Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I will intervene briefly on Amendment 60A to add to the paeans of praise from other noble Lords on the way that the Minister has promoted the Bill. I was deeply concerned about the way that it was originally drafted, not least from the point of view of many judicial or quasi-judicial bodies that could have come to a summary end if amendments had not been made. I hope that this is not misunderstood but the Minister has showed exemplary understanding of the concerns expressed on all sides of the House. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was not concerned for the judiciary but perhaps I may put myself in a different category: I was concerned for the judiciary as it was. The Bill is now in immeasurably better form. Other noble Lords have said this afternoon that they would like the Minister to amplify on this or that comment, but I see no practical difficulty in regard to the Bill as it now stands.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, I would like to add my words of appreciation to those that have already been made to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. When a Bill of such complexity and importance is produced early in the lifetime of a Parliament, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that the drafting would give rise to great concern. That concern has been reflected in the reports of committees of this House. Those committees—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—are due warm appreciation because, although there was no prior, pre-legislative scrutiny, they have given it most careful scrutiny. I am particularly grateful for the 12th report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which set out the matter that is to some extent covered by Amendment 60A, moved by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
The Minister referred to Amendment 61ZA standing in my name and to which I draw the House’s attention. That was intended to respond to the observation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that certain matters set out in Clause 8 are simply ones to which the Minister must have regard or consider. It was a particular criticism based upon the wider concern that the purposes of the Bill and the powers to be used by Ministers had not been adequately set out, and that this was a power of delegation to be embodied in the Bill which needed greater justification in terms of its purposes. I am grateful for what the Minister has said. The language of his amendment appears designed to tackle this gap, at least in part. There are certain differences between the drafting of my amendment and Amendment 60A.
Lord Elton
It may be of some interest to noble Lords who have the same print of the Marshalled List as I have to know that Amendment 61ZA to which the noble Lord refers is the one immediately after the withdrawn Amendment 61. I think that the number, 61ZA, has not been printed.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for making that clear. There is a difference; in fact, there are at least two differences which may be of some significance, between government Amendment 60A and my Amendment 61AZ. The first is that in my proposal the Minister should be permitted to make an order only if he considered that,
“the order will achieve one or more of the objectives in subsection (1)”.
That embodies two points; first, that there should be an expectation on the part of the Minister that the power, “will achieve” one of the purposes; and, secondly, it does not require all the purposes to be achieved by the use of the power.
The Minister referred to my amendment as being in some ways less than his, in that it refers to,
“one or more of the objectives”,
whereas, in his amendment, the Minister has to consider,
“that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions, having regard to—”.
It appears to me that the listing of,
“efficiency … effectiveness … economy, and … securing appropriate accountability to Ministers”,
is a collective, not a single test, or even one to be applied to two of these criteria. Therefore, I felt that the amendment that I had tabled was, in some ways, more realistic because it is quite often the case that effectiveness and economy are not necessarily the same and not necessarily both achievable by a measure of government. That is, it is desirable that they should all be achieved, but it cannot be certain and if there is a choice, it ought to be possible for the Minister to make that choice.
This is not a form of words, as I understand it, which just bows in favour of motherhood and apple pie; it is, as I see it, an opportunity for the Government to indicate, in the report that they will produce before Parliament considers the legislation, what it is that is moving the Government. I think it reasonable that, if they could demonstrate greater efficiency, greater effectiveness or greater economy, they should be able to say so and not necessarily have to tick all four boxes. However, this is probably a matter for construction by greater legal brains than mine and consequently, I hope that the matter might be reconsidered at a later date. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the changes he has proffered to the House, which are a substantial improvement on what went before.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the amendments brought forward by the Minister. I, too, associate myself with all the tributes paid to him. I hope that the praise from your Lordships’ House does not cause him any embarrassment back at the ministry. I am a little disappointed, however, that he did not feel able to respond positively to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who all noble Lords will wish to see back in his place as soon as possible. That amendment would add fairness, justice, openness and transparency to the list of factors to which the Minister must have particular regard. The Minister suggested in his opening remarks that to add such concepts to the clause would impose what he described as an “abstract evidential burden”. I am sure that on reflection he will recognise that the concepts introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, are no more abstract than the concepts of efficiency, effectiveness, economy and accountability that are included in his own very welcome amendment. I ask him to reflect further on the criteria in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newton.
