Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill today and for arranging a helpful briefing with civil servants beforehand. I say at the outset that we support the Bill, which, as several noble Lords have said, has been much delayed in its arrival. Nevertheless, we have it here now. It reflects the ban on wild animals in circuses, which has been our party’s policy for some time, and is virtually identical to a Private Member’s Bill that was co-sponsored by our shadow Secretary of State in the other place.

While the Bill’s arrival is of course welcome, it also highlights the Government’s lack of action on the broader issues of increasing penalties for animal cruelty and recognising animal sentience, which seem to be stuck in some sort of legislative limbo despite the cross-party support for urgent action on them which we know exists. While my noble friend Lady Mallalieu will not be surprised that I do not agree with much of what she said, I agree that if we were going to prioritise our activities properly, priority could have been given to a Bill on animal cruelty at this time.

While we pride ourselves on being a nation of animal lovers and having the most advanced animal welfare legislation, the truth is that on this issue we are falling behind many other nations. It is no surprise to hear that at least 30 other countries have already placed a ban on wild animals in circuses. As we heard from the Minister, it seems the main reason the Bill is being prioritised is that the existing Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 are set to expire on 19 January next year, which would leave a legislative vacuum. We welcome the fact that that vacuum is to be filled but it raises questions about why the Bill was prioritised.

Not only is the Bill the right thing to do but, as noble Lords have said, it has huge public backing. Some 94% of the public supported the ban in the consultation carried out by the Labour Government in 2010. Most people are amazed to discover that wild animal performances are still allowed. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said that people think that wild animals are long gone, particularly lions and tigers, and therefore feel the issue has been resolved. But when people in this country are confronted with the reality, the vast majority say that they do not want wild animals in circuses. The Bill also has considerable support from animal welfare organisations, which have argued on ethical and welfare grounds that wild animals need a suitable environment to live in, with the ability to express normal patterns of behaviour and associate naturally with others of the same species, particularly if they are herd animals. Again, this was an argument that the Minister made.

It is impossible to imagine how life in a travelling circus, constantly being transported to new venues in cramped conditions, can ever replicate life in the natural world. Most people find it abhorrent that these animals are then expected to do tricks for our enjoyment. It is not surprising that the scientific review of the welfare issues for the Welsh Government in 2016 by Professor Stephen Harris concluded that wild animals in travelling circuses not only suffer poor animal welfare but do not have “a life worth living”.

I am of course aware that the circus operators are vehemently opposed to this Bill—several noble Lords referred to this—and I read their evidence to the Commons Committee with some interest. Although some of their statements was rather concerning, I do not doubt that they look after the animals in their care and have some affection for them. Circus owners also sought to complicate the interpretation of the Bill by describing their animals as exotic rather than wild. It is important that we pin down that definition so that no loopholes on that matter can occur. We may need to return to this matter at future stages of the Bill.

However, the circus owners also admitted that standards of animal treatment in circuses around the world vary enormously and that there is still a great deal of bad practice and suffering elsewhere. It is therefore important that we maintain high standards in the UK for any touring circus wishing to come here and display animals in this way. As a number of noble Lords have said, thankfully, we are talking about only a small number of animals in the UK being affected by this Bill—a total of 19 at last count—with no big cats or elephants currently involved, although, as I understand it, as recently as 2015, Chipperfield Circus was touring the UK with two lions and two tigers as part of that show.

My noble friend Lady Mallalieu portrayed the Bill as an attack on a long-standing tradition of travelling showmen. I disagree with her fundamentally; nobody is attempting to do that. The Bill will not affect circus owners’ operating model or their economic viability. Domesticated animals will still perform in their circuses. Furthermore, it could be argued that more people would be inclined to go if they felt assured about nature of the spectacle that they were about to see, which might boost attendances.

In the Commons, our colleagues raised a number of concerns that will need to be addressed during the passage of the Bill here—they have been echoed around the Chamber during this debate. First, there was concern that some circus owners would seek licences for a last big tour with wild animals, perhaps including big cats, prior to the implementation date of January 2020. Our proposal was for a moratorium on issuing new licences before that date, but there may be other ways to achieve it. The Minister may be able provide some helpful advice on what measures are in place to prevent this happening.

Secondly, the Bill allows for appointed inspectors to enforce this legislation—again, this issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I seem to recall that during passage of the Ivory Bill a legal difficulty arose in relation to granting civilians the power to enter properties and make arrests. We need to ensure that the same problems do not occur here. Our proposal was for the powers in the Bill to extend explicitly to police constables. I know that the Minister partially addressed this matter in his opening speech, but it was not clear why the proposal for police constables to be written into the Bill has been rejected up until now.

Thirdly, we proposed that if a wild animal was found in a travelling circus in breach of the ban under this legislation, there should be an opportunity to remove the animal immediately to a safe place where it could be cared for properly with a view to rehoming it permanently. We know that a number of animal welfare organisations have already offered to provide such a service. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could address that.

Finally, we sought to provide more clarity in the definition of a travelling circus to ensure that the common definition, which we would all recognise, could not be misinterpreted. I know that the Minister in the other place said that he planned to address this concern through guidance to back up the Bill. The Minister here has referred to the issue today, so it would be helpful if he could set out in more detail the timetable for producing the guidance. He mentioned that it would appear “in good time”, but I think we all know that “in good time” in respect of legislative processes could be a long, expanding Elastoplast.

As I said at the outset, we support the Bill and want to aid its passage through your Lordships’ House. It represents a symbol of our ethical commitment to strong animal welfare legislation in the UK and has huge public support. I can see that we are heading for an extended debate on the ethical grounds of this legislation at later stages of the Bill. I am happy to be part of that debate if noble Lords so desire. In his closing remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, began to recognise that this is only a small Bill and addresses only one ethical challenge. Of course, there are wider ethical challenges about how we treat animals to address in the future, but he did not particularly make the point that we should not cut off our nose to spite our face. There is a strong ethical reason for addressing this issue now and we can return to some of those wider issues on other occasions. While I listened to what he said with great interest, and he may well be right about a number of the other ethical challenges, this does not undermine the need for the Bill here and now.

