentally sustainable at global, European and local levels. It needs to be socially sustainable, particularly in what Ciolos calls,
“areas with specific natural constraints”,
which may be the new Euro-jargon for less favoured areas, or it may be a little wider than that.
Food security is increasingly important and it has to be politically sustainable across the EU. In particular, we need to refocus CAP towards creating a sustainable agricultural system that meets the challenges, first, of climate change and other environmental challenges and, secondly, of the increased demand for food, which will occur across the globe and will require a large increase in food production. All that will be within a highly imperfect global market in which the patterns of demand and need for food are at variance with each other and in which the systems and patterns of trade reflect the demand rather than need.
Climate change makes the necessary increase in production more difficult due to scarcity of new land, water and energy. Increased demand is due to more people, an estimated 9 billion of us by 2050—or 9 billion others, because I do not think that I will be around in 2050—and demand for more varied and westernised diets.
George Lyon has identified four key areas of fairness: fair trade with major trading partners, most of whom support their agriculture; redistribution of direct payments under CAP to meet demands of new member states; support for local food production for local communities in less favoured areas or areas with specific natural constraints, as we might now call them, particularly upland and more remote areas throughout Europe and in this country; and a fair food chain through the strengthening of the negotiating power of farmers against multiple retailers.
My second proposition is general and relates to the way in which CAP has evolved in the decades that it has been in existence. Should we continue to phase out remaining export subsidies, as the Commission and the Parliament are suggesting? To what extent should we continue to phase out the remaining elements of market intervention? Most of them have gone and we do not have beef mountains or wine lakes any more. Also, to what extent should we attempt to get rid of coupled direct payments altogether, or should that be an option for member states? If the last two are to remain in place to some degree, at what level and on what basis would that be acceptable? This is fundamental to reform in the next phase.
The third proposition is the clear need to move towards a fully area-based system throughout Europe by 2020. Payments under the present phase have been decoupled, but in many places they are still being paid on an historical basis, so that, although they have been decoupled from existing levels of production and stocking, they are still linked to former levels. The longer that goes on, the more unfair it is. It does not represent the current realities.
The fourth proposition is the redistribution of payments in Europe. There has to be a rebalancing of area payments away from the old members of the EU—if I can put it that way—particularly in western Europe, to the new member states, which are mainly in eastern Europe. When the new member states joined, it was on the understanding and belief that, over time, there would be a more equalised system of area payments. A useful graph in the Lyon report from the European Parliament sets out the 2008 payments. If we ignore Greece, which is right at the top, but look at western European countries, we see that Belgium and the Netherlands received payments that averaged over €400 per hectare. Germany received over €300, France around €300 and the United Kingdom over €200. Romania and two other countries received less than €50 per hectare, while Poland, the largest of the eastern European countries to join, received around €80 per hectare. That is clearly not fair, as it denies countries in eastern Europe funds to support the restructuring and modernisation of agriculture that for many of them is absolutely necessary. People used to talk about inefficient French farmers, but they do not do that any more because in the 1950s and particularly the 1960s France reorganised substantial parts of its agriculture, as did southern Germany. That kind of process now has to take place in eastern Europe.
My fifth proposition is that there has to be a significant further greening of the system. Both the Lyon report and the Ciolos paper substantially go along with that. Is it not clear that the purpose of farm support—the reason why it exists—is to support the producers of food? It does not exist to achieve environmental public goods, but those goods are vital, so green outcomes need to be embedded throughout the system. Different ways to further strengthen the greening of the CAP are set out in the two documents. I do not want to go into those details at the moment, but other noble Lords may do so. However, whether that is done by amendments to the two existing pillars or in some other way, it has to happen.
That leads to the last two fundamental propositions. The first is the absolutely vital need to maintain a common European agricultural policy and to resist nationalisation of the CAP either by the patriation of significant parts of it or by resistance to further moves towards co-funding. These are simply attempts to undermine the whole basis of a very necessary system.
