Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment is a little too restrictive on Kew, although I recall that at one time it had a plan, or at least a dream, to make available some of the properties for short-term accommodation for Kew’s partners when they needed to spend time in London and with Kew. However, to try to restrict the new power to residential property is going a bit too far.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervened in Committee and put to the Minister a series of questions to which I hoped he might give me the answers in writing. They have not come, so perhaps he might ask officials to consider the questions I asked during that debate.

The most important protection for the land at Kew Gardens has been the fact that leases could be granted for a maximum of 30 years. The moment you transform that system and change the arrangement such that you can grant leases of up to 150 years, you transform the discussion about the future of that land and its potential use by developers. Even though covenants and restrictions will be in place, developers will look seriously at the long-term potential of the use of the land.

The question for me is: what has been Parliament’s intention during the passage of the Bill? As I have understood it, it is to ensure that no commercial development takes place on the site and that residential development should be restricted to a very small proportion of the land. I am not convinced by that. Parliament is being naive in thinking that the position will remain the same for the next 150 years.

So last night, lying in bed at midnight—as happened on the previous occasion—I went through the documentation that the Minister has provided for us in the past week. That is the framework document, from which I want to cite a number of paragraphs in support of my case.

Paragraph 27.1 refers to a “light touch” annual review of the framework document. It then talks about three-yearly full reviews. What will happen at the end of three years, six years, nine years, 12 years, 15 years, 18 years or 21 years? At what stage do Ministers envisage being under pressure, because the Secretary of State retains powers in these areas, to change the arrangements for future development possibilities on that site?

Paragraph 28.2 confirms the sharing arrangements for developers’ gains—so in the framework document there is recognition that there will be developers’ gains in the future. I am sure developers will study that closely. It may be that, because the intention of Parliament is not altogether clear, lawyers pore over our debates. I am not a lawyer, but I am told that they often refer to parliamentary debates to try to identify what the intention of Parliament was when a particular Bill went through.

Paragraph 7.4 refers to a requirement on Kew,

“to maximise opportunities to increase income”.

Again, that is a pressure point on Kew to maximise income available from the site. In my view, it would be for the development of commercial and residential property.

Under paragraph 7.2, the Secretary of State can set conditions on grant-in-aid funding. In other words, they could pressure Kew to maximise alternative income streams when deciding on the grant-in-aid funding to be made available in any particular year.

Paragraph 21.1 emphasises the requirement for Kew to have regard to “efficiency, costs and resources”—again, that is a pressure.

In paragraphs 23.2 and 23.3, there is a requirement to avoid balances. Under the agreement as I understand it, Kew must not pursue a policy of having balances at the ends of years. In other words, it cannot save money in that way, which will in itself put pressure on resource availability—so much so that I believe that it will seek profits from the development of land on the site.

In paragraph 25.1, a process is set out for Defra’s approval of breaches of the MPM rules, guidance and advice, and in paragraph 9.2 there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to sign off land sales. This, of course, works both ways: it can put a block on sales, but on the other hand it could serve as a notice to future generations that in 2019 it was envisaged or foreseen that land sales would inevitably take place. The question is: what land? I am not suggesting for one moment that it will be land in the body of the site, but I believe that that site has rich future potential and that developers will look at it and argue that, on the periphery of the estate, particularly near the river, there is potential for substantial development.

In Committee, I pointed to a footage price for flats on the present market. Flats down there would sell, even in today’s market, at £1,500 per square foot. That property in the future, on the river at Kew, will fetch far more money than even today’s prices, because it will become prime property. Ministers have completely underestimated the pressure that will be put on the trustees and the people who will be running Kew in the future to maximise their profits through property development on that site. I heard nothing during the debate in Committee that in any way interferes with my view. I believe that that is what will happen, and what we have in the Bill offers insufficient protection, despite all the conditions that the Minister referred to in his responses on that previous occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who is not based near Kew but who has really appreciated my visits there, I am delighted that this very small Bill will secure Kew’s future. I understand the questions raised about Clause 1, but, having looked at the amendments in this second group, I think they will reinforce it and give us a good balance. We will be able to look at future developments that may happen, because otherwise it will not be sustainable in the long term. The most important thing is the valuable work that goes on at Kew. With climate change and everything else that is coming along, Kew is a precious commodity that we need to keep in hand, without restricting it from developing in ways that we do not yet know will be possible in the future. I am delighted with this, and very supportive of it, as I have been throughout the passage of the Bill.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 2 and 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) refers to,

“the ability of the Board of Trustees … to carry out its functions under section 24 of the … Act”.