In years to come, people will look back on our practice of subduing these increasingly rare animals and subjecting them to performing tricks for our entertainment with considerable disbelief. The time has come to address this issue, so I look forward to passing the Bill in a very short time. Indeed, I also look forward to passing all the other animal welfare Bills that we are still waiting patiently for priority to be given to. In the meantime, we support the Bill and will encourage its safe passage.

Children’s Health: Vehicle Emissions

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling this debate and for the persuasive way in which she and all noble Lords have made the case for urgent, practical action on this issue. I declare an interest through my involvement with the charity ClientEarth which, as noble Lords will know, has successfully taken the Government to court on several occasions for their failure to act on harmful vehicle emissions.

As noble Lords have said, as well as a UK problem, polluted air is a global crisis affecting predominantly the poorest and most disadvantaged urban dwellers, who are powerless to stand up for their right to breathe clean air. That is why we support the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David Boyd, who has described air pollution as a violation of human rights and has criticised Governments across the world for their failure to act on the right to breathe clean air. That is why we also support noble Lords’ call for a legally binding commitment to meet the World Health Organization guideline levels for particulate matter pollution by 2030, with a binding commitment to ensure that no school, nursery, playground, care home or hospital should be in an area with pollution above WHO guidelines by 2022.

Just because air pollution is a global problem, it does not exempt the UK Government from showing true leadership. This requires a fresh approach to the problem which puts the rights of children and all citizens to breathe clean air ahead of the rights of car drivers. Time and again, when we have debated this issue in your Lordships’ House, there has been a reluctance from the Government to take a firm stand on the major causes of pollution. They have sought voluntary solutions and devolved the problem to individual local authorities. They have, in essence, put the interests of powerful lobby groups before the health of the nation. That is why the courts have ruled against them on so many occasions. We know, as we have heard in this debate, that there are solutions which the Government could take but are reluctant to do so.

Meanwhile, the evidence of the dramatic impact of harmful emissions on children’s health is compelling and growing. As we know and as we have heard today, an estimated 40,000 people a year in the UK die prematurely from the long-term health problems caused by toxic air. But that is only half the story. Each year in the UK, tens of thousands of children develop asthma as a result of traffic fumes, with the rate in Britain being the highest in Europe. Children’s lungs are particularly susceptible to damage from air pollution, causing lifelong health problems and occasionally death. Some studies even suggest that dirty air can affect their ability to learn. I believe that in the future we are likely to see more inquests formally recording air pollution as the cause of death.

It is not surprising that there is an increasing call from health professionals and parents for urgent action to protect children from these toxic fumes as the evidence mounts. It is a call that the Government cannot afford to ignore.

Thankfully, there are some good examples of local leadership on this issue around the country that illustrate what can be done if you have the political will to act decisively. I am pleased that my own local council, Labour-run Brighton & Hove, which has one of the best bus services outside London, has targeted the funding to roll out cleaner, less polluting bus fleets. It has already delivered a 25% reduction in roadside nitrogen dioxide in the busiest areas and is continuing to upgrade its vehicles to deliver ultra-low emissions.

Of course, the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, on top of the low-emission bus fleet, is rolling out ultra-low emission zones for cars, imposing a £12.50 a day charge to drive in central London for all but the cleanest cars and vans. This move alone is expected to reduce road transport emissions by about 45%.

However, relying on these localised initiatives is not good enough. The Government’s latest clean air strategy relies on local authority actions, many of which have already been demonstrated to be in disarray—through lack of money or political will—and so far there has been no comeback on those that are blatantly ignoring their targets. At the same time there is the shocking news that Highways England has spent only £8 million of the £100 million of its air quality fund four years after it was unveiled. This fund should have been used for roadside barriers to block toxic fumes and more electric car charging points along the 4,500 miles of roads that it maintains.

Therefore, it is clear that we need a national government plan to protect the health of our children for the future. This should be based on new clean air laws that are themselves based on a framework for action that enshrines the right to breathe clean air in domestic law. It should include binding targets to reduce children’s exposure to air pollution. We support the widespread calls from noble Lords today and from many voluntary organisations for a national “clean air for children” programme that would audit schools, nurseries and playgrounds, bring in traffic exclusion zones around schools, provide a proactive alert system of pollution spikes for parents and teachers, and promote walking and cycling on routes to school.

More urgently, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, the Government should follow the evidence of their own technical report, which recognised that a national network of charging clean air zones is the most effective and quickest way to tackle existing illegal levels of pollution.

Finally, the Government need to switch their priorities from cars to people with a huge policy drive to deliver cleaner forms of transport. This will require some bold decisions that have been lacking in the past, but should include tackling the legacy of “dieselgate” and ensuring that all cars caught up in the scandal are retrofitted; making cleaner cars more affordable and reforming the vehicle tax system to incentivise clean-car ownership; a targeted diesel scrappage scheme; better consumer information to enable buyers to make choices based on real-world emissions data; and a ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine cars and other vehicles by 2030, rather than the much less ambitious proposal of 50% of new car sales to be ultra-low emission by that date.

The more we find out about the health implications of toxic air on our children’s health, the more of a scandal it becomes. If we carry on as we are, future generations will look back in despair that we took so little action on a public health emergency. There is still time to get this issue right, and I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade us this afternoon that the Government are up for the challenge.

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

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Lords
Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s thanks. I personally thank him for his extreme courtesy and resilience in the face of the bombardment that we gave him over what seemed like a very simple Bill. He took the concerns of Members in all parts of the House extremely seriously, and we are all very grateful for the diligence he showed in carrying out those duties. I would also like to thank the civil servants and the representatives of the board of Kew, who played their part in making sure that we were fully briefed for the discussions we needed to have.

