Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 8th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on bringing the Bill forward. I agree with her that it is a very good Bill, and I wish it well in its passage through this House. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on coming top in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills. I was not so successful, but hopefully my Bill will get out of the traps next week.

Finding a solution to climate change is of the utmost importance and must be addressed globally. Our Government and local authorities all have a role to play in that as well. Surely it is a basic right to be able to avoid having to inhale polluted air, which can cause a plethora of life-threatening problems.

As the noble Baroness highlighted, the Bill seeks, among other things, to

“establish the right to breathe clean air”.

It introduces new obligations on the Secretary of State

“to achieve and maintain clean air in England and Wales”.

It enhances

“the powers, duties and functions”

of relevant national authorities and other bodies, including local authorities. It involves

“the UK Health Security Agency in setting and reviewing pollutants and their limits”.

It establishes an independent body, the citizens’ commission for clean air,

“with powers to institute or intervene in legal proceedings”

and improve the situation.

As the noble Baroness mentioned, Ella was a young girl who sadly passed away in 2013. She has been spoken of many times in this House, and her mother Rosamund, who is present with us today, has been a tireless campaigner to ensure that other people do not suffer the tragic death that her daughter did. I have no doubt that Rosamund will get the law changed, even if not with this Bill. I am confident of that because the case is so right.

I grew up in south London—I lived in Southwark and Lewisham—so I spent many years travelling around the South Circular. It is certainly an area that is very polluted. It was reported that it was the eighth worst area in Great Britain for pollution. In the landmark case following Ella’s death, hers was the first death officially caused by air pollution, which clearly states the severity of the environmental situation in that part of south London.

But this is a matter that we can do something about. We can improve the situation. If pollution is lowered by one microgram per cubic metre, then in 18 years 50,000-plus cases of coronary heart disease, 16,000 strokes, 9,000 cases of asthma and 4,000 cases of lung cancer could be prevented. Combined, that amounts to 27,000 additional years of life in the UK alone with proper action, and 1,900 premature deaths prevented—the population of a small urban area. Surely this is a call to action that every noble Lord in this House can take up.

None of us is safe from these pernicious particles. We are at risk at every stage of our life. A child born into polluted air may have a low birthweight and can develop asthma, coughs and wheezing or simply not develop well as a child. Then as an adult there is the risk of diabetes, chronic bronchitis and other terrible illnesses. As we become older again, there is the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Surely that is a life that we do not want anyone to have to live.

The impact is not only on public health but also on the public pocket. It has been found by the Environmental Audit Committee that health problems can cost the country £20 billion a year, money that would be better spent on lives better lived. In 2013, the year of Ella’s passing, we saw the NHS spend £1.8 billion on respiratory ailments and £2.3 billion on cardiac illnesses. One heart transplant costs £44,000. Imagine how that money could be spent if we addressed this issue with prevention. We could save people’s lives and help them live better lives. We can do better.

The Bill would hold someone responsible for the crisis, allowing for additional scrutiny through the presentation of action and justification to Parliament. It could keep approximately 2,000 people alive longer. Each year between 28,000 to 36,000 people die as a result of air pollution. We must do something about this.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. In 2015, 1.3 billion kilograms of air pollutants were removed from the atmosphere of the UK. This saved around £1 billion to the UK public purse, due to less activity having to be taken in terms of respiratory illnesses in hospital.

As I say, I grew up in Southwark. The noble Baroness mentioned the health of the people. Outside the town hall in Southwark, which I know well, there is a sign that says:

“The Health of the People is the Highest Law”.


That was put there in the 1930s, and it is as relevant today as it was then.

Mention has also been made of smog. My mum always tells me about when I was born, coming home with me from Lambeth Hospital at Elephant and Castle through the smog, and how awful it was for my dad coming to see me in the hospital. I do not remember the smogs at all but in the 1960s they were here. However, the Clean Air Act improved things dramatically. We have more to do again now. This is a serious problem but the Government can act.

I hope the Minister will be able to give us some good news about support for the Bill. If we do not get that, I am sure Rosamund will still make this happen, but I hope the Government can support the Bill and that it has an easy passage through this House.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.

On Monday, I highlighted the need to regenerate our coastal communities, particularly our coastal fishing communities. I have some knowledge from Northern Ireland and from the County Down fishing ports. Two of the three ports are currently involved in regeneration plans and are awaiting communication from the Northern Ireland Executive about further funding provision to take those forward. Clearly, this amendment would strengthen that economic link, which is vital because much fish is caught there, as per the quota requirements. However, if this were permitted, it would ensure that those coastal communities would be revitalised, because there are jobs not only in the catching sector but in the processing sector, which is very much the lifeblood of those communities, which have been subjected to various fishing village initiatives over the last 25 years.