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 think it was Hegel who got us all into the categorical imperative of “must”. I have certainly tried to organise my life on the basis of using the word as infrequently as possible, but I defer to more expert opinions as to whether it should be “must” rather than “may”. I would like to emphasise the point, which was made much more elegantly than I can by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that we are considering this Bill. I, too, have very strong views about the way in which orders and statutory instruments are laid and the way in which the House considers them.
In thinking about that, my mind goes back to home information packs and the big casino in Manchester. It is not unknown that this House decides that it is not going to live with what at that time was an ordinary affirmative order rather than a super-affirmative order, but Amendment 71 is in danger of over-elaboration. If both Houses of Parliament take Clause 11 as it is in the Bill at present, they have the opportunity for full and adequate scrutiny and, by the recommendations of committees, to put Ministers in the position where they will have to bring forward an amendment.
On the question of amendments, the point is well illustrated by the Bill. Not many amendments are moved by Members of this House that, even if they are approved, remain as they were on the day of approval. They need to go back to the parliamentary draftsmen. The committees of this House do not have parliamentary draftsmen. As an amending and revising Chamber, we do our best work when we persuade the Government that they should take an amendment away and make it into something that will really work as legislation.
Very briefly on the matter of over-elaboration, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would make us go back to the consultation and the representations made in that consultation three times—not just the first time because the Minister must lay it out a second time and then, as in the proposed subsection, a third time. That is overly repetitious, because unless it is also specified that something should be put out to a new consultation, the process will be overly elaborate.
I should like to make one other point. If a draft order is referred to committees of both Houses and those committees have the power to put forward amendments but those amendments are in disagreement, it will take a very considerable time to sort out that kind of disagreement between the two Houses. Given that many of the things that will be done when this Bill is enacted are in fact pretty straightforward, simple and not very controversial, to over-elaborate the process is a mistake.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I rise briefly to say that I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The issue raised by Amendment 71 is of great importance and ought to be considered in the wider space of the practices of the House as a whole. It does seem anomalous that we cannot amend secondary, subordinate legislation, and therefore it would be attractive if proposals could be referred to committees for consideration because it could be a time-saving approach. It would allow committees to consider in detail matters that cannot effectively be considered in a debate on a statutory instrument that lasts one and a half hours. However, we have some of that process in the House already.
The wide-ranging effects of Amendment 71 would delegate too much power to committees. I take the view that a case still has to be made that committees should have binding authority to prevent legislation being considered on the Floor of the House. That, as I understand it, is what this amendment could result in. It is also not entirely clear if the committee considering whether or not a draft order should be approved under proposed subsection (9) would be an existing committee that took it upon itself to do so. I think that more than one committee has that power, or a power to consider draft orders. It might be the intention of the noble Lord who has moved the amendment that this should be for a special ad hoc committee and not for the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. That is not made clear. However, if an ad hoc committee had to be set up, that would be another stage in the process of deciding whether the measure was of sufficient importance to require that to be done.
This is not a matter to be decided on Report, however important it may be—I am quite clear that it is immensely important. It should be referred for wider consultation in the House, perhaps by the Procedure Committee. This is also a matter that should be considered in conjunction with another place because both Houses have an interest in it. It might make more sense to do that in a Joint Committee.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Judd
In the noble Lord’s absence, I beg leave to move this amendment and to speak to its group. I should perhaps remind the Committee of my interests: I am a vice-president of Campaign for National Parks and president of the Friends of the Lake District, an area that includes a very fine national park. At the outset, I shall say a word on why the parks matter, because this amendment is not free-standing but relates to their purpose. In our stressed society, many would argue that the parks have become more important than ever as a place for spiritual and physical renewal. They also have a tremendous contribution to make in the sphere of biodiversity and, potentially, a significant part to play in combating carbon pollution and all the rest.