I know it was a very simple Bill, but we amended it, and I thought this was your Lordships’ House at its best. We had a very serious and well-constructed debate and reached a consensus, which is what we always aim to do when we can. I thank the Minister again; it would not have happened without his leadership.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I would also like to thank the Minister and Defra officials for their time and patience in providing the very useful briefings. These were very welcome and greatly assisted the process of understanding what the Bill was about for those of us not steeped in the history of Kew. Many of your Lordships are, and it was a great comfort to know that so many Kew experts were taking part in the debate, thus ensuring that this short Bill was improved and provided the necessary requirements.

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

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “for” insert “residential use for”

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 would restrict the use of extended leases to residential properties on the Kew estate. This amendment follows up on our earlier debates, which have tried to ascertain the longer-term implications of providing longer-term leases of up to 150 years across the Kew estate. As it stands, this short Bill could enable any lease, whether commercial, scientific or residential, to be extended in this way, potentially creating welcome additional income for Kew but also increasing the risks that the special and much-loved site will lose its focus.

Throughout the earlier discussions the Minister constantly quoted the immediate priority, which is to extend the leases on the seven residential properties overlooking Kew Green. As has been said, this is estimated to bring in additional income of some £15 million. I think we all said, in our different ways, that we did not have a problem with this; it seemed to make perfect sense. If this were what the Bill proposed, it would have sailed through its scrutiny stages without amendment but it is not what the Bill says. Instead, it gives powers to the Secretary of State to grant new leases and extend existing leases across the estate for up to 150 years.

At earlier stages of the Bill, a number of noble Lords sought to understand the full implications of this new power. For example, what was the total number of future properties that might be considered for longer leases once the seven residential properties have been refurbished? Were there plans to develop the car park adjoining the river? Were there other residential properties on different parts of the estate in need of refurbishment and which could also benefit from longer leases? Were there sites within the boundaries of Kew which were being considered for commercial development as well? In his response in Committee, the Minister was able to say only that Kew does not have any immediate plans beyond those for the seven residential properties. But he went on to add:

“Obviously, the Bill does not stop future plans for any other property on the non-core estate”.—[Official Report, 21/5/19; col. 1878.]


However, he also acknowledged when asked that there was no clear distinction between core and non-core properties on the estate.

In the absence of further details about the longer-term plans of the trustees for other lease extensions, and taking on board the Minister’s repeated reassurances that the priority of the trustees is to create extra income from the initial seven residential properties, we are proposing this simple amendment to limit any extended leases to residential properties on the estate. It would seem to meet the objectives of the trustees while providing reassurance that there will not be long-term commercial lets on the estate, which might change the ethos and character of the site as a whole. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will see the sense of this amendment and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, with the greatest of respect, none of us can command the certainty of what our successors may do. We are here, doing what we can. That is why I am pleased that in the next amendment we will be discussing our protections, which I have already outlined in considerable detail. I have taken great care and attention when discussing this with the trustees and the executive, all of whom have the ultimate bona fides with regard to the future of Kew.

I believe that Parliament, in its scrutiny, is undertaking what is right: the Bill gives Kew the capacity to reduce its maintenance liabilities and running costs, which must be desirable. It generates additional income from property that will help Kew to achieve its core objectives—which is desirable—maintain its status as a UNESCO world heritage site, and to improve the quality of its estate. I do not mean to be facetious, but resources are not infinite. I do not yet know any noble Lord who truly thinks that we have infinite resources, however wonderful Kew is. Therefore this approach must be right. I go to Kew often, and there are buildings there which we are not looking after as well as any of us would wish. This is what Kew wishes us to do, because this is the way that will help it to fulfil its statutory functions.

I say in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, having spoken to those at Kew, I have given examples of buildings that they believe could be better suited to a commercial let but with all the current protections and what I believe we may well go on to. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I very much welcome the steps the Minister has taken to listen to the concerns that have been raised around the Chamber in the earlier debates and again today. I know that he has done his best to answer all the issues that we have thrown at him over that period, and he has done so again today. It was helpful to hear the examples that he gave. I felt that in earlier debates there was a bit of a black hole, but he has populated that black hole with some credible examples. None of us wants buildings on the site left empty, obsolete or run down, and if there is a plan to deal with those in a constructive way, I think we would all want that to happen.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours was right to say that the lawyers will pore over these debates in years to come, so it has been helpful to have that on the record as Kew’s general intent. The Minister caveated his comments by pointing out that we will shortly have another debate. On the basis that there is more than one way to skin a cat—this was only one way and another is coming up—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to these amendments and to hear the support that the Minister has now pledged for them. I am thankful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for the well-crafted words he put forward, which seem to be receiving widespread support around the Chamber.

In contrast to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I argue that it provides a double lock on future extended leases because, first, they must not endanger Kew’s status as a UNESCO world heritage site. UNESCO does not grant world heritage site status lightly; it looks at integrity, beauty and function. Before a block of flats was even built in the middle of Kew, UNESCO would have made its views very clear. Having looked at the UNESCO judgment on Kew, I was very impressed by the detail it went into before it made its final recommendation about world heritage status. I am pretty confident that it would intervene before anything that would be considered a scar on the site was allowed to be developed.

Secondly, the National Heritage Act 1983 states that development must not endanger research, education, open scientific access and public enjoyment of the site. The public enjoy visiting Kew because it is such a beautiful site. I think the comments we have made in the Chamber would be echoed and magnified if we asked the public what they thought should happen on that site. I am sure they would have very strong views and would be quite conservative about any proposed developments. I have more confidence than my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that the provisions about UNESCO and the National Heritage Act provide the reassurance for which we are looking.

Of course, nothing is ever watertight—as we said in the previous debate, lawyers will pore over the wording, the intent of our discussions and so on—and we cannot legislate for the future or the difficult choices that the trustees and the Secretary of State may face. I accept that this is a compromise, but these amendments go as far as could reasonably be expected at this time. This is a good way forward and I am grateful that we have resolved this matter so effectively.