I have a little query. If I take the County Down fishing ports—I know that the Northern Ireland department is one of the authorities that would be consulted—and the pelagic trawlers, at present they cannot land any of their catches in those harbours, and in some cases they are not landing them in other UK ports, the Channel Islands, Guernsey or the Isle of Man, but in Norway and the Republic of Ireland. That is because the port depth does not enable the larger pelagic trawlers to do that. I am sure that that issue exists in other ports in the UK which require a revitalisation process in terms of new and improved infrastructure.

Might the Minister have a quiet word with his opposite number in the Northern Ireland Executive to, shall we say, chivvy along those proposals for regeneration to ensure that the fishing commitment, the landing obligation and—if this is permitted today—the national landing requirement can be activated and implemented? Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, this is simply consultation at this stage. While this is a strong aspirational clause, I hope that it would be capable of implementation and enforcement.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. She set out clearly in her speech the reasoning for the amendment, and I hope it will be supported by the Minister and the whole House.

It is frustrating that the debate on fishing, fisheries policy, the number of British and foreign-owned vessels and the fish landed has been so distorted in the media. It is a matter of much regret that the debate we have had in the UK over many years is not about the reality of the situation. As we know, our demand for fish such as cod and haddock in many cases far exceeds what we could catch in our own waters and much is imported, while much of the fish we catch in our waters is exported.

My noble friend set out the timeframe and made it very clear that this is a consultation that in itself should not cause the Government any particular problems. It is reasonable to ensure that every nation is consulted, along with the interested parties in the fishing industry. The consultation sets out the landing requirement of 65%, which I think is a reasonable figure.

My noble friend set out the case for how many of our coastal communities are very deprived. I know Grimsby very well—in a previous life I worked up in north Lincolnshire—and it is an area that suffers from poor health and poor job prospects and can be very depressed. Not only is fish landed there, but there is a huge food processing industry in the town. Grimsby would certainly benefit tremendously from my noble friend’s proposal here. It is very important that we should look at that.

It is also important that we recognise that when people in these communities voted to leave the European Union, they were voting also for a dividend. They hoped there would be better job prospects in their communities, more fish would be landed and people would prosper more. If we find that this is not the case in the years ahead, I think they will feel very betrayed. They will have voted for something and not seen the dividend from it. So I hope that if the Minister does not accept my noble friend’s amendment, he will carefully set out the reasons why and will make it clear what will be the dividend for these communities in years to come. We all know that they are depressed and have many challenges. If the explanation is not to my noble friend’s satisfaction, I hope that she will test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I noted that in the earlier version of this Fisheries Bill, which came out over 18 months ago now, there was a clause early on that tried to define a UK fishing boat as one with at least one UK shareholder holding more than 5%. That seemed quite a low bar to me, but the thinking behind it was probably based on the 1970s attempt by the UK to apply an ownership limit to foreign investment in UK fishing boats of 75%. For the record, the UK lost its case in the courts because ownership caps at that time could apply only to EU ownership, not British ownership.

Nowadays, of course, the widespread and sometimes complicated international ownership of all businesses—in this case boats—creates far too tangled a web to unweave through legislation, which is probably why the words I referred to in the earlier version of the Bill were dropped. Anyway, maybe it does not matter who is investing money in our fisheries and boats, as long as they are creating the jobs in the UK. As others have said, we all know that for every one job on a boat, whoever owns it, there are 10 jobs on land in the processing, handling, transporting, marketing, selling, et cetera, of the fish.

So it was very sensible of the Government to drop the reference to the percentage of UK shareholding in a boat, but sadly they did not follow through with any sort of landing requirement. It seems that they understood the issue but, having realised that their solution would not work, failed to see that a landing requirement would achieve almost the same end but by a slightly different means.

This is an important amendment. Such a landing requirement could make a huge difference to coastal communities—and, believe me, they need this boost. Of the 25 local authorities with the highest rates of insolvency, 16 are coastal—and that was before Covid-19 came along to make matters worse.