We have yet to hear why the inclusion of national parks authorities and the Broads Authority in this Bill is either appropriate or necessary. The suggestion that their inclusion is to give them more flexibility in operating does not, frankly, sit comfortably with the extent of ministerial diktat that the Bill will provide. Most of the provisions are, in any case, unnecessary given the flexibility that already exists within the Local Government Acts and Part 8 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—or NERC, as it is known—on administrative arrangements. National parks authorities and the Broads Authority are, as they were originally described, special-purpose local authorities, but this level of intrusion by the national Government of the day threatens to undermine their independence. This group of amendments would remove national parks authorities and the Broads Authority from the Bill and, I assure the Committee, therefore have widespread support.
Clause 3 appears to give Ministers the power to change many aspects of how national parks authorities work, including their name, their accountability to Ministers, their powers to employ staff, the number of members, the procedures for member appointment and, indeed, the appointment of the chair. The concern reflected in these amendments is about the extent of the power that would be given to Ministers to alter the composition of those authorities and the Broads Authority. Defra has linked this clause to the current consultation on the governance of national parks authorities, which aims to improve their local accountability. However, the consultation is based on six simple, open questions and, until we have a clear picture of the response to them, it is surely not possible to propose what, if any, constitutional changes might be right. Indeed, including such far-reaching provisions in the Bill to deliver outcomes that have not yet been established is, I suggest, obviously premature.
Schedule 3 does not seem necessary given the flexibility that already exists in Part 8 of the NERC Act 2006. If, as I gather Defra has suggested, the intention is to provide greater flexibility for amending the membership of the Broads Authority, only that authority should be mentioned and only in relation to the specific issue of membership, not the wide range of constitutional issues listed in Clause 3.
Clause 5 gives the Minister the power to transfer the national parks authorities’ functions to an eligible person or to modify those functions by order. In practice, that would mean that, if a national park authority or the Broads Authority upset the Minister of the day through its planning decisions, the Minister could order that authority to transfer its land-use planning functions to the department, to another local authority or to a company limited by guarantee and so on. This would mean that the authorities would be constantly living with the potential threat of having powers taken away in the event of an unpopular decision, but one that would be right in terms of the purposes of the parks. That would inevitably have consequences for their freedom to operate, their willingness to innovate and, potentially, the robustness of their decision-making.
At this point I should put a question to the Minister: how do the Government value the three provisions in relation to the functions of the national parks authorities and the Broads Authority—statutory functions, such as the land-use planning functions and other detailed matters such as the making of tree preservation orders, and any function, statutory or discretionary, that the authority might undertake to deliver its statutory purposes? Those purposes are set out in Section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. They are,
“conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage”,
and,
“promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public”.
There is of course an additional purpose where the Broads are concerned, relating to navigation. I suggest that it is highly disturbing that under the terms of the Bill Ministers could change the purposes for which national parks and the Broads have been designated by order rather than through primary legislation. That is a significant and sweeping proposal.
Clause 6 gives the Minister the power to make provision by order to authorise the national park authority or the Broads Authority to delegate some or all of its functions to an eligible person, including another local authority, a company limited by guarantee or the Minister himself. While this does not explicitly relate to an authority’s planning function, it is rather hard to imagine what else it could be about. National parks authorities and the Broads Authority can currently choose to enter into agency agreements with other authorities on the delivery of their development control function, as is happening in the newly established South Downs National Park. This arrangement ensures that the authority remains ultimately responsible for the delivery of the development control function and that it is able to monitor and, where necessary, amend arrangements so that they do not prejudice the delivery of park purposes. Full delegation would not give it the same ability to monitor arrangements, as it would be delegating responsibility for them to another body. Significantly, the transfer parts of Schedule 5 and all of Schedule 6 can already be achieved using Part 8 of the NERC Act. Unlike under Clause 5(1)(b), a transfer could be done then only with the agreement of the authority.
Clause 8 requires Ministers to have regard to various objectives in considering whether to make an order under Sections 1 to 6. Surely, if we ever have this clause, it ought to require Ministers to be able to demonstrate that these objectives will be met, rather than merely having regard to them.