Office for Environmental Protection

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the criticisms made by the Commons EFRA Committee, whose Conservative chair said recently of the draft environment Bill:

“There is also little point in setting up an environmental watchdog if it is unable to fulfil its essential function of holding the government to account”.


Does he recognise that criticism and, if so, what is his department doing to address those shortcomings?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

First, my Lords, perhaps I may wish the noble Baroness a very happy birthday.

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

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

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

[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.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have considerable sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We have also tabled amendments which are another way of trying to address the same issue. Our concern is that this short Bill puts too much individual power into the Secretary of State’s hands, and we need to make sure that the right checks and balances are in place so that that power is used wisely. We seek to have an external body, such as UNESCO, to oversee the powers being allocated, with the Secretary of State unable to influence what UNESCO is doing. However, I appreciate that the noble Lords are coming at this from a different direction.

The point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was well made: it is not about now but about the future, about other times and places when other players will be in post, and we need to make sure that they exercise their responsibility wisely. Whatever statements were made about the current Secretary of State, this is about future Secretaries of State and indeed future members of the board, and the need to make sure that they have the correct relationship.

This is also about different circumstances. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that people juggle with choices, and that is absolutely right. They will always be under pressure and there will always be a shortage of money, so we need to make sure that the financial demands on the shoulders of the individuals concerned do not lead them to make short-term choices which would damage Kew in any way. I therefore have considerable sympathy with the amendment; I am interested to know how the Minister will respond to this and thank the noble Lord for raising this issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords, particularly my noble friends. The amendment seeks to apply consultation by the Charity Commission to the actions of Defra and RBG Kew, which, I should say, is a charity specifically exempt from direct regulation by the Charity Commission under Section 22 of and Schedule 3 to the Charities Act 2011.

I say this with passion: there is very little difference between what we are trying to achieve in protecting Kew when granting these leases and what we are trying to achieve for future generations, whoever has responsibility for these matters. The Bill does not affect any of the high protections already afforded to Kew; it is about changing a figure of 31 to 150. All the protections will continue to apply. I absolutely understand my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s point, and that of my noble friend Lord Eccles, who has great experience in this field; their intention clearly is not to attack the Bill or Kew—quite the reverse. It is in everyone’s interest to look after Kew.

I need to set out something by way of legal advice on the amendment; I received the advice from senior departmental government lawyers and counsel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to be brief, but I am afraid I will revert to many of the points which were touched on under the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and I am not entirely sure that the Minister has entirely convinced me.

There is a central point. I am all for simplicity of legislation, but the Minister keeps referring to the seven cottages on Kew Green and the wish to extend the existing leases. Everybody understands that, and I do not think there has been any great dissent in the Committee about the desirability of so doing, but the Bill refers to,

“the power to grant a lease in respect of land for a period of up to 150 years”.

That to me means all land. The Crown can and does give leases. The specifics on the two royal estates which make up Kew add complexity to the issue, but as it stands we could have 150-year leases on any of the land that Kew covers. There is no distinction in the drafting of the Bill between core and non-core land. I appreciate the Minister’s assertions that this one of the most protected pieces of land in the nation. I accept that there are all sorts of protections built into the current situation. I also deeply appreciate the Minister and his staff and the staff of Kew meeting me and discussing this at some length, but I come back to the text of the Bill. There is no difference between us on the objectives, but for the first time 150-year leases could be granted under this Bill, without restriction, on any piece of land which the botanical gardens now cover.

I understand all the protections that are built in, but I go along with the French of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Times change. Secretaries of State change. The arrangements for the Charity Commission will change. It may be that the implications of being a world heritage site change. It may even be possible that the political control of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames changes dramatically—that is slightly less likely. Kew Gardens need to be protected against change. In so far as this Act will continue to be the basis on which leases are granted for 150 years over an unlimited period forward, we have to have rather more protections here.

The regulatory structure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has identified is complex. Therefore, it is almost certain that departmental structures and memoranda of understanding will change over the next 150 years and beyond, and rightly so in many respects. However, we are dealing with the Bill as it stands. As I said, I do not object to Kew’s ability to raise money. In many respects, I think that it will greatly benefit from private finance coming into the organisation—or more so than is the case at present, although it has been quite successful at raising money in recent years. However, we need a restriction on the way in which the land will then be used.

My amendment recognises the multifaceted aspects of Kew. Essentially, it is scientific, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, but Kew’s objectives relating to science, the environment, education that stems from that science, and the amenity and enjoyment value—the sixth function, as the noble Viscount called it—all need protection. Therefore, my amendment stipulates that the use of the land should not challenge or undermine any of those objectives and outcomes. It is couched in pretty broad terms. It says that the use of the land must either contribute to or support Kew’s objectives—support can mean bringing in the finance for those objectives—or at least be compatible with them. The word “or” there in my amendment should perhaps be “and”, because in a sense compatibility with those objectives is my central point.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked whether a developer could build possibly unsuitable residential buildings on those sites. The Minister said that everybody would object to that, so it would not happen. However, under the Bill it could happen. That is my point. At Second Reading I explained my ancestral and childhood love and affection for Kew, and that is shared with a wide range of people. However, certain developments in the rest of London, including those along the Thames in, say, the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth, which we can look at over the bridge down the road, have not exactly been compatible with their surroundings.

If anything impinged on Kew, it would be detrimental to its amenity value, it would probably undermine its UNESCO world heritage site designation, and it could change the public’s attitude towards it. I completely accept the Minister’s view that such development is unlikely. In the short term it is almost impossible because Ministers will have the present apparatus of regulation and planning controls at their disposal. I have no desire to challenge the intentions of the Minister, the department or the Kew trustees in bringing forward these proposals. However, this House and this Parliament need to say, “Well, yes, do all that, but let’s write in a general restriction to ensure that these probably imagined and scaremongering possibilities do not arise”. I would feel a lot safer, as I think other lovers and supporters would, if those restrictions were put in.

