Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Butler-Sloss

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

Rather unusually, my Lords, I speak not to support an amendment but to oppose some. I live in Devon, owned Dartmoor ponies and share the concerns of the Dartmoor Pony Society and other Dartmoor groups about some of the amendments to Part 1 on financial assistance. These groups have no criticism of the present clauses and the financial assistance proposed is much welcome. We are concerned, because the amendments should not be accepted. There are two in the first group about which I wish to speak, Amendments 17 and 27.

The effect of these amendments is either to exclude or to reduce the preservation of the semi-wild ponies on Dartmoor. Amendment 17 does not include native ponies, because the definition of wildlife does not include it, so there is a problem with using “conserves”. Amendment 27, by leaving out “native livestock” and “native”, would completely exclude the semi-wild Dartmoor ponies, which are such an iconic part of Devon and English heritage. I therefore hope that these two amendments are not accepted.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I asked to intervene on this group primarily to make a few general points, which relate to Clause 1 and the amendments to it, in this and subsequent groups. I also register my strong support for a couple of amendments that have already been spoken to. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke about the amendment relating to air pollution, which I strongly support. Secondly, Amendment 51 and other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, relate to the public good that farming provides in relation to the rural community and economy.

I speak having been Agriculture Minister when the last dramatic change to the EU—and hence UK— subsidy policy was made in 2005 with the official reform. That did not go entirely well. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, it was introduced with administrative shambles here, although not quite so much in other countries. It was based on two premises that proved not to be the case. The first was that abolishing production subsidies would deliver us a multilateral trade agreement—the Doha round that never materialised. The second was that moving subsidy from production to the land would enable us to effectively ensure the environmental and agricultural status of all agricultural land, through a system of cross-compliance. Theoretically that has been the case and has worked in some places, but in many it has not, because of a lack of enforcement and clarity in the bureaucrats who were supposed to support it.

I strongly support the concept of public good in Clause 1 itself. However, we cannot get away from the fact that this introduces a system of subsidy that is substantially more complex than previous systems. The additional amendments, many of which I support in principle, probably make it more complicated. There is a need for farmers to relate to a much wider range of bodies than currently, not just in the way they practise farming but in their receipt of the subsidy—ranging from the Environment Agency to the water companies, private companies, local authorities and, presumably, the office for environmental protection and other bodies that will be set up by the Environment Bill and which we have not yet seen.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, warned us against putting everything into silos, and I recommend that the Government observe a number of principles in introducing this system. First, they should take it in stages. I therefore oppose any slow-down in the seven-year switchover period. Secondly, they need to require a system of whole-farm certification, in one form or another. That does not necessarily have to be onerous. It could include framework agreements for receipt of subsidies and be based on existing voluntary and commercial schemes. Thirdly, they need to provide a better system of advice and support to farmers. I mention ADAS; it does not have to be the same as ADAS, but farmers will need additional support. Fourthly and crucially, it needs to be made clear which bodies are responsible for which forms of support, and which for the responsibility of enforcement of standards and the conditions attaching support.

I favour multiple forms of support for farming, because farming has multiple outputs, but it is complex and the Government need to be clear, early in the process, what the bureaucratic structure is, how agencies will be co-ordinated, to what degree we can rely on commercial or voluntary arrangements and whether the agencies are adequately resourced and have adequate powers. If we do not get this right in the first year or two of switchover, there will be multiple problems later. The Government need to make this clear, because farming is not solely confined to itself. It is part of the rural economy and community, the food system, the nation’s health and diet, and the local, national and global environment. Government support needs to reflect all these dimensions but, for it to be a success, we need to be a lot clearer than the Bill and the Government currently are.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Butler-Sloss

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter, specifically Amendment 62. I do not want to dissociate myself from the general praise for the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor; he has been the most flexible of Ministers that we have yet seen in this coalition Government, and we are all extremely grateful to him, not least for his Amendment 60A. However, it is still slightly lacking; if the Minister is now the Lincolnshire poacher, where does that leave the gamekeeper? Parliament is the gamekeeper, but with the whole of the Bill Parliament is letting go the central principle that primary legislation can be amended only by other primary legislation. If we are to do so—and I understand the logic and the safeguards that are beginning to be built into the Bill—then we need to be quite explicit about how we are letting it go.