I have had all sorts of reassurances from Ministers about their intentions and their commitment to the parks and I genuinely believe that what they are saying is what they believe. I respect them for that, but I suggest that it is unfortunate that the parks and the Broads Authority were brought within the Bill, as they have an immensely important role to fulfil. I see some noble Lords present who from time to time have had quite acute criticisms of the parks, but those criticisms can be taken up with the park authorities as they stand and are established. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the intention of these amendments and I hope that what he says tonight will meet some of the concerns that I have expressed. I beg to move.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves, from his bed of sickness, asked me to intervene in this debate to make a few points. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has made many of those points, which will inevitably shorten the remarks that I feel obliged to make. In a sense, I will underline the principles that he raised.
The first question that I put to the Minister is: how are we and those who care about the national parks to divine what the coalition Government seek to achieve by the inclusion of the national parks authorities in Schedules 3, 5 and 6? The coalition agreement indicated:
“We will review the governance arrangements of National Parks in order to increase local accountability”.
At the time, that was taken to mean considering the possibility of the direct election of the indirectly appointed council members of the national parks authorities, although that was not made explicit. However, that is what the authorities considered that it indicated.
The second issue, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is about the Defra consultation. The consultation asked six questions, but those questions did not bring great clarity to what the Government had in mind by including them in the consultation. They were very open questions about whether the membership of the authorities should be changed and whether the process for selection could be improved. There was certainly no reference to direct election in place of indirect election from the local authorities. I understand that the consultation is now complete and the answers were submitted to the Government on 1 February. It would be of interest to know what the Government’s response to that process is and what conclusions they have drawn from the submissions that have been made.
The third issue is to discover which powers and functions of the national parks authorities the Government have in mind to alter and in what way. The national parks authorities are essentially hybrids: they are partly quangos but they have local authority functions, including particularly powerful functions in respect of planning and development, which could be and are exercised by local authorities in other parts of the country. This raises the question of how any change would have the effect of devolving more powers to the localities if what the Government seek is more influence over the direction of decision-making.
It may be thought that the powers already exist to provide for greater flexibility through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, also referred to. The Act specifically provides for flexible administrative arrangements for designated bodies, including the national parks authorities. Consequently, it appears that the only reason why this measure might be considered necessary, and for including these authorities in the Bill, is that the approval of the Secretary of State is not sufficient under the 2006 Act. The proposals must be approved by the national parks authorities. On the face if it, this looks as though it is a direct transfer of authority to the Secretary of State. That may not be the intention, but we need to hear what the Government have in mind.
It is clear that there is already grave disquiet among the national parks authorities about the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. Many of the friends organisations, those who live in the national parks and some who are employed by the authorities are considerably concerned about it. If the Government are not able to give a precise indication of the purposes of this inclusion in terms of restructuring, I predict that there could be a considerable backlash from the public. I do not say that it will necessarily be on the scale of that aroused by the forestry provisions, but no one should underestimate the regard and affection felt by many people for the national parks, not only by those living in and depending on the organisation and management of the national parks but by those who see them as an important escape from the pressures of life. Those people are deeply concerned that the 9.3 per cent of our country that is included in the 10 national parks in England should be maintained with its heritage, beauty, natural conservation and many of the other fortunate happenings in these areas. I hope that the Minister will reply to these questions, which certainly exercise many people around the country.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves, who for reasons of health is unable to move it himself and has asked me to do so. Amendment 72 and others related are concerned with the internal drainage boards, which operate principally under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and are independent operating authorities. They form a specialist but important part of the systems of local governance in their areas. There are 154 of these bodies in England and they have an important role in managing water level and flood risk. Their activities include action in emergencies, maintenance of pumping stations where necessary and providing planning advice to local authorities.
The Association of Drainage Authorities, which is the national body that represents the IDBs, is unhappy about the inclusion of these bodies in the Bill and has suggested that primary legislation would be more appropriate. There are at least two opportunities for considering this matter in this parliamentary Session. The first is through the Localism Bill, which it has been suggested by the association would be a better way in which to make specific modifications to the legislation, including amalgamation of the boards. The association has also drawn attention to the fact that the Government are proposing to produce a water White Paper in June and believes that that would be likely to be followed by a water Bill, which would provide another appropriate route through primary legislation, allowing full scrutiny to take place and extensive parliamentary debate if necessary. I rise simply to ask the Government why they feel it appropriate to include the IDBs in this Bill and why they have not preferred to wait for the primary legislation intended to be produced relatively soon.