I hold no great attachment to the precise wording of my amendment. I would be delighted if at the end of this debate the Minister said, “We accept the principle but we will ask parliamentary counsel to draft an alternative form of words that will achieve the same objective”. That outcome would be very helpful and I would welcome the Minister saying something like that at this stage. If he could bring something forward on Report that achieved those objectives, I would very much welcome it. However, in default of that, I would like the Minister and the House to take my amendment seriously. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I have my name to my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment but I also have Amendment 4 in this group so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I introduce it at this stage; it addresses the criteria to be used for any lease extensions.

I should say, as is implied, that we support Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. This goes back to the Second Reading debate, where—I agree with the Minister—we are more or less on the same page; we are trying to find a way around some of these issues. During the Second Reading debate there was some concern from around the Chamber, expressed in different ways, about what was perceived as an inevitable weakening of controls over the use of the land and property, which could indeed result in developments which adversely impact on Kew’s global status and reputation. I heard what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I am not sure that anybody will try to build a high-rise block of flats, but there could be issues around the commercial development of restaurants or shops and so on which could—not necessarily at the outset but as time went by—damage the reputation of Kew. These are some of the issues that we need to extract, and ensure that they are put to rest.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report on the balance between income generated by leases granted under this Act and grant funding provided by Her Majesty’s Government to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.”

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendment 3 addresses the future Defra grant to Kew. It follows on from the very useful debate on this issue at Second Reading, which I thought reflected a great deal of consensus around the Chamber. We all recognised the importance of the vital research and educational work carried out at Kew, and were united in wanting to consolidate its world heritage site status. We also recognised that the additional money which might be generated by longer leases, initially estimated to be in the region of £15 million, could provide valuable additional investment in its infrastructure, scientific endeavour and visitor experience.

But there was also in that debate a common concern about substitution—the possibility that any additional funds could simply be used by government to cut the Defra grant further, leaving Kew in a no-win position and no better off. We have tabled this amendment to try to address these concerns.

Of course, there was only so much that the Minister could say to reassure us on this point at Second Reading. As he himself admitted when asked about future cuts,

“at times of national difficulty, all institutions and departments must play their part”.—[Official Report, 7/5/19; col. 1168.]

As we know, different Governments over many years have taken different views on how much should be spent from the public purse and on when to put the squeeze on expenditure through a policy of enforced austerity and cuts. So there is no guarantee that the Defra grant, which has been falling steadily over the years—from 90% in 1983 to 37% in 2018—will not fall further. As we heard in that debate, this has been the subject of real parliamentary concern, with a House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report warning in 2015 that cuts in government funding were placing Kew’s world-class scientific status at risk.

Our amendment is a simple one which seeks to ensure that the additional income which Kew generates from the careful management of the extended leases should go direct to the trustees for future investment on the site. At this stage this is a probing amendment, and, again, I do not claim to have worded it perfectly, but I suspect that all noble Lords share the sense of its intent. I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister and beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, transparency is really important, but I am concerned that a set of accounts should be produced just for the income from the leases on seven properties. That seems quite bureaucratic to me. I accept that the noble Baroness said that this was a probing amendment, so I will be interested in what the Minister has to say. I would have thought that these accounts could have been incorporated into the consolidated Kew accounts, rather than being a separate set. That would be a better way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that all the information that I understood that the amendment required will be available to the public under the mechanisms already in place. As I say, to impose an annual requirement would simply produce a further burden, in most cases with a nil return. Although the amendment is probing, it has given me an opportunity to emphasise that, as regards the two existing accounts, the matters relating to this legislation would be covered. With that explanation, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the Minister. The report was just a hook or mechanism to try to flush out the issue of the distribution of the funds; in itself it will not add greatly to the parliamentary knowledge of income. However, I noticed that the Minister carefully skipped the point I raised about the distribution of funds between Defra and the money that Kew will raise in other ways in the future. That continues to be a concern but I recognise that just reporting on it is not necessarily the way to flush it out. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for that comment, and I may reflect on whether there is a better way of raising that issue at a future stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

5: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement to publish information
Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment including information about the property portfolio at Kew affected by the Act, the associated financial liabilities and income projections.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 in this group are in my name. All of them are probing amendments, and and we already began to address some of the issues in the other debate, so I will try to amend my notes as we go along. They all address the need for more information to be provided about the financial impact of the Bill and the management of the longer leases.

Amendment 5 addresses the fact that the Bill does not include an impact assessment, and the background details of the financial consequences of implementing the Bill are indeed rather sparse. For example, as we know, the original estimates for additional receipts from the extended leases was quoted as £40 million, and this figure has now been scaled down to £15 million. However, we have not really had an explanation for the disparity between these two figures, or indeed an explanation of the basis on which that new figure of £15 million has been calculated.

The statement on the financial implications of the Bill in the Explanatory Memorandum is equally vague:

“Incomes from the change will depend on further development of Kew’s Estates Strategy and third party partnerships”.


However, in his response to me at Second Reading, the Minister reported that:

“The estate strategy is not in the public domain”,—[Official Report, 7/5/19; col. 1171.]


and is therefore not available to us, although he said that he would be happy to talk to me about it.

At Second Reading and earlier in this debate, a number of noble Lords asked for further details of the property portfolio at Kew so that we could assess fully the potential for future lease extensions beyond the seven residential properties initially identified, but they have not been forthcoming so far. In addition, the Minister referred several times to the difference between the core and non-core estate, which I know he is beginning to regret. At some point, we need to flesh out both that difference and how much of the non-core estate could be affected in future. There is a black hole where that information needs to be. I hope that he will come forward with further details on that at some point.

I moved the amendment not to be unhelpful but to understand the potential for future income generation—not just for those seven properties but for what could be in the pipeline beyond that. We would all benefit from knowing that. At the moment, it feels as though we are being asked to sign up to an open commitment with little in the way of financial guarantees to underpin it. We felt that the mechanism of an impact assessment would be a helpful way of getting that information.