The first of these functions is to,

“carry out investigation and research into the science of plants and related subjects, and disseminate the results of the investigation and research”.

That is a very widely drawn function. It was drawn that way because, when the draftsman drew up the 1983 heritage Act, he discussed what Kew was doing and was looking for continuity. He was not looking for change.

The point I want to stress concerns the related subjects. In a period of climate change, biodiversity problems and environmental problems, the status of and the concentration on related subjects will change. Kew could help us, particularly with some of the points raised in the course of the Bill, if it gave its interpretation of its policy at a given moment in relation particularly to this first function, but indeed to all of them. The rest are a little easier to interpret. At the moment, in its annual report Kew states these functions, but says nowhere what it has concluded these functions mean it should be doing.

As has been said, completely correctly, Kew is constrained by its resources, particularly money, and by all sorts of history and agreements. It is in a context. If Kew wishes to explain how it sees that context, it should set it out. I hope that my noble friend, in his conversations under the Memorandum of Understanding or in any other way, will seek agreement from Kew that it will volunteer its own policy approach to the functions in Section 24.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I obviously support any amendment that in any way restricts potential future development, but I want to clarify how, in my view, these amendments will be interpreted. If a developer surfaces who wants to build a block of flats on the edge of the Thames, who can go through the planning hurdles and all the covenants and somehow satisfy all these restrictions, he is left with this final restriction:

“The Secretary of State may grant a lease in reliance on subsection (1) only if satisfied that the lease would not have an adverse impact on”,


paragraphs (a) and (b). Would a block of flats on the Thames have an adverse impact on,

“the outstanding universal value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, as a World Heritage Site”?

I can see lawyers on behalf of applicants going to an inquiry and saying, “We don’t think it will have any adverse effect. We are not in any way interfering with the heritage site. It might even enhance it, because it is a beautiful block of flats. It’s some of the finest accommodation in the country and fits nicely into the Kew Gardens arrangement”.

Secondly, in relation to,

“would not have an adverse impact on … the ability of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to carry out its functions under section 24 of the National Heritage Act 1983”,

I cannot see how building a beautiful block of flats on the side of the Thames could in any way have an adverse impact on the,

“ability of the Board of Trustees to carry out its functions under section 24 of the National Heritage Act 1983”.

In the future, lawyers may drive a coach and horses through those words. I still support them, because at least someone is trying to introduce some restrictions.

I am sure the Minister was very pleased when he had to deal with this amendment because his officials may well see the dangers in the amendment that I see. We support it because it is a little shift in the territory—at least lawyers in the future will have to argue their case before some kind of inquiry. That is my case. I support the amendment but with huge reservations.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to my noble friend’s amendment and will concentrate briefly on what I would describe as a gamekeeper and poacher situation. Because Defra and Kew together determine the interpretation of the general functions of Kew, which are set out in Section 24, they can come to a mutual definition of what is within its charitable purposes. My noble friend is asking whether there should be another arbiter of these matters.

At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Selborne, who was for a while the chairman of the trustees of Kew, raised a question which had arisen in the 19th century when the Hookers were the directors. Kew is a very complicated institution, make no mistake about that; because of its history, science and complex estate, and because it is a public garden that is open all the time, it juggles choices. The question that arises out of Section 24 is how you make those choices and how you interpret that section. My answer is that Section 24 and the scheme of the Act are quite clear: Kew is primarily a scientific institution. It has six general functions, five of which are concentrated on the science. Indeed, the first two of those functions encourage Kew to study not only plants but related subjects, and to go out and proselytise about the information which it has put together in the most amazing way. The sixth function is the public parks function, which is quite cautiously phrased and, to be honest, pretty discretionary as compared with the science of Kew.