I hope that the Government will accept this enabling amendment, or agree to bring in a similar amendment of their own. I accept that such a commitment might be dependent on Brexit negotiations, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort in his reply and indicate that such a requirement is very much at the forefront of the Government’s mind.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 22nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments made by the proponents of the amendment and I understand the desire to promote environmental quality as the highest priority, since sustainability itself affects the amount of fish available to catch. But I am not convinced that we should downgrade all the other noble objectives in Clause 1, which would be the case if sustainability was classed as the prime objective.

The Government have constructed the Bill with a number of important objectives that contribute to environmental protection, including objectives covering science, the precautionary principle, the ecosystem and climate change. However, the Bill also allows policymakers and fisheries managers to balance actions across these objectives to achieve sustainable outcomes that protect the environment and still ensure that we have a viable and thriving fishing industry. Sustainable development recognises the needs of society alongside the environment and thus points to a balanced approach. If we place environmental sustainability as the prime objective, we will prevent fisheries managers taking balanced decisions by always favouring the environment over social, scientific, national and economic matters.

I am not being facetious, but as a Star Trek fan I am aware of the Prime Directive—not to interfere—but I do not know how the “prime” objective would be implemented, and nor has the mover of the amendment sought to define it. I looked up some meanings and synonyms of the word “prime” and got the following: “main”, “chief”, “key”, “central”, “principal”, “foremost”, “first”, “most important”, “paramount”, “major”, “dominant”, “supreme”, “overriding”, “cardinal”, “pre-eminent” and “ultimate”. If that is how our courts would define “prime”, I am concerned if that is how it would be interpreted in the Bill.

Of course the sustainability objective is essential, but so are the precautionary, scientific, bycatch, ecosystem, equal access, national benefit and climate change objectives. The lawyers and no doubt my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will correct me if I am wrong, but the wording of the clause means that all of these must be complied with, so all of these other objectives must still satisfy the test of being sustainable. It is not an either/or list. Thus, if the Government are making rules under the national benefit objective, the bycatch objective, or any other objective, these rules must still satisfy the test of being sustainable. Setting one objective above the others would create confusion and undermine the basic construct of the Government’s future fisheries legislation.

Managing trade-offs is complex and not easily amenable to simple rules, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, just warned us. I believe that the current drafting of the fisheries objectives strikes the best balance between requiring Ministers to respect the science and be precautionary, and also to consider the impact on our fishing communities before acting.

We all recognise the need to protect our precious marine environment, but we must find a way to do so that supports our equally precious coastal communities. I urge the House to consider the potential costs to those communities if we constrain the Government’s ability to make balanced decisions—a balance that appears to be central to this Bill’s ambition to support both the environment and the people living and working in fishing communities.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, I fully support Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others. It would make it clear that fish and aquaculture activities must not compromise environmental sustainability. The Government have said that they will continue to strive for the ambitions of the relevant directives in this regard, but many are concerned that these could be weakened. That is why it is important to set this out clearly in the Bill with the amendment.

If the Minister will not accept the amendment today, will he set out how the Government will ensure that the important principles in directives such as the European marine strategy framework, the bathing water directive and the water framework directive will be taken forward and not compromised, as my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, highlighted in her speech? If they are compromised, what mechanism will there be to ensure that they are properly enforced, since we will have no access to the Court of Justice of the European Union? What mechanism is proposed by the Government?

Proposed new subsection (b) would put commitments in the Bill on economic, social and employment benefits and not overexploiting marine stocks. Again, it is important that this is clearly in the Bill because the devil will be in the detail and we must have clarity that the principles are set out without any dispute. The details will be issues such as licensing powers, catch limits and other restrictions on fishing.

As my noble friend Lord Hain set out in the previous debate, the reality of today’s British fishing industry is how much of the catch is in fact exported to the European Union and beyond, and how much of the fish we eat—cod, haddock, langoustine, salmon—is in fact imported into the UK. That has not been made clear in the debate, in the media and elsewhere over many years, much to the detriment of the debate, to the reality of the situation, and to the British fishing industry and the UK at large. The Government should aim to get this right by accepting the amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is probably my naivety, but it seems to me that Amendment 2 is one of those amendments that really should not cause the Government too much of a problem. It just subtly tells them that their first attempt at outlining a sustainability objective is good, but not quite right or strong enough. It needs to emphasise more the importance of both a short-term and a long-term healthy marine environment, full of marine life and with a healthy variety of fish stocks. More importantly, as others have said, the amendment insists that the sustainability objective must be the prime objective. That fact makes it better than the Government’s first attempt.