Amendment 6 would require the lessee to gain permission from the Kew trustees before undertaking any refurbishments. The Minister addressed that issue in his earlier answers. Obviously, one advantage of bestowing longer leases on properties is that it gives the lessee more freedom of opportunity to improve the property they lease. It is important that we tie down the approval process for those refurbishment plans to ensure that they will all receive prior approval.

Amendment 7 would require the criteria for the grounds on which longer leases would be granted to be published. Again, we touched on this at Second Reading; there was a concern that, although proposals from the holders of very long leases may seem reasonable at the time, the holder of that lease—for 150 years, say—could, over time, deviate from the core values underpinning Kew’s activities. As I said, that is particularly true of commercial leases rather than residential ones. It is obvious to say so but 150 years is a very long time to share a world heritage site with a commercial leaseholder. There is concern that their activities could become more at variance in the longer term. Again, we touched on this issue in earlier debates. We need to be clear about the criteria for extending longer leases and to be assured that there will be more sensitivity here than for a standard lease in terms of the leaseholder’s expectations in respecting the property and the activities they carry out there.

Finally, on Amendment 8, we asked the Secretary of State to publish the criteria under which Kew could end a lease prematurely. That follows on from previous amendments, which address the need to be able to terminate a lease prematurely if the activities of a leaseholder, particularly one holding a long lease, are no longer acceptable to the trustees at Kew. Again, this may concern activities beyond those traditionally imposed on leaseholders but which could nevertheless damage the intrinsic values and behaviours expected of those using the Kew estate. Indeed, it could require automatic break clauses.

I am trying to tease out the basis of the argument. We all feel that this is not a question of having a standard lease as you would for a standard residential property. We may expect other expectations to be built into the lease, with special requirements to honour Kew’s mission. I am interested to know whether the Minister envisages having special leases of that kind. I look forward to his response on these issues. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I am broadly supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, except that the time limit is a bit short. It is not like me to give the Government a lot of time to do something, but the period of one month set out in Amendments 5, 7 and 8 is not realistic; it should probably be closer to three months.

Amendment 6 is unnecessary because six of the properties are listed and all of them are in a conservation area. Richmond council, which was referred to earlier, will have to give permission for any refurbishments because the buildings are listed and certainly, during my time dealing with these things, I know that you have to consult with the people who are affected by the works. I would therefore expect the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew to be an official consultee anyway, so the amendment, as I say, is unnecessary.

As regards Amendment 7, the reasons were clearly set out at Second Reading why Kew Gardens wants to lease these properties for longer. Obviously it is to increase the income and to remove the maintenance costs, thus reducing its liabilities so that it can concentrate on its core values, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Again, the period specified in Amendment 8 is too short and three months might be better than one month.

--- Later in debate ---

To echo the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the protections for Kew are of the highest order. It is an extensive parcel of land, and we are very proud of this 350 acres of Crown land and its world heritage site status—incidentally, I can confirm that the car park is part of the world heritage site. As a nation, we should be very proud of this world heritage site, and I see it as our duty to for ever protect it. In the meantime, I hope that the detail I have gone into reassures the noble Baroness that some thought and consideration have already gone into protecting Kew.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for spelling that out in the detail he did. Many of the points he raised provide some reassurance. I was particularly pleased that he talked about bespoke conditions, and that leases will not be just standard residential or commercial leases but will have a bespoke element that applies specifically because of the unique nature of being within the grounds of Kew. I am very grateful for that.

A theme has come out of our discussions on the various amendments. We have assumed, and the Minister has talked about, this relating to seven properties. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said earlier, none of us has a problem with the original seven residential properties that have been earmarked for a longer lease. Our concern is what happens after that, and I still feel that we have not really been enlightened on that point.

I cannot believe that Kew has no other information about its portfolio and other properties that it may want to put into the mix in future. We are still trying to grapple with the Minister’s phrase of “core” and “non-core”, and I think we need more information. I would welcome the chance to sit down with the Minister and figure out which properties are “core” and “non-core”, and what other properties might be in the pipeline. I realise that this may not happen immediately but in the medium to longer term, and the Bill will relate to aspirations that Kew might have in future. I feel we are still in the dark, and I would like more information, but this is obviously not the time to go into that in more detail. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full introduction to these minor amendments and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has pointed out, corrections. We previously debated these statutory instruments on 20 February and 3 April. I do not want to bore the House by running through the comments that I made then or rehashing the debate that we had. The EU requirements on 9 April for changes in order to accommodate the UK’s third-country status ensure our biosecurity and that of the producers, and that is the right step forward. I agree with virtually all the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

I want to refer to African swine fever, which is a really major concern for national pig breeders. There are areas of the land with huge populations of feral pigs, and the disease is a threat to pig farmers as there is little monitoring of the health of the feral pigs. It is important that we protect legitimate pig breeders from African swine flu. There does not seem to be any way to monitor how the feral pig population is doing and whether or not the pigs are carrying African swine fever.

That apart, I think it is a pity that we are having to make minor corrections to important pieces of legislation. However, I am quite content for it to be dealt with under the emergency procedures, and I support the amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out why the SIs that we are debating today have been subject to the affirmative procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Like other noble Lords, while we accept that this is necessary, we share the frustration that we could be doing something much more constructive in taking these issues forward rather than revisiting the past. This feels like a bit of a futile exercise; nevertheless, we understand that the Minister has to do what he has to do.

I am grateful for the helpful briefing with the Minister’s civil servants prior to this debate. I declare an interest through my involvement with the Rothamsted institute, which carries out scientific research into the areas that we are debating today.

I have a couple of general points about the process being used. In his letter of 4 April, the Minister explained that the procedure was being used because the EU had asked for a specific reassurance that these measures were in place to support the UK Government’s application for third-country status, and he has repeated a similar explanation today. Of course we understand why that third-country status was necessary, but when we met the Minister I asked whether the EU had been consulted over the wording of the SI prior to the deadline for it to consider that third-country status. I was told that that was not the case and it had not been consulted in advance. I find that a bit odd; I would have thought that, in the spirit of co-operation and particularly because we wanted its goodwill over our application, it would have been beneficial to keep the EU in the loop on what we were proposing, including the proposed wording for this SI before the decision was made.

