Agriculture: Foreign Workers
Lord Rooker Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, what will be essential to ensure that our wonderful produce is picked is that we have the labour force to do it. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, is right: we need to review where we are, because there will be changed arrangements. Having met some people who are running a fruit farm, I am fully seized of the importance of the labour force that comes overwhelmingly from parts of eastern Europe, which we have very much welcomed and is so important in gathering in our harvest.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, we are leaving the European Union, so I do not really see what that has to do with it. The original seasonal agricultural workers scheme operated with people coming into this country from 130 nations. It was essentially universal. They came, they worked and they went home. Migration has nothing to do with it. Why are we not opening up our vision, if we are leaving the EU, to say, “Let’s widen the scheme”? It has nothing to do with migration. We had a perfectly workable scheme until it changed. I fully admit I was partly responsible. I used it at MAFF and then when I got to the Home Office I had to start closing it down because of what was happening with our EU accession partners. But the fact is, we are leaving, so it does not have to be European based any more.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is precisely why the Home Office and Defra have asked the Migration Advisory Committee to look at this with regard to the long-term needs of an important sector of our agricultural industry. That is one of the things I am looking forward to hearing about. As I said, to put it in context, between 2007 and 2013 the only element of the scheme was to deal with the Romanian and Bulgarian situation.
Deregulation Bill
Lord Rooker Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I have not participated in any of the stages of the Bill until now. Nevertheless, with your Lordships’ leave, I want to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Borwick.
I agree with him that Sunday trading restrictions no longer protect small shops to any material extent. Even if large stores were open for longer hours, it would not have a material effect on the prosperity of many small shops. There will always be people who prefer the ease, the intimacy, the convenience and the speed of shopping at the corner shop, even if the prices are a touch higher.
I respect the opinion of those who think differently, such as the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, but this amendment does not seek to remove or alter the current Sunday trading restrictions other than in respect of garden centres. As my noble friend points out, garden centres are completely different. Of course, a proper definition of a garden centre needs to be formulated. However, my experience of shopping at or, rather, visiting a garden centre is that it is good for mind and body. One often walks a considerable distance from the car park to the centre, providing a good opportunity for much needed exercise. A visit to a garden centre can be rewarding and educational. Furthermore, having purchased equipment or plants in the centre, many people hasten home to work in their garden, which, again, is a very healthy and beneficial activity to engage in on a Sunday. I cannot think of any good reason why garden centres, properly defined, should not be exempt from the Sunday trading restrictions. I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I have no axe to grind on this but I am not clear about why six hours is not sufficient for garden centres to open. How many extra opening hours are needed? That is the implication of this amendment. I have not quite got my head around it. Should it be eight hours, 10 hours or a free for all and 24 hours? Garden centres have changed. I do not say this very often but I would very much counsel against your Lordships’ House sticking this in when the other House has not. I was a Member of the other place when the Sunday trading legislation was going through. I remember that it was the only time a government Bill was defeated at Second Reading. In the middle of Second Reading, the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was asked: do you promise to put a guillotine on the proceedings of this Bill? He said no. With that, everyone realised that we would be there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because this one was not going to pass easily. The easy way to get around that was to get rid of the Bill at Second Reading. Later, there was a more sensible Bill. I remember the look on the noble Lord’s face when he said that because I was in the Chamber.
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, about the Association of Convenience Stores. I do not think that the big stores have opened their smaller shops to get around Sunday trading laws. They have opened the small shops to put the small person out of business. Tesco is a classic example, with its One Stop shops. I did a survey a year ago. I live in Ludlow. I shopped for 25 identical items in Tesco, One Stop and the Co-op. One Stop was 10% more expensive than Tesco. However, you have to look really hard in the Tesco annual report to find that it owns One Stop. Tesco also owns Dobbies, a garden chain, but what is there to prevent Tesco converting Dobbies? Most garden centres have land around them that can be purchased, so they could be extended. I am not clear about the real consequences of this proposal.
Finally, I declare an interest. I live in the middle of Ludlow and I have a garden centre on the other side of my back garden. It is the finest privately owned do-it-yourself chain. It sells white goods and has a kitchen shop. It also sells decorating and cleaning materials, furniture, tools and small electrical items. I have not worked it out but the garden centre part of the shop is probably 50%. To give it a plug, it’s called Homecare and is used by everyone.