I hesitate to say that the Hooker controversy has arisen again, certainly not as it was in the 19th century. However, there is a need for Defra and Kew to come to a mutual interpretation of these functions and to publicise that interpretation so that both Parliament and the public can see clearly how they are being interpreted at the time. That would inform Defra and Kew in any discussion they might have with the Charity Commission under my noble friend’s amendment. I feel strongly that that needs to happen, so I strongly support the amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I agree that it is important to have safeguards, and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, scientific research is one of the six major functions at Kew. However, it needs funding, and this amendment is unnecessarily restrictive. The trustees’ implementation of the MoU, when implementing the leases, must ensure that the ethos of the trust and that of the Charity Commission is adhered to, and there needs to be trust that they can do that. If an asset needs significant investment on a 31-year lease, which these seven houses probably do, it is not an asset but a liability, because there is no long-term plan for the asset. A longer lease of no more than 150 years will allow the leasee to invest in the property and allow for proper management of that asset.

I will listen to the Minister’s response with interest, but at this moment I do not feel obliged to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I was coming to that. Let me be clear: Kew will focus on the seven residential properties on Kew Green. Kew has no immediate plans beyond the proposals for those properties. Obviously, the Bill does not stop future plans for any other property on the non-core estate, but Kew wants to ensure that the seven residential properties on Kew Green do not continue in their current unsatisfactory condition. The Bill is about maintenance of the non-core estate, and the whole basis of what we are doing is to enable those parts of the non-core estate not required by Kew—

[Viscount Eccles]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. He has used the phrase “non-core” three times. How does he define that? Until you define your attitude to the six general functions in some detail, you cannot come to a judgment on what is core and what is not. Some properties on Kew Green are occupied by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Some of them, such as Cambridge Cottage, are historic. If I may say so, we must not get carried away with the idea that what is core and what is non-core is obvious. It is not at all obvious at Kew, which is a very complicated institution. What is core and non-core changes with fashion. Now, Extinction Rebellion is changing things too.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

It would be more helpful if I could develop my arguments. It is important that I set out the legal point. My noble friend Lord Eccles is right that I should perhaps get a better legal definition of “non-core”. I am trying to explain, in what I would call lay language, that Kew has recognised that these properties on Kew Green are not required for the fulfilment of its functions, as set out in the National Heritage Act. Here, we are seeking to enable Kew to use the additional income to meet the challenges that I know my noble friend Lord Eccles had to resolve when he was chairman, as will the current and future chairs. I like his point, which is how in these difficult times we can invest more proactively in Kew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 2 and 4, at least in spirit. I first apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading; I had an unavoidable appointment so was unable to do so. Had I been here, I think I would have agreed with all the remarks made in that debate, which was excellent.

I have lived in Kew for 45 years. I was a local councillor for nearly 10 years and an MP for the area. I can claim to know Kew and Kew Gardens pretty well. My husband always used to say that I knew every letterbox in Kew, which indeed I still do. I am not sure that I could claim to know every tree in Kew Gardens but I know a fair number of them and I certainly know Kew Green very well. It is a very precious place, dear to residents and the nation.

I would like to go back very briefly to 1983. I remember well attending as a local councillor a public meeting in a school hall in Kew that had been called by the director of Kew Gardens and his team—they were not trustees then—to explain that Kew Gardens was going to become a trust. They explained the system of becoming a trust with trustees and no longer being directly funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as it was then. I rather disgraced myself at the meeting by being very outspoken; as noble Lords will know, I tend in that direction quite often. I said that I was terribly afraid that this would lead to Kew becoming a botanical theme park.

Of course, that has not happened. I was shouted down, quite rightly. However, over the last 30 to 40 years, I have noticed how much Kew has changed. If you come to Kew at Christmas or during the school summer holidays, it is geared to making money by getting children to spend lots of money on popcorn, ice cream and rides in pretty-coloured boats on the lake in front of the Palm House. It has been commercialised. The people who have spoken are quite right to worry that other forms of commercialisation could occur. It is a creeping sort of process and we need to beware of it. The present director, Richard Deverell, is absolutely terrific. He is a wonderful person and he is doing great things for Kew. However, we cannot guarantee that future directors will be as careful and as caring as he is.