It is probably platitudinous to say that if you have too many objectives or priorities, you have no priorities or real objectives at all. You cannot be all things to all men. I, along with the promoters of this amendment, believe that the preservation of our fisheries and marine environment for our grandchildren should always trump even the suspicion of overexploitation today. So I hope that the Government will accept that proposed new subsection (2) is better and more explicit than theirs. In that light, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

My Amendment 20, would, in effect, put Amendment 2 into practical application. The problem, as I am sure everyone is aware, lies in the opt-out sections of Clause 7, notably Clause 7(7)(d), and Clause 10(2). If you are allowed to opt out or alter the fisheries statement or a fisheries management plan for socioeconomic reasons, there is a danger—maybe only a small one, but it is there—that the fisheries authority will support today’s fisheries at the expense of tomorrow’s fishers. So it is important to make it clear that the sustainability objective trumps all, which is what both these amendments seek to achieve.

Experience in Scotland, which has a similar opt-out provision in the Marine (Scotland) Act, has shown that, where an opt-out exists, environmental considerations can get pushed to one side for socioeconomic reasons. As I reported in Committee, six years after—

Agriculture Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak at Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill. As we have heard, it is the first major reform of agricultural policy for many years. As we form new relationships, it will determine new systems to support our farmers and growers and protect the environment. What is most important for agriculture is to maintain high standards of quality. Our aims should be standards at least as good as those of the European Union, if not better, and that we maintain food security.

There is no benefit for the UK in our farmers and growers seeking to deregulate, lower standards and take part in a race to the bottom. We want the highest possible standards for food produced and consumed in the UK. We also need to ensure that where we export food, it is recognised as some of the best in the world. I support my noble friend Lady Mallalieu’s point that Ministers’ welcome commitments should be in the Bill. I cannot understand why they are not prepared to do that.

I pay tribute to our farmers and growers and their work during the Covid-19 crisis. They have worked with others in the supply chain to keep food on the nation’s table. I support the aim of the Bill to provide public money for public good but, as my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, this must be for doing real public good and not a continuation of the old regime in all but name.

I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, confirmed that there is no possibility of chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef being imported and allowed to be consumed in the UK. It is good to hear that, but can he go further and confirm that, in all the food that we produce and import in the UK, there is no possibility of standards being any lower than those of the EU and that, in fact, the Government intend to go further and, where possible, introduce even higher standards? Will he confirm that, in looking for those higher standards, there will be no possibility of unintentionally weakening standards? The weakening of standards of imported foods would devastate the livelihoods of our farmers and growers and increase the risk to the general population.

I very much support the aims of the Bill to support and regenerate biodiversity and to support public understanding of the environment. Will the Minister set out for the House how he sees that being achieved? Further, will he outline how he sees the powers of the Bill helping to prevent, reduce and protect us from environmental hazards, such as flooding, which have been more and more of a problem in recent years?

Also, will the noble Lord set out how he sees public access to the countryside being maintained and improved? Will he confirm that farmers and growers will be able to receive financial assistance to create new public paths and make improvements to existing routes to enable more people to get outdoors and enjoy our wonderful countryside? The Bill should work to help our precious path network be better maintained. Where farmers and growers are encouraged to do that, they should be properly rewarded for doing so.

I am conscious that I have asked a number of questions. If the noble Lord cannot answer them today, I would appreciate a letter being sent to me and to other noble Lords, and a copy being put in the Library of the House.

Equine Welfare Standards

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for putting down this Question for Short Debate and understand that he cannot be with us due to a family illness. We are also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for stepping in to ask this Question today. I should first declare an interest as I am, along with my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, a trustee of the National Association of Stable Staff, which is a trade union affiliated to the TUC and represents stable staff employed in the horseracing industry. I want to pay tribute to the members of NASS for the important work they do in the horseracing industry in helping deliver some of the best equine standards in the world.

In my brief remarks I want to focus on the horseracing industry and its work to deliver, as I said, some of the best standards in the world—and we should take some satisfaction from that. The British Horseracing Authority is the body responsible for the regulation of horseracing and has an excellent record of working with the Government, the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare, NASS and many other organisations to deliver standards that are in excess of those required by legislation. It is fair to say that racehorses are some of the best looked-after horses in Britain. High welfare standards are demanded of everyone in the industry and none of the 1,400-plus meetings can go ahead unless the equine welfare standards demanded by the BHA have been satisfied. The industry is open and transparent about the risks involved, about which we all know. No sport is without risks, and the key is to learn from and mitigate them. Equine fatality has fallen in the industry in the past 20 years. It is down now to 0.2%—a very low rate indeed. Detailed data are kept, and that has helped the industry progress. After the racehorse retires, work is undertaken as it moves on to other things, is rehomed and retrained.