I suppose that that raises another question: if the EU does not see the SIs in advance, does it simply take the Government’s word on trust that this legislation is in place? If that is the case, some of the corrections to errors that we have been considering may not even be necessary because we can just promise that the legislation is in place and not actually have to justify it.

The Minister apologised and I think we all understand that this is not his fault, but we are concerned about the number of errors that are coming to light after the SIs have been considered and agreed. As he said, this is the case here. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I wonder how these errors came to light. Were the SIs being double-checked specifically in preparation for our EU third country application? In other words, did someone go back through them before we reassured the EU that they were all in place? Does that mean that many of the other SIs which we have already agreed and signed off may also contain errors which have yet to come to light? Is there another batch of error-ridden SIs which will be brought before us and updated in due course when someone goes back and double-checks them?

Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the SIs this afternoon and for arranging a useful briefing for us beforehand. I particularly thank our Northern Ireland departmental colleagues, who joined us online and were particularly candid about some of the challenges facing cross-border trade, with which they are grappling at the current time. Their briefing and insight was extremely helpful. It is clear that close co-operation with the south is essential although, as I understand from an earlier letter from the Minister, it is not possible to have specific bilateral talks on trade between the UK and EU member states, such as the Irish Republic, in advance of us leaving.

Whatever happens as a result of the Brexit negotiations, it is fairly obvious that trade across the Irish border will become more bureaucratic and less free-flowing in future. There will, for example, be a need for phytosanitary certificates for plants crossing the border. There will be a new need for importers to be registered and new offences arising from the new requirements to take goods to an approved place of inspection. At a minimum level, this will require a huge communication initiative to ensure that farmers, food manufacturers and retailers are made aware of the cross-border import issues. Can the Minister assure us that all of those affected by these changes have been made aware of these new rules?

On the trade in animals SI, the Minister will know that when this was considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it expressed surprise that the regulations had been delayed after being cleared for consideration by the House. The reason given was that the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs chose to delay it pending negotiations on third-country status. As a result, we are now dealing with it under the “made affirmative” process. I shall not make heavy weather of this, but it seems the wrong way round to proceed. Surely, the UK Parliament should have considered the content before the issue was included in the package for conclusion with the EU on those third-country negotiations. Having said that, we accept that the SI is largely technical in nature. It is clearly important that we can continue to import the goods covered by it post Brexit with the minimum of disruption at the Irish border, and it would be helpful if the Minister could reiterate that there will indeed be no additional checks at the border—although I think he has made that point clear.

On the plant health SI, these regulations are very similar to those which we have already debated covering England. Again, the presence of the land border between the north and the Republic brings these issues into starker focus. As the Minister explained, goods entering from the EU that currently require a plant passport under EU rules will now require a phytosanitary certificate, which can be checked digitally rather than at the border.

However, there seems to be a real challenge in managing goods coming from a third country. In our earlier briefing with Northern Ireland officials, it was initially suggested that goods from third countries would arrive via Belfast port or Belfast airport and could be checked at those entry points—the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised this issue, although I have put a slightly different emphasis on it so clarification would be helpful. In our earlier discussions, it became clear that the other obvious route for third-country goods to arrive was via Dublin airport; there was an expectation that they would then be driven across the border. If that were the case, surely border checks would be necessary. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how goods will be handled when they arrive at Dublin airport en route to Northern Ireland. If I am right in what I am saying, is there a danger that, once this route becomes known, many more importers might opt for it because no checks on the border would allow importers to avoid additional checks? Either there will be checks on the border, which everybody says is completely undesirable, or goods coming via Dublin airport will face no checks, in which case there is a danger of goods being imported illegally. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how he thinks those journeys will take place and what checks will take place.

Can the Minister also explain more about the new offences created in this SI, which seem to include unlimited fines for failing to take goods to an approved place of inspection? Is that indeed the case? Is there ever a limit to an unlimited fine? How will that be calculated? Too prohibitive a fine could mark the end of business for some importers. Will importers be given adequate notice of this new provision? Does the Minister feel that it is proportionate, given the significant changes in import arrangements with which businesses will be grappling? Will these new fines be phased in, or on what date are they due to be applied? It would be helpful for importers to know that. Has any estimate been made of how many businesses will be affected by this new measure?

As the Minister knows, the animal health, seed potatoes and food SI was debated in the Commons on 23 April. During that debate, my noble friend Sandy Martin MP—the Defra shadow spokesperson—pointed out what he thought were other technical and grammatical errors in the text of the SI. At the time, the Minister gave an assurance that he would look at these possible errors and correct them if necessary. Were his concerns checked and corrected before the SI came before us?

When we met with officials, it also came to light that our exit from the EU would have a major impact on seed potato growers in Northern Ireland, as 50% of their seed potatoes are exported to the Republic and the EU bans the import of seed potatoes from third countries. What steps are being taken to mitigate the impact of this loss of trade on Northern Ireland businesses?

These issues aside, we accept that the SI is broadly technical in nature. We are therefore happy to approve it in all other respects.

Finally, it continues to be a considerable political failure that these devolved issues do not have a Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise them—a point made by noble Lords on the Cross Benches. I very much hope that this will be rectified soon.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have been very impressed by the debate. I remind Members of the House that there will be a debate on Wednesday afternoon on Brexit and biosecurity, which goes through this whole issue and applies much more broadly. The speakers’ list is still open. I am sure that the Minister and I would very much appreciate further participation.

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

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

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

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of this small but significant Bill so clearly. While I do not have any interests to declare, and I certainly cannot claim to have any family connections on the scale of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I have a particular interest in Kew’s future well-being, as I held my wedding reception there many moons ago, and a lovely event it was too.