I understand that Kew has to raise more money. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Kramer made the point at Second Reading that the entrance fee has now gone up to £16.50. It used to be a penny when I was a local councillor. Everyone loves to say that. Of course, £16.50 is hugely expensive for most families and we want to make it more widely available. Kew has to make more money, but we have to be careful. These amendments in particular say that we must make sure that this is not the beginning of more commercialisation at Kew Gardens, and a loss of the emphasis on the huge amount of botanical and scientific work that goes on there.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I have a great deal of time for what the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, just said. I also have a great deal of time for this amendment. To me, the crucial thing is the words,

“compatible with the core … scientific … activities of the Royal Botanic Gardens”.

As I said, the balance at Kew is the crucial issue. It is primarily a scientific institution. The people who work for scientific institutions are not necessarily very good at defending their own wickets. Their minds are on other things—higher things, very often.

In supporting this amendment, I should like to talk about change. There has been quite a lot of talk about Kew’s funding. Kew is now 60% bigger than it was in my day, on three measures. A change has taken place. We employed about 500 people at that time. Kew now employs over 800 people. If you look at the Defra grant, as opposed to the MAFF grant from my last year, it is now over 50% higher in real terms than it was then. Noble Lords will find that if they look at almost anything at Kew. Its total budget or turnover—£111 million—is also about 60% higher in real terms than it was in my final year there, 1991. Kew has had a very good run. A lot of that is due to the support it has had from MAFF and then Defra, the tremendous support from the public and its own foundation, and its ability to attract funds from many sources, including partnerships.

However, a lot of other changes have taken place. Climate change, environmental damage and worries about food security have gone up the agenda—you name it: biodiversity, species extinction and so on. My concern is that Kew has the capacity to do much more. Indeed, I do not complain about it being much larger in real terms. It has the capacity to be much more proactive and to be engaged in some of the solutions to some of these problems that we all face. But if the balance shifts too far in favour of estate management and parks management, science will go down the agenda relatively. If noble Lords look at what is happening at Kew and the management structure in the round, they might come to the conclusion that the balance has shifted too far in favour of the sixth general function—the parks function—and too far away from the first five, notably the first two about the investigation and dissemination of science.

Therefore, I come back to the point that if we are removing the Charity Commission as some sort of umpire, which we are for legal reasons, that makes it even more important to deal with the dimension of the gamekeeper—Defra—and the poacher—Kew—which, between them can come to whatever conclusions they want about what is to the public benefit unless there is some other way of monitoring that situation. Clearly Parliament has a role, as do some of the movements out there, such as the Green Party and Extinction Rebellion.

The most important thing to achieve with the Bill is to have something in it that commits Kew and Defra to work out the appropriate state-of-the-art interpretation of Section 24, to publish what that is and to have it debated in whatever forum wants to debate it. At the moment there is no clear interpretation of Section 24. At Second Reading I referred to Professor Ghillean Prance’s vision of 1993. He had, and set out, a pretty clear definition of what Section 24 meant and how Kew should respond to it. Reading today’s much glossier and more expensive publications does not give me the same clear understanding of how Kew and Defra interpret Section 24.

I have a great deal of time for the amendment. If my noble friend on the Front Bench were willing, we would welcome a government-drafted amendment that covered the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. If not, we will have to return to this subject on Report.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I agree with what he just said. Kew is a very complicated institution, and it is important that the focus is maintained. Without going into any more detail than this, there was a short period after the 1983 Act when Kew lost, to a certain extent, its focus. I would welcome a little more detail in the Bill.

I should declare an interest. Peter Walker took through the National Heritage Bill in 1983. I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and became the first chairman of trustees—indeed, before the effective date referred to by my noble friend and successor Lord Selborne. I had three Ministers in my time at the non-departmental public body, described as “executive”, although we should always remember that the best description is a twisted arm’s-length public body. There is always a regime, as has been referred to by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and how that regime works is very important both to Defra and to the board of trustees. Sometimes it works better than it does at others. The three Ministers, none of whom is in his place, were my noble friends Lord Jopling, Lord MacGregor and Lord Deben. That goes to show that, as we all love Kew and obviously they did too, it is a very good route to this House.

I also had the good fortune to spend a lot of time and energy, particularly after the storms which affected Kew and which some of your Lordships might remember, with Jean Trumpington. I know that I should refer to her as Lady Trumpington but we became “dear Jean” and “dear John”. We had great fun together at Kew in pursuit of Kew’s interests.