My noble friend Lady Hayter’s amendments make it clear that, when the aims and objectives of a particular body are specified in existing primary legislation and when any Minister wants to activate one of these mergers, abolitions or changes in function, then as part of the process the Minister must go specifically through those aims and objectives and explain how they will be achieved in the absence of the body or after the proposed changes to the nature of the body have been made. In the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that means a bit more discipline. It requires Ministers to put before this House what the original primary legislation required of the body and how that will now be carried out. If that is to be transferred, that needs to be explicit; if that is to be merged with the requirements of another body, that needs to be explicit; if that is to be transferred to a private body, that needs to be explicit, with the other complications that arise from that; if that is to revert to the Minister, that needs to be explicit; or, if that is to disappear into the ether, Parliament needs to be clear what is happening. When we agree to these safeguards—and the Constitution Committee has now accepted that, broadly speaking, these safeguards meet the criteria—we need to ensure that the process runs through a check of what was set out in the original legislation. My noble friend’s amendment would take us a significant way towards achieving that and exerting that degree of discipline on the future use of this legislation by Ministers.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I add my praise to the Minister, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, expressed so well. Even so, some tweaks might be provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was saying. I entirely agree with him. I speak particularly in relation to Amendment 62 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, because the World Wildlife Fund, which I think the whole House will agree is an extraordinarily sensible organisation, is concerned for the Marine Management Organisation to which she referred. However, she referred to it in the earlier amendment and not Amendment 62. The problem the World Wildlife Fund sees as set out in the briefing I received—I am sure many noble Lords will have received it—requires at least some clear indication by the Minister that the Marine Management Organisation is not at risk. The bodies listed in Schedule 4 could have their funding arrangements changed by secondary legislation and the World Wildlife Fund is concerned that some degree of pressure—for instance, from drilling organisations—might imperil the Marine Management Organisation. It seems to me, if I may respectfully say so to the Minister, that either the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, should be accepted or at least the Minister should give a very clear policy decision that this could not possibly happen.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Butler-Sloss

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords that, because the House has made such good progress today, I was not present at the beginning of the debate. However, as my name is attached to the amendment, perhaps I may touch on two issues, neither of which has been mentioned since I have been in the Chamber. If either has already been mentioned, I apologise.

The first point follows on from what my noble friend Lord Clark has just said. The structure that the Agricultural Wages Board sets does recognise skills throughout this sector. The fact that many workers in many parts of the country are paid more than the legal minimum does not take away the need to have that structure. The requirements of agriculture are becoming more and more sophisticated at one end, but less and less sophisticated at another. At the higher end, those skills need to be rewarded. The structure provided by the AWB allowed individual farmers and farm enterprises to base their actual wages on a similar structure.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will know by now that every farmer you meet will tell you that every cost saving that he makes is immediately recouped by the supermarkets. One of my fears in this is that, once it is known that there is a reduction in the legal minimum, which sets a floor above which voluntary payments by employers stretch to quite high levels for some workers, the supermarkets and the big processors will say, “Your labour costs need to go down by the same degree as the legal minimum goes down”—that is, in proportion to the difference between the wages board minimum and the statutory minimum wage. For the total bill, that is an enormous amount of money and therefore a saving to the supermarkets. I know that the Government intend to address other pressures that the supermarkets put on the agricultural sector, but this will be one more excuse for them to lean on farmers to reduce their prices and therefore to reduce their wages. If the noble Lord wishes to start that process, there will be real dangers, and the skilled force will begin to disappear.

At the other end of the labour force, a lot of agricultural labour, and particularly seasonal labour, depends on migrant labour and is operated by a set of gangmasters. There is nothing wrong with labour providers, provided that they obey the rules. But one of the main ways in which the exploitation by some gangmasters of the workforce is identified is that they are not meeting the legal minimum set out in the Agricultural Wages Board regulations. Once that is seen—and it is a relatively simple thing to establish—all sorts of other abuses over conditions of health and safety, immigration status and tax and national insurance become apparent. As a result, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been able to clean up a lot of that end. It has been a very important way in which the authority can do so. If we remove that clear legal minimum, I fear that it is one less lever for us to clean up the supply of labour in what has been, in some parts, a very exploited sector.

There are all sorts of reasons why, historically, there is an attachment on this side of the House and in the Labour movement as a whole to the Agricultural Wages Board. I am a Dorset man myself these days, so I come from a great Tolpuddle tradition, but I am not simply relying on history. I am relying on the effect that the removal of this one remaining legal-minimum, sector-specific wage will have on the quality and quantity of the workforce in agriculture and how it is treated. In the end, if that happens it will be to the detriment of agriculture as well.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this part of the debate, and I apologise to the House that I have not spoken about this in Committee, but I take up and endorse a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I declare an interest as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking. One group that is potentially trafficked and has been trafficked in the past comprises agricultural and horticultural workers. I was extremely glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, speak about the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which remains in great danger of being abolished, although Schedule 7, where it appeared, is no longer part of the Bill. I would be very much more concerned about the loss of that authority, which has a specific requirement to look after those exploited in the fields and the horticultural industry, than I am about the loss of the Agricultural Wages Board, which does not specifically deal with that migrant group, part of which is capable of being trafficked.