Some concern has been expressed by these bodies—particularly by the chief executive of the ADA—that local people, including volunteers, with considerable local knowledge, freely offer advice to help to reduce the risk of flooding to people, property and land. These concerns are worthy of being addressed in the debate. I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s position. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
I must advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment 72A for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Henley
I am very grateful for that “Hear, hear” from the Cross Benches. For the reasons I have explained, I hope that the Committee will agree to the Government’s amendments and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his full response to the debate which has given us the information that we sought. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Taylor for the dedicated way in which he has applied himself to considering the criticisms of the Bill that were made during the earlier stages of debate. I congratulate him on the generous way in which he has involved Members not only of the coalition but of the Opposition in the dialogue, which has unquestionably moved towards much more coherent and democratic procedures for winding up bodies which are past their sell-by date. This has exemplified the maxim of John Stuart Mill that the best government is government by discussion. I strongly welcome the approach and hope that it will continue until the Bill is enacted.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach for informing us of the removal of Schedule 7 and Clause 11. I was seriously concerned about this matter because I was until the general election the chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, and I think I am its only surviving former chairman. As it was drafted, the Bill gave power in Schedule 7 and Clause 11 for the Government to do all sorts of things whenever they decided to do so. It was entirely uncertain, and whenever I looked at it I saw in my mind the quotation from King Lear:
“I will do such things, what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth”.
What is now proposed is broadly within the standards recognised by your Lordships’ House for delegated powers and I am very pleased that this difficulty is over. It will cut a very substantial amount of time from what we would have expected.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
The noble Lord looks for an independent rural advocate. I do not think that we will be short of any number of independent rural advocates or that they necessarily need to be government funded. He referred in terms of environmental matters to Geoffrey Lean. There are many others who will offer us advice and make their views known, as will the noble Lord himself, this House and another place. I can assure the noble Lord that we will not be short of advice. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Greaves will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
While I recognise the strength of what my noble friend said about the department’s commitment, is not the problem that the department is only part of government and that there can be much stronger departments—for example, the Treasury and the department for business? We have witnessed the National Grid announce a consultation on covering large parts of rural England with pylons from the North Sea. When that issue comes to be debated within government, we will hear the voices of the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but those debates will be internal. Would it not enormously strengthen my noble friend’s department to have an authoritative voice—not just local women’s institutes—from an objective body set up for the purpose of giving a view which is clearly not parti pris but is committed to the benefit of the rural areas of this country?
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.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, I too support the amendment. I apologise for not being here at the very start of the debate; I was detained elsewhere in the House.
Let me declare an interest—for 12 years I had the great privilege of leading the union to which agricultural workers belong and which represented them. I was general secretary at the T&G, and I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, who was my deputy general secretary. Part of our joint and collective responsibility was to pay a special interest to the work of our agricultural membership. We did that because in many instances they had a diffuse working environment, away from the collectiveness of the workplace found in factories, warehouses and even supermarkets. I am sure that the noble Baroness would have made some of the points I might make now, and for that I apologise again.
The noble Baroness and I campaigned, along with the rest of the trade union movement, to have a national minimum wage introduced because it gave certain standards. It also sent a very clear message about how workers should be treated and what sort of economy we want to build in the United Kingdom. If I thought for one minute that the agricultural wages board could have done the job that the national minimum wage is intended to do, we would not have bothered. We are talking about two separate and distinct bodies, with separate and distinct functions. The agricultural wages board is a joint industry body—it represents agricultural workers, sitting face to face with employers, and of course has an element of independence as well. It looks after the interests of young people, it is concerned about safety and it has a duty and responsibility that goes far beyond anything that the Low Pay Commission ever does.
The Low Pay Commission was set up by the Government of the day to deal exclusively with pay—nothing else and nothing more. Therefore, any consideration of abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, in the vain hope that the tasks, duties, responsibilities and obligations that it performs will be transferred to the Low Pay Commission, displays a level of ignorance which is quite threatening and worrying. The two bodies are different and they carry out different functions.