I had two directors. When I got there, Arthur Bell was the director. It has already been referred to but I will sum up his reaction. He said, “John, you need to remember that nobody told me that I would find myself responsible to a board of trustees”. He took it in very good part. Arthur was a soil scientist. Nobody in the world who heard him give his lecture on the importance of the top nine inches of soil will ever forget it. He was a lovely man.

After Arthur, we were very lucky to recruit Iain Prance. Sir Ghillean, as he is now, came back from working at the New York Botanical Garden. At that time, Kew needed an exceptional director and in Iain Prance we found one. Iain would have appreciated this Bill if it gave Kew more commercial freedom. Indeed, in 1993 he said that the mission of Kew could be achieved only through the implementation of the income generation programme and it being both strong and effective.

Much reference has been made to the possibility of substitution—that is, as Kew gets more successful at raising money, maybe the grant will be affected—but, quite honestly, one can never know the answer to that. You have to remember that behind Defra lurks the Treasury, and the impact comes when you have events like those of 2008. It is a moment of truth when the nation’s finances get into difficulty and you cannot be sure what will happen.

Iain Prance did a great deal for income generation. The friends’ organisation and the foundation were formed during his directorship. Above all, the Millennium Seed Bank was very much part of Iain’s vision for Kew and an outstanding example of his and his wife Anne’s fundraising skills. If the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, wants to look at the full story of how the admission charge to Kew has gone up, she should go to eBay and buy In for a Penny—a very good book about Kew. Through Iain’s vision, much more than plants come into it—ecosystems, the environment and habitats are all strongly represented.

In his 1993 document—if it can be obtained from Kew then I strongly recommend it to your Lordships, as it is just as valid today as it was 25 years ago—Iain ends with the example of the calabash tree, its products and the Amazonian ecosystem which supports it. Those of you who have been to that part of the world will know that water containers are made from its fruit. This tree needs bats and many ants, natural protection from predators, animals to disperse its seeds, and, of course, it has tremendous interaction with human beings; that is probably the most important point, which we have to take on board to a much greater extent than we have so far.

In terms of seeing Kew in the wider world of biodiversity and the control of man’s impact on the environment, there may be a case for a larger Bill. However, in the meantime, I fully support the Bill before us.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

There are already safeguards on the use of the power; it can be exercised only after a recommendation from the adjudicator who must first consult about it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recognised that this would usefully serve to inform the Secretary of State’s exercise of the power. However, the committee has advised that because the upper limit of the penalty is not in the Bill the power to fix the limits should be subject to a significant level of parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 14A will therefore ensure that the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thereby ensuring that Parliament will be able to scrutinise and positively approve the order. I beg to move.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, Members of the House who are present will not be surprised to hear that I regret these amendments made at the other end of the Corridor. I will be brief.

I am speaking as the only member of Her Majesty’s opposition. There is always cause for pausing to think about legislation per se, but when all three Front Benches agree, we can be pretty certain that they have not really thought the matter through—there is no need to and it goes on to automatic pilot. You can also be pretty certain that there will be one or two unintended consequences. My starting position would be, despite my noble friend’s clear and completely comprehensible explanation—the only sign of grace in it being the affirmative procedure—that there are already far too many circumstances in which state functionaries can raise administrative fines. In this case, the groceries code is working. There are 10 supermarkets in hot competition with each other, and they report on complaints and how they have been dealt with. So far, there has been no problem with the speed and accuracy with which these arguments have been settled.

However, that is not why we have these fines. It is because it is said that what is going on now is only the tip of the iceberg due to a climate of fear, which means that many other things go on that do not get attended to, and we therefore need a third party to create a triangular relationship—the adjudicator, who now needs the power to fine. My problem with that is that I very much doubt whether the climate of fear, if it exists, will disappear. If it does, and fines are imposed, one has to question whether it is sensible to put in a state-funded and mediated procedure involving 10 highly competitive supermarkets and their suppliers. When we get into that argument, everyone says, “We understand. We are talking not about Nestlé or Kellogg but the small and medium-sized suppliers. We are also”—this is where we come to the heart of the matter—“talking about the dairy industry”. I fully accept that that industry has significant problems. This is not the time to analyse them but I hope that we would have the opportunity to discuss this issue in much greater depth in this House at an early date. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will promote the suggestion that we discuss the dairy industry in some depth and detail. The supermarkets want to sell as much milk, cheese and other products containing milk as they can. That is their interest. It is not in their gift to solve the dairy industry’s problems. It is wrong for us, as a Parliament, to put it about to a certain extent that if you have a grocery code adjudicator it will be a cure-all for some of the undoubted problems that exist, not least in the dairy industry.