I have not been lobbied as a Member of your Lordships’ House and, as far as I remember, there was no lobbying during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill as it relates to the relaxation of Sunday trading legislation. I therefore counsel the Committee against going down this route, because it is so controversial. If there is to be a relaxation—and I make no case one way or the other—it is highly controversial in respect of the other place. There must be a proper prior consultation with everybody, including customers and the employees concerned.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, having listened to the Minister, I should like to raise a couple of minor issues. Before Report, it would be extremely helpful for the House to have a list of insolvency practitioners who support this proposal. Paragraph 214 of the Joint Committee on the Draft Deregulation Bill’s report states that it was told,
“that there was ‘broad support’ for the clause from a range of stakeholders, including some practitioners themselves”.
We did not receive evidence to reflect that view. In a way, part of our problem was that we had only one side of the story. I am not out to cause trouble by saying that it is clear that this clause started life under the previous Labour Government. No one ever says that, but it is true. In March 2010, before the general election, the Insolvency Service sent a consultation letter to all key stakeholders inviting views on the specialist authorisation proposals. Indeed, there was a consultation meeting in April 2010. We did not explore this in the committee and it is a big issue. We had information from the Law Society and I think that we had information from Scotland as well, but the fact is that we did not delve too deeply into where this came from. The minute I see red tape challenged these days I dismiss it because I think it is a farce. However, given that this started life under the previous Labour Government, it might have had some merit. While the papers are not available to the present Administration, it would be useful to ask the then Ministers—I do not know who they were—why they started on this journey before 2010. There must have been a reason to trigger this thing so long ago. It has not just turned up in the Bill after trawling around Whitehall; it started life before the general election. We failed to ask why in the Joint Committee but I am asking that question now.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, to take up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the Joint Committee noted that there appeared to be some confusion about the extent of consultation on this clause. We recommended that there be further consultation on what was then Clause 9. In their response to the Joint Committee’s report in January this year, the Government took the opportunity to repeat the arguments in favour of the clause in some detail. They also stated in paragraph 116 that,
“following the Committee’s recommendation, the Government is inviting any further views on this Clause during the passage of the Bill”.
How did the Government go about soliciting these further views? Who did they invite to give those views and what was the general burden of any of those responses that were made after the Government’s response?
As things stood when the Joint Committee reported, we did not feel that there had been sufficient consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was saying, to enable us to express a firm view on the merits of the clause. I note what the Government have said, but I also note the case put forward by R3. In particular, I note R3’s view that partial licences are not being introduced to fix a problem. It claims that there is insufficient evidence of undercapacity in the market and no evidence that the current regime causes concerns about the quality of the advice given. Essentially, it asserts that the system is not broken and asks why the Government are trying to fix it.
The Government, in their turn, advance two reasons for reform. The first is that the partial licences will benefit insolvency practices of all sizes and the personal insolvency market as a whole. R3 has advanced survey data that it says refutes these claims. Secondly, the Government say that partial licences will increase competition, decrease training costs, lower fees and deregulate access to the IP profession. R3 maintains that there is no evidence of the need for more IPs; in fact, it claims that the market is oversupplied. It also challenges the Government’s other assertions.
All this illustrates the position that the Joint Committee found itself in during December. There are competing claims, somewhat unevidenced, and a narrow consultation base, while the Government have not provided an impact assessment on this clause. It would be easier to make a judgment on the merits of the clause if we knew more and had more evidence. There is a strong case for the Government to agree to further substantive consultation on this issue before we reach a conclusion.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to my amendments, which are linked with that proposed by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I support his amendment, but it focuses on a narrower base than mine. I must first record my family farming interests and my membership of the CLA, and the fact that we have paths across our farm. The CLA still has concerns about the Bill.
I was sorry not to be available for Second Reading, although I read Hansard with great interest. I will not make a Second Reading speech, but wish to record my support for the aims of the Bill, which brings forward sensible and proportionate measures for improving the regulatory regime in the UK.