The final proposition is the size of the budget. If the aims set out in the Lyon report and what we expect to see in the Commission report are to be achieved—indeed, if the CAP is to do what it has to do—it will not possible to make any significant further reductions to the proportion of the EU budget that is allocated to the CAP from 2013. It was 75 per cent in 1984; it is now about 43 per cent, while the projected level for 2013 is 39.6 per cent. However, if we are serious about food security in Europe, climate change, fairness to eastern Europe and all the other issues—never mind sorting out the political problems—the projected level in 2013 is probably inevitable. My advice to the Government is to accept that, more or less. They should not spend their energies arguing about it; they should argue about the important thing, which is what the CAP has to do. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it falls to me now only to thank everybody who took part in the debate with some very expert and interesting contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who put a very different point of view from that advocated by most speakers, including myself, which was extremely welcome. I also thank the Minister, who did his best to give a very careful response to the debate in quite difficult circumstances, because he has not actually seen the document which we were all trying to talk about on the basis of its leaked version. I thank him for that. We wish him and his colleagues well in the discussions on this matter in Europe in the next couple of years. I am tempted, slightly naughtily, to wish him well in his discussions within the Government on this matter, but if I pursue that too far, I shall get into trouble and I would never want to do that. So thank you to everybody who took part and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Bovine Tuberculosis
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the Written Answer that I gave some time ago which stated that he had been consulted, was aware of what we were doing and was happy with the consultation that was taking place. I make it clear that it is only a consultation that we are conducting on this matter at the moment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, does the Minister agree that any pilots that take place, whether they involve culling or vaccination or both, should have independent monitoring, data collection, analysis and assessment if they are to have credibility and be of use?
Lord Henley
The important thing to emphasise to my noble friend is the fact that we are at this stage only consulting on a badger control policy. Having consulted and taken advice, we then propose to issue licences to farmers and others who wish to cull and/or vaccinate badgers at their own expense. We will then look at the results of that process.
Agriculture: Single Farm Payments
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, as regards the mapping updates, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we will look carefully at what is the best way of doing this and whether we should have more regular small-scale updates or less regular large-scale updates; either is possible. On his more general point about problems in the Rural Payments Agency, as I said earlier in answer to another question on another day, my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr Jim Paice, has given an assurance that he will look hard at this matter and that he will personally chair the body which will overlook the changes to the RPA.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the Rural Payments Agency’s business plan for this year already requires a reduction in administration costs of about 10 per cent. Will the Government require further cuts in the RPA’s budget as part of the austerity measures? If so, what will they be; how big will they be; and what effect will they have on the service provided?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I can confirm the noble Lord’s earlier figures but I cannot confirm what other cuts that agency, or any other agency, may have to face. My noble friend will be aware that all parts of government are facing severe measures to deal with the deficit we inherited from the previous Government.
Agriculture: Farming
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
The task force will certainly look at that. As has been made clear, it will look not only at regulation but at the multiplicity of inspections, because inspections take up time.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the task force is very welcome, and there is a lot to be done, but it consists entirely of people from the farming and food industries. There will be no representation of expertise on the environment and conservation or of agricultural workers and other people who live in the countryside and are affected by farms. In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that it is essential that, when the task force reports, its conclusions are thoroughly debated and there is time and opportunity for the country to debate them, including a debate in your Lordships’ House?
Lord Henley
My Lords, debates in your Lordships’ House are a matter for people other than me, but I can assure my noble friend that the membership of the task force is not drawn just from the farming industry. It includes Judith Donovan, who is a board director of HSE, and Dr Stephen Tapper, who comes from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, so it covers other aspects.
Rural Payments Agency
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the Rural Payments Agency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a recipient of payments from the Rural Payments Agency. An independent review of the Rural Payments Agency, commissioned by Defra, concluded recently. The Government will publish the recommendations of the review and our response to it shortly.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, is it not the case that in the five years since the single farm payment scheme was set up, the record of the Rural Payments Agency is one of a combination of bureaucratic incompetence and excessive cost? Would the Minister agree that farmers in this country are well disposed to this Government and are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment? However, unless this problem is sorted out, that attitude will change very quickly. Would he agree that the Government and the Rural Payments Agency have around six months, till the end off this year, to prove that the situation is being sorted out?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept that, as my noble friend says, there have been problems with the Rural Payments Agency. It has been the subject of an NAO report and summoned three times before the Public Accounts Committee as well as twice before the Efra Select Committee and once before the Public Administration Select Committee. We will try to address these problems and offer political leadership for that. I can give an assurance to my noble friend that the Minister of State of my department will, in future, chair the RPA board.
Japanese Knotweed
Lord Greaves Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to emphasise the costs, as did my noble friend in her supplementary question. It can cause major structural damage. We estimate that the costs of managing it are about £150 million a year but, as the noble Lord will remember from when he had to deal with the matter, back in 2003 the cost of total eradication was estimated at £1.5 billion. Now, obviously, it would be a great deal more. We should wait to see what this psyllid can do and whether it leads to a much better control of Japanese knotweed.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, on her persistence in pursuing this matter over many years—even before I was here. It is now coming to some fruition. If the present small-scale release tests in the real world prove successful, what is the next step?
Lord Henley
My Lords, if those tests are successful, obviously we would want to take it on, on advice from the appropriate scientists, to lead to greater control of Japanese knotweed. I have to say that it will take a considerable time before we know whether it will be effective; it is thought that it could be five to 10 years before we see any evidence of greater control.