My view is that because the code works pretty well, the investigations that come outside the present practices under the code and arrive with the adjudicator will prove to be intractable or unnecessary. I am pleased that I am not looking for the adjudicator to be busy. It is a misapprehension to think that a lot of the things going on out there will give the adjudicator the opportunity for fruitful investigation and fining. I am pleased that the order that is to come is to be affirmative. I guess from what my noble friend said that it should be with us for debate in about nine months. I hope that we debate it seriously.

Finally, if investigations and fines were to become the practice, grocery prices would rise. That would surely be an unintended consequence.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I support the Bill and the amendments the Minister has presented today. However, I am left pondering that if we have a situation here where we are concerned about a customer abusing a supplier, should we also not be alert to the issue in banking where we have suppliers potentially abusing customers? Should there not be a similar mechanism in place in which customers of banks, and I think here particularly of small businesses, have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator about the treatment they are receiving from the banks? It is right that we should be concerned about a situation of customer abuse but the potential for supplier abuse in the banking industry, which is even more concentrated than the supermarket industry, is clearly higher.

I know this goes beyond the Minister’s brief and I do not for one minute expect him to give a detailed reply, but I suggest to your Lordships’ House that if we are seized by the importance of this Bill and believe that it is the right and proper thing to do, most of the arguments on which we have drawn apply with even greater force to the banking industry.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I support Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for three reasons. First, these remain very broad and extensive powers to abolish or modify a public body. It seems essential that there should be the broadest of consultation obligations so that the Minister is properly informed before a decision is taken. Secondly, public consultation does not require considerable expenditure if modern methods of communication are used—the point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart.

Thirdly, if these powers are to be exercised in relation to public bodies—we are talking about public bodies—surely it is right and proper that the Government should consider the comments of all sections of the public who feel that they have something to say. Indeed, if there were to be no specific consultation duty in relation to members of the public and nevertheless a member of the public, knowing of the proposal, submitted representations to the department, then I assume that the department would consider them and take them into account in reaching its conclusion. With respect, I do not share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who drew attention to Clause (10)(1)(g), which provides that the Minister must consult,

“such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate”.

It seems to me highly desirable that there should be clarity in the Bill that there is an obligation to consult members of the public rather than leaving it as a discretionary matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Neill of Bladen]

No, my Lords. The word “must” is already in Clause 11(2), and attention has been drawn to that fact. There is no “must” in line 3 on that page, which is where there ought to be a requirement. That is what the amendment is dealing with.

[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]

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I say to my noble friend that I have never claimed that bishops should live in these palaces. I do not want them to live in these palaces. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, thinks that, but that is not my argument. My argument is that the Church of England has a specific role in our society which involves accepting that it has a duty of care of that which it largely has received and did not itself create; someone else created it and it was handed on. The fact is that the Church of England has failed. Of course, it does not sell the churches; no one wants to buy medieval churches; it sells the things it can make money out of. Therefore, I unhesitatingly say that it will be very much better for the Church of England if a Minister were able to remind it of its duty, not just to the moment, not just to the future, but to the past, and its role, dependent on the fact that it is the Church of England; and if it forgets that, many of us will have to change our minds about its place here and in the establishment.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for a long time and I shall not. My noble friend Lord Deben has gone too far, as he did when he did not renew me as chairman of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. He came to a very bad judgment about that and I entirely support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester in his thesis.

I make one practical point about the Zurbaráns in Auckland Castle. The Church Commissioners are responsible for £5 billion worth of financial and property assets. The income from that funds 16 per cent of the church’s expenditure. The other 84 per cent comes, largely, from the congregations of the church and from, as the right reverend Prelate said, appeals for repairs and appeals for lead for the roof which needs renewing and so on. I think that the Church Commissioners and the church should take account of two things as they consider the position of the Zurbaráns. They need the support of their congregations. I do not think that it is certain that they will get £15 million for the Zurbaráns. The last time that this came up, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland, will remember, the Bowes Museum got an estimate from the market—not from Christie's or Sotheby's—and quoted £6 million, not £15 million or £20 million, which I think was the Sotheby's quote. So there is an issue about the risk which the Church Commissioners are taking with these pictures, which has nothing to do with the romantic story of Bishop Trevor, and that one of the pictures is a copy by Mr Pond for 24 guineas and the other pictures cost 21 guineas each. That is a very romantic story that has all the connotations of the disabilities of the Jews and all those things.