In fact, the Agricultural Wages Board was preceded by a body called the Fair Wage Resolution. Every so often a resolution would be passed to renew the principles of fair wages—nothing else but wages. However, it failed. Accidents were part and parcel of daily experience. Young children were going into grain silos with some horrific consequences. It was recognised that there needed to be an authoritative body which was not a trading body and not an employers' body, but a body for the industry which recognised and promoted the interests of the industry.
When my union goes to Brussels and meets agricultural workers, we do not say, “What is the rate of pay in other parts of the European Union?”; we do not say, “What is now being looked at for holidays?”; but we talk about the issues of the industry. The Agricultural Wages Board is an advocate for the international industry; the Low Pay Commission is no such thing. It would not just be a backward step but a tragedy for British agriculture to have no voice which represented both sides of the industry and which could speak with an element of independence, nationally and internationally. Therefore, I genuinely ask the Committee and the Government to think again because they will be sending the wrong signals and putting a lot of people in a lot of danger. They are making a tragic mistake. I hope that they pull back from this.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I declare an interest as the owner of a small farm in the north of Scotland, the circumstances of which are very different from the farms mentioned by other owners.
This has been a very important debate, stimulated by my noble friend’s amendment. There has been a remarkable chasm of opinion between those who view the winding up of the Agricultural Wages Board with concern and those who are either indifferent or supportive. The National Farmers’ Union apparently has made its position clear. The one interest which has not been expressed in this debate so far from the point of view of an objective economist is: what will be the impact on rural development of a depression in farm workers’ wages? That seems to be the natural consequence of the removal of this body, at least at the lower end of the scales.
I recognise that in some prosperous parts of the country, agriculture has to compete for skilled activity from people who could find alternative employment relatively easily in the area. Large parts of the south-west may be a good exemplification of that, but in the more sparsely populated areas there is not a superfluity of employment. There are not many alternative jobs available and it seems to me that a consequence of depression in income of those working on farms, whether at the top of the local scale or near the bottom, is likely to result in a further flight from the land. That has to be of concern. I cannot speak with the authority of a rural or agricultural economist, but I very much hope that the Government, in considering this proposition, have taken those considerations into account. If there is any evidence that can be revealed, I hope they will reveal it this afternoon or at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I, too, support strongly the amendment and pay tribute to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, introduced this debate. It has been an interesting and powerful debate, and noble Lords from around the House have certainly brought their experience to bear on this issue. We even had the personal experience of my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere, who, at an earlier stage in his career, was affected by the decisions of the agricultural wages board.
We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the board, in one form or another, was established a long time ago—in 1924—and has been a tried and tested institution. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also referred, as I think did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to industrial action. Happily there has not been industrial action in the agricultural industry since 1923—significantly, the year immediately before the establishment of the board. However, I support the agricultural wages board not simply because it has been here for a long time. The Minister misquoted me in our last debate when he said that I had said at some point,
“that everything should continue as it is just because it always has existed in the past”.—[Official Report, 29/11/10; col. 1360.]
I can assure him that I have never said anything remotely like that, and I am very often persuaded of the need for all kinds of change. I hope, after what has been said today, particularly by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the Government will think again about the decision to abolish the agricultural wages board. I think they should reconsider it very seriously indeed in the light of this discussion.
A number of noble Lords mentioned consultation, and there certainly has been next to no consultation on this decision. The Minister, in answer to a Written Question from me, said:
“No specific consultation was undertaken prior to the decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board”.—[Official Report, 26/10/10; col. WA 245.]
It is my understanding that the Welsh Assembly Government criticised their notification of this as being totally inadequate; they were given one week to respond. Indeed, in an answer to a Question from the former Defra Secretary of State in the other place, Hilary Benn, again the lack of consultation was clearly evident. Given that the agricultural wages board has been a very long-standing feature of our economic and agricultural landscape, to have no consultation is very serious indeed.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Would the noble Baroness agree that the debate has been forceful in indicating that consultation would be advisable and helpful, and that perhaps it would be sensible not to reach a conclusion on this matter in this debate, because evidently there is still a great deal of time left to consider the Bill?