I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, a couple of questions. In his response to the debate, will he tell the House how his department works with the British Horseracing Authority to learn and develop best practice? What discussions does the department have with the RSPCA and other welfare organisations to improve equine welfare standards? Does he agree that care at the professional level has had a positive effect on the welfare of horses generally, notwithstanding what we have heard from other noble Lords in this debate? Finally, does he think that the legislation is sufficient at present to protect the welfare of horses, and when did the department last routinely review the legislation in this area?

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, because there probably would not be time to do it justice. However, I assure noble Lords that the question of how we structure this project is complicated and we are being extremely careful about it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us a bit more about the consultation that has taken place with local residents affected by the route? Many people in the city are very unhappy about what is going on. He mentioned Ofwat and Thames Water. Not enough is being done there and people are very unhappy about this.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we are acutely conscious of the impact of the tunnel’s construction on local communities and on the tunnel’s surroundings. Local authorities and the public had the opportunity to make their views known during the Planning Inspectorate’s examination of Thames Water’s planning application. The Planning Inspectorate will take all views into account and make a recommendation to Ministers in June. Ministers are expected to make a final decision in September. However, because Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning process, I am sure that noble Lords would not expect me to comment further.

Food: Food Banks

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I think it is right to expect claimants who are able to look for or prepare for work to do so. Claimants will only ever be required to meet reasonable requirements, taking into account their circumstances and capability. A sanction will never be imposed if a claimant has good reason for failing to meet requirements, and sanctions can be reconsidered or appealed. If claimants demonstrate that they cannot buy essential items, including food, as a result of their sanction, they can claim a hardship payment. This means that no claimant should ever have to go without essentials as a result of their sanction.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this year the Government commissioned research on the landscape of food provision. They have had the review since June; they have been reviewing it for longer than it took to write it. Is the reason why they have kept the report and have not published it yet the fact that it shows that the recent increase in food aid provision is due to their own disastrous policies? If I am wrong, publish the report.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that we have commissioned research to assess publicly available evidence on food aid provision in the UK, including food banks. This work will be made available in due course. All government-funded research reports are required to go through an appropriate review and quality assurance process before publication. The report will be published once this is complete.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, this group of amendments touches a matter that has been very extensively discussed. I hope that there will be an open mind on what can be done. I realise that we have now reached a late stage in the deliberations of the Bill, and the Government have given a great deal of thought to this. It appears that part of the concern about explicitly requiring public consultation is that it may lead to unnecessary overkill in involving a great deal of expenditure, but that depends on the way that the consultation is carried out. I recall a debate that a number of Members in this House will perhaps also recall prior to the dissolution of the previous Parliament, in which the responsible Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, laid out the work of the Cabinet Office in respect of public consultation. It was clear that, notwithstanding a code for public consultation, there were enormous variations in the way it was conducted. The issue requires to be readdressed not only because that debate revealed that the code was not being followed in terms of the time being taken to reply and the great variety of practices between departments, but also because in some cases a much longer period for consultation is appropriate than in others. I hope that the Government will give some positive and practical thought to how that might best be achieved.

So far as public consultation is concerned, with modern methods of communication, particularly the availability of a website, it is possible that it could be done involving quite limited public expenditure. Of course it could lead to a deluge of replies, but that is unlikely in the case of some of the bodies we have considered in the course of our debates, which have not functioned for perhaps five years.

Although the Bill and the amendments are quite specific in indicating who should be consulted, referring in particular to people who appear to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal, there can be other individuals who could usefully be consulted beyond those who may have a direct interest. It is perfectly possible, given that these are public bodies, that people who have served on them—some of them may be in this place—may have some knowledge of how they might be made to work better. Those are the sort of people whose opinions, I believe, would be worth paying some attention to, even though they are not specifically mentioned in the listed categories.