However, if the congregation in the north-east supported a solution which meant that the Church Commissioners could add on, shall I say, £12 million to £5 billion, you could say that that is likely to be a good judgment, not a bad one. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I do not think that the church has to hang on to every asset. One could suggest that it sells the divorce papers of Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon, which sit in the library in Lambeth Palace. I do not know how much they would make, but I would guess quite a lot of money.

We should not get tremendously excited about this. It is a practical issue, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester has presented it to us. It is full of practical judgments, but the church needs the support of its congregations. I say rather quietly that in the north-east, there is the Dean of Durham—I remind the House that there is no Bishop of Durham at the moment. Durham Cathedral has an appeal out now. Are the Church Commissioners absolutely certain that they will not lose by raising £12 million and having an income of £360,000 a year—the Church Commissioners’ assets yield 3 per cent—because congregations will say, “If you can do this and that, we are not going to give you so much money every Sunday or when you make an appeal”?

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

I know that the hour is late and I shall make only a few brief comments to put certain things on the record—not repeating, I hope, what has been said. I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of the Church Commissioners —four bishops are elected to the board.

The first is to say that the Church Commissioners is a charity. I ask the Minister whether any of the other bodies listed in Schedule 3 is a registered charity. That is an important question to ask if we are thinking of adding the Church Commissioners to the list. The Church of England itself is not a public authority. That was clarified by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House a few years ago in the Aston Cantlow case. It is a public authority for only certain limited purposes. We have been speaking in a carefree way, as if the Church of England is simply a public authority. It is not. For certain purposes it is, and there is a rather delicate ecology that lies behind everything here. There is no such legal entity as the Church of England. The Church of England is a symbiotic, organic collection of different bodies, each with certain degrees of independence. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was wrong when he said that in no legal sense are the Church Commissioners part of the Church of England. They are part of that symbiotic connection, and you can disturb that and lots of other things without intending to do so.

The cost of maintaining the historic houses has progressively risen and taken a progressively greater proportion of the income of the Church Commissioners for several decades. That poses the question: how do you responsibly allocate the income for different purposes when you find that the cost of maintaining historic houses, which we know is great, is a constant upward pressure? Those are the decisions that the Church Commissioners are best placed to handle.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Montrose]

Perhaps I might intervene again. Having listened to the various speeches around the House and particularly to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, giving the story of the very essential and important work that the agricultural wages board has done over the years, we need to consider how things have moved on. One element which is very different now is that all employers and all jobs are subject to the Health and Safety Executive. All accidents must be reported to the Health and Safety Executive, so that deals with one element which perhaps the agricultural wages board used to look into.

The other point, which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, spoke about, is the difficulty in the grading of agricultural workers. One big difference now is that, in the nature of things, agricultural workers acquire certificates and they come with a grading of their own. If someone applies to you for a job, he can produce certificates of his skills and certain elements. In my part of the world, I do not see a danger of reduced wages because there is a shortage of skilled men and they are now, more or less, in a position to name their price.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I reinforce the argument made by my noble friend. I drove a tractor some time ago—1943, I think it was. Whether I was underage I will leave the House to decide. I remember that we were very happy if we got 30 hundredweights an acre. We stooped it, then it was put in a stack, and it was then thrashed by a threshing machine that came around at about this time of the year.

Today, you have a computer-controlled combine harvester that does the whole thing on its own. It is about two and a half times the width of the old cutters that we used to have. I will gamble that there are very few farmers that own one of those combines. There are some in Norfolk, in the grain area of the east of England, but in my part of England—in north Yorkshire—none of the farmers owns their own combine harvester. The contractors own it—and they do the potatoes as well. There are no labourers left in north Yorkshire in agriculture. No such person exists any longer. If there is not a skill, then you cannot employ anybody in agriculture in north Yorkshire—I am not sure about north Scotland.