We on these Benches support the Bill. We accept the argument that long leases would make the properties on the Kew Gardens estate more commercially attractive, and we understand the imperative to generate more income to support Kew’s world-class scientific research and historic landscape and buildings, of which people are quite rightly very proud, as we have heard from around the Chamber today. Its status as a UNESCO world heritage site is richly deserved and must be consolidated at all costs. However, it is important that, during the progress of the Bill, we can be reassured that the powers to extend leases and to encourage greater commercial investments and partnerships will be carried out with extreme sensitivity and care. It is absolutely vital that the core ethos and the inspiration of the gardens are not overshadowed by commercial exploitation, particularly one that in the future might become controversial. As noble Lords have said, the Bill gives the Secretary of State considerable powers to expand the commercial activities across the estate. We have talked about the Bill being short, but in those two short clauses there are considerable powers for the Secretary of State and, within that, concerns have quite rightly been addressed.

When we met with the Minister and the representatives of Kew before this debate—I thank him for arranging that—it was explained that the initial objectives would be to extend the leases on the seven residential properties on the border of the gardens overlooking Kew Green. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the revised estimate of the extra resources from doing so is around £15 million, although earlier documents quoted the figure of £40 million, so it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the current estimates for the additional income envisaged.

In addition to those seven properties, there are another 40 or more buildings on the site, and we need to be clear about the longer-term impact of releasing some of those properties. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that detail about the property portfolio and the potential longer-term implications for finance would be useful. Perhaps the Minister could take that matter away.

I do not suggest that the Palm House or the Temperate House would be used commercially, but other, less fundamental, less core buildings might be ripe for income generation in future, and it is important that we look ahead and have a sense of what the future challenges and opportunities from other buildings on the site might be. Can the Minister confirm that longer leases are being considered for other properties on the estate in future? Does he recognise that, as the Bill is framed, it would give the relevant Minister power to allow that?

The Explanatory Notes state that:

“Incomes from the change will depend on further development of Kew’s Estates Strategy and third party partnerships”.


Is the estates strategy a document in the public domain because, if it is, it would be useful to have a copy? What type of third-party partnerships are envisaged? It would be helpful to your Lordships to have further detail of what is meant by that phrase.

Does part of the strategy include attracting more foreign investors? For example, Kew has previously accepted money from the Sackler family for the Sackler bridge. Is it now the policy no longer to accept money from the family, in line with the policy adopted by the Tate and others, and might that have a further adverse impact on foreign income? Any clarification the Minister can give on that would be welcome.

We know that many of these decisions are not made lightly but are driven by the necessity to balance the books, so difficult choices are forced on the trustees and others. My guess is that the trustees would not be coming forward with this suggestion if they did not feel acutely the need to generate income forced on them by cuts in other areas. I have no doubt that the proposals are driven by financial necessity, in part forced on Kew by cuts in grants from Defra.

In 1983, 90% of Kew’s funding came from the Government but, as we have heard, in 2018 its income will be £111 million, of which only £40 million will be grant in aid from Defra, which is less than 37%. Kew has done great work in making up that shortfall by visitor income—we have heard about some of the implications of increasing visitor prices—commercial activities and other charitable giving, including some large philanthropic donations. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lady Warwick pointed out, over the years, there have been a number of reports about financial concerns about Kew, forcing it to make difficult choices about job cuts and where maintenance, repair and other investment is made. As we heard, in 2015 a House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee warned that cuts in government funding were placing Kew’s world-class scientific status at risk.

As several noble Lords have stressed, we need to be assured that the Bill will not be used by the Government to further cut the grant to Kew if its income from other sources increases as a result of the lease extensions. I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that the purpose of any income from the extensions should be solely to provide investment in projects compatible with Kew’s core objectives and enhance Kew’s status as a UNESCO world heritage site. Can the Minister confirm that this will be the case? Can he guarantee that the Government will not use the Bill as an excuse to shift further the burden of cost on to Kew rather than the Treasury? Can he clarify in more detail the precise powers of all those involved in the oversight of any redevelopment proposals on the site? Apart from the Kew trustees, Defra and the local planning departments, might other organisations, such as English Heritage, be consulted? Would UNESCO have a role in overseeing any changes in use, given that they might have an impact on Kew’s world heritage status? Can the Minister clarify whether any covenants on the land to be redeveloped might be a barrier to remedial work taking place?

Finally, and specifically, I understand that five of the seven properties already identified for extended leases are currently let. Have the tenants been consulted about these proposals? Is it expected that their rents will increase immediately after the property leases are extended? Although the Bill allows for leases of up to 150 years, is it envisaged that leases of variable lengths might be established? For example, will there be break clauses? Most importantly, what will the content of the leases be and what steps can be taken to remove leaseholders whose activities are no longer in keeping with the environmental principles that underpin Kew’s ethos? In future, a catering outlet may have a lease but may no longer produce food in keeping with the ethos promoted by Kew in other areas—for example, regarding biosecurity and the encouragement of plant development; there are other examples of that. We may provide a lease in good faith but then find that the leaseholder’s ethos and our ethos go off in separate directions. I am keen to know how that would be handled once the leases have been agreed. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these issues and to pursuing them with other noble Lords in the Bill’s stages to come.

Farming Communities: Rural Crime

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not fundamentally an issue of police resources? The current policing formula does not really take account of the particular challenges and problems in rural areas. The Minister talked about organised criminal gangs; as we know, they are operating in a number of areas, stealing livestock and farm machinery, almost to order. They cause real distress to isolated local communities. Would the Minister agree to speak to his colleagues in the Home Office about how those communities can be better supported? In these isolated communities, people feel they are fighting crime on their own and they need help. It is a question of police resources and perhaps the Minister would take it up.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I certainly will. As rural affairs Minister, I take the whole issue of the way in which rural communities are looked after very seriously. This is particularly important for isolated communities. The police resources allocation formula is a calculation that uses various data sources to share money between authorities. The formula predicts the relative workload or need for each category of police activity. As Rural Affairs Minister, I am keenly aware of the fact that there is a lot of work that can be done with rural communities, through working with the police and police and crime commissioners. I will certainly take this up with colleagues in the Home Office, because rural communities must be looked after.