We are making good strides in respect of consultation, but I think that there is scope for a little more reflection and I hope, before the Bill is enacted, that such reflection will be given. I hope that the Government will not feel that this is an attempt to stymie their measures or simplify the process unreasonably. Rather, it is to avoid the possibility of these important matters being introduced to Parliament with the opinions of those who could suggest useful improvements being left out of the consideration. As a consequence, I am broadly supportive of Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some practical thoughts about it in his reply.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I support Amendment 65 moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and in doing so I shall speak to Amendment 67 tabled in my name, although I will not move it separately. This amendment, along with all the amendments in this group, seeks to improve the consultation process that holds Ministers to account by Parliament. Amendment 67 would place a duty on Ministers to consult with the relevant local government body and any relevant local authority. Who could be against that? I do think that Clause 10(1)(b) and (g) are specific enough on their own because they leave too much in doubt about what is happening. You could say that we are being left sitting in a ministerial fog when what we need is clarity. My amendment would give that clarity by placing a clear and unambiguous duty to consult local government where those functions which are going to be subject to an order have a bearing on local government.

I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I think that my amendment will help the Government along towards working more closely with local government and should cause no problems. It could even be said that it moves the Bill a bit further along the localism road that the Government say they are so keen to promote. I shall leave it there. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in saying that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, will feel able to move a little on this point.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Colville of Culross. Lord Colville was serving on the Merits Committee when I joined it some five years ago. I am not serving on it now, of course, because I did my four years and then got cycled off. Lord Colville taught me an enormous amount about consultation. It was his subject: he knew it from A to Z.

The Merits Committee of your Lordships’ House considers more than 1,000 orders every year. It looks at the Explanatory Memoranda. I can tell you for sure that the members of the committee usually go first to paragraph 8, the consultation paragraph. There is an enormous amount of expertise in your Lordships’ House in assessing not only whether consultation has been properly done and whether the 12 weeks were sufficient but also what has been left out or might have been elided. Noble Lords are extremely skilled in going back to departments and questioning the presentation of these paragraphs. That also applies to the paragraphs in the impact assessment, if there is one required.

I imagine that the orders in the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be submitted to a committee of this House as well as, presumably, to a committee of the other place—that is clear from the language in the Bill. This clause includes, as well as paragraphs (a) and (b), paragraph (g), which says,

“such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate”.

If I am allowed from the Back Bench to give an assurance, I can give noble Lords a little Merits Committee assurance that, if a committee of your Lordships’ House considers that the Minister has missed out on who it is appropriate to consult, then his department will be pretty sharply told. I hope that we do not underrate the capability of this House to make sure that consultation is done in a really workmanlike manner. Of course, it is never satisfactorily done because there are winners and losers at the end of consultation. Nobody is completely satisfied for ever that the consultation has been properly done but if there is a way of monitoring consultation it certainly exists in your Lordships’ House.

Rural Communities: Prince’s Countryside Fund

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, on securing this balloted debate. I look forward to the three maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I came into this House in June this year and have had many conversations on a wide range of issues outside this Chamber. There is no doubting his passion for the countryside and his support for British farming and rural communities. I very much support the aims of the countryside fund launched this summer by the Prince of Wales. It is good to note that so many leading companies have made contributions to it. I very much hope that other companies, other organisations and individuals will follow their example and support this fund and other initiatives.

Supporting farming communities and the rural economy is of paramount importance to us all. We want the communities to thrive and prosper. There have been difficult times, and we are all aware that there are difficult times ahead. Although I am a Londoner, I worked in the east Midlands for 13 years before returning to London in 2005. The east Midlands is a very rural region. There is no conurbation. It is a series of principal cities and towns in rural counties. Rural communities that you find in the east Midlands and around the rest of the UK need to be given the support to be sustainable. They must be able to have their fair share of the green jobs that we talk about so much and be able to access the fastest broadband and other cutting edge developments in the ever-changing world.

We will need to monitor closely the decision to move away from the broadband levy to a system that encourages private investment in next generation broadband. If this system does not bring the required level of investment, it puts rural communities to the back of the queue in being able to benefit from these developments. That means that government, business and local authorities have to work together to ensure that this does not happen. The Government have to review and evaluate, and be prepared to change. Working together with initiatives such as the countryside fund means that the countryside is protected for everyone to enjoy. Whether you live in an urban or rural area the countryside is for everyone. Making the countryside accessible to all is the way we ensure that it is preserved and protected.

We all want good quality food produced, bought and sold at fair prices. I support British farming in my purchases every week and in doing so support an industry that has quality as its hallmark. From the biggest farms to the smallest micro brewer in a rural hamlet they need to know that we are supporting them. But that is not enough: the supermarkets have their role to play in paying a fair price for good products produced by British farmers.

In conclusion, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. With his membership of this House we will be assured of returning to these issues many times. I have raised a number of points and I look forward to the Minister’s response.