I contend that—never mind the £8-something—you will not get that combine driven by anyone paid anything less than £10 an hour. The statistics that I would like to understand are the actual wages in agriculture today, because—believe you me—they do not bear much relationship either to the minimum wage or to the wages that were set on 1 October by the board which we are discussing.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Eccles]

We seem to concentrate only on whether something saves money, but the public are not interested only in saving money. They believe they are over-governed, that there is too much regulation and too much interference in their lives, and that there are too many bodies carrying out functions which most likely could be carried out better somewhere else. They want to see the system simplified, and I believe that this House should remember, when they are discussing these matters, that it is not only a matter of money; it is also a matter of making life less complicated.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am pleased to move on to this series of amendments, and I will first turn to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal. This was set up under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 and related to the nationalised industries in aircraft manufacture and shipbuilding. These nationalised industries no longer exist and the tribunal is redundant. Similarly, the purpose of abolishing British Shipbuilders as a corporation is to simplify the administration of the funding and handling of British Shipbuilders’ residual liabilities. These liabilities will be transferred directly to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which will provide a long-term solution to managing these liabilities.

The Government are committed to making compensation payments to former employees of British Shipbuilders, and I can give an indicative figure of the level of those compensation payments. They come to about £7 million a year. I hope that helps. The tribunal itself does not cost anything, as there are no standing costs and it does not have any employees. The compensation payments for former employees cover such injuries as mesothelioma, which were the result of their employment with British Shipbuilders. The payments are in line with the obligations that British Shipbuilding had to its employees.

British Shipbuilders Corporation was set up under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. The corporation has no active trading operations and exists solely to meet its residual liabilities—litigation, insurance claims and other contractual matters— relating to its former employees. British Shipbuilders is effectively a shell company. In light of my assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Queen's Speech

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has entertained us with much the same thesis on a number of occasions, but I wonder whether he does not exaggerate. He talks about the age of austerity; I suppose that he is referring to £6.25 billion of expenditure cuts, but the previous Government were, if I remember rightly, going to make £5 billion in efficiency savings. I suppose that economists would tell us that there is not really very much difference in outcome between cuts and efficiency. We will always live with economic uncertainty, but the question is: how capable are we of dealing with that uncertainty? All that we know for certain is that our economy is some 10 per cent smaller than it would have been if matters had proceeded smoothly, and that our structural deficit is unsustainably high. It may well be best if the pace of the deficit reduction was contingent on the pace of economic recovery. However, recovery first and debt management second is not a viable choice. It is always necessary for the two to proceed in tandem.

The Bank of England’s view of the near future re-emphasises the uncertainties. A 2 per cent central position between inflation and growth is so widespread between nil and 5 per cent that it amounts almost to a “don’t know”. In a period of such uncertainty, a mechanistic and one-solution analysis is of very limited use. The most favoured and oft-repeated parallel is the 1930s, because it is Keynes of 1936 who gets the star billing. I will not speculate upon how different his General Theory would be if written today. However, he would certainly take into account very differing circumstances—the most striking of which are the welfare state and the rise in per capita income which, in real terms and taking some account of lifestyle changes, is more than three times what it was in the 1930s. The economy of today is therefore radically different from that of the 1930s. Who, we might ask, is expecting Jarrow marches or some repeat of George Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier?

The underlying strength of today’s economy, its relative wealth and our welfare state mean that we can face up with flexibility to the judgments that need to be made as events take their course in a global economy. Our economy, even at a time of fragile growth, provides the room to take action and then to see how the unknown balance between economic recovery, indebtedness and inflation develops. We need to find out how much better we can do when the responsibility for finding solutions is shared between the centre and the many institutions which serve the people. We need to see how people react to changing circumstances. Many will solve their own problems.

The coalition is committed to fairness—equity between all members of our society—as we find our way back to economic and fiscal stability. I strongly support the test of fairness and carefully assessing public reaction. Despite the extraordinary mess which we are in and despite the absurdly centralised and bureaucratic mistrust of the people that we inherit, we will be agreeably surprised by the response to tough decisions and we will be able to promote fairness. I strongly support an increase in the personal allowance. It is right to replace the mechanistic, top-down and money-throwing recent past with freedom, fairness and responsibility.