My Amendment 17 would require councils in England to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of their powers. Amendment 18 would replace existing Clause 25 and define the purposes in greater detail; namely, “preventing or reducing crime”, to which my noble friend referred, and,
“ensuring the safety of any persons … preventing damage to property … preventing the ingress or egress of animals; or … protecting the natural environment”.
The stakeholder working group on unrecorded public rights of way established by Natural England consisted of 15 people, representing path users, landowners, occupiers and, importantly, local authorities. Much consensus was achieved. The group’s work has been immensely important in the bringing forward of the proposals in the Bill, but one or two items on which there was agreement were not included.
As a result of this work, the Government produced guidance, which has been placed in the Library. However, the particular detail encompassed by my two amendments has not been included in the Bill. Why was this? I understand that the proposals were agreed by the stakeholder working group, which accepted that the guidance should be statutory so that authorities would have to take it into account in their decision-making process. However, I am not clear on that.
The view of the stakeholder working group was that rights of way are so complex that it is important to make them easier for everyone to understand. The complexity leads to different applications of the rules and different interpretations by local authorities. Guidance should be applied fairly, consistently and impartially, with the aim of making regulation less burdensome. Some might argue that my amendments increase burdens but I humbly suggest that a clearer direction should reduce costs and burdens. There would be less doubt because interpretation would be clearly stated in the Bill. I am also aware that some authorities are overwhelmed by the large number of outstanding claims with which they have to deal. We need to make it easier for their decision-making. I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, we did not spend a lot of time in the Joint Committee on this because we were not adding things to the Bill. We made recommendations relating to further clauses, which I will not go into. I have been a regular walker in the Lake District for the past 30 years. One of my greatest regrets is that I did not discover the Lake District until I was 45. However, I would never claim that enjoyment of the countryside and the open air, and walking in the Fells, entitles me to go through someone’s garden alongside their private home. There can be no justification for a walker, a person enjoying the country, making that claim. Because of the route that a path may take—sometimes they go through a private garden—you sometimes see a sign that asks walkers not to use a child’s swing and says that if they do, they do so at their own peril. There cannot be an argument to do that.
I was involved in a case about a path being moved. The cost of moving a path a small number of yards—or metres if we are in Europe—is enormous. I cannot see that that cost can justifiably be put on the owner. It is a public good to move a path. In some ways, I am sympathetic to the principle behind the amendment, although putting it in the Bill is asking for trouble. Perhaps we need another stakeholder working group. The one relating to this Bill was admirably chaired by Ray Anderson, who seems to have done an incredibly good job getting a consensus.
By and large, there is a case for change. The Government’s view should not be, “Oh well, this is on the landowner”. It is not quite like that, particularly when you are in the Fells, which is the only area I know in some detail but it may be different elsewhere. However, it does not alter the fact that things change as regards rights of way. A path can be diverted, and the joy of the countryside and the open air can be maintained. My view is that you cannot make a claim about the right to go through a person’s garden. I am not making that claim as a walker. My claim is to access to the countryside. Therefore, there should be movement on this issue but it would be best for it not to be in this Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to attend Second Reading. I had to go to a school event with my children. This package of measures has been agreed, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and others. However, we need to reflect on the fact that it has been carefully agreed by a wide group of people over two years. If we start to unpick various elements, other issues might fall out as well. We need to bear that in mind very carefully. This has been a carefully agreed package and what might seem a small change, if introduced in one area, might undo the broad compromise and consensus secured on the wider agenda.
My second point is that, looking carefully at the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, it seems that in this new legislation there will be a significant improvement—he alluded to this—in the process for owners and occupiers with their ability to apply to make orders to divert or extinguish public paths. I think that the authorities will have to consider such applications within four months. Combined with the draft guidance which I think has been agreed to by the stakeholder working group, and which spells out how order-making authorities must consider this issue as it moves forward, those two changes together—the draft guidance and the new rights that private landowners are being given in this legislation—should be tried and tested before we start making further amendments. For those two reasons, that it is a carefully considered package with broad consensus among a hugely divergent group of people and that there are already some new proposals in the legislation to address some of the issues that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has rightly raised, I do not feel able to support his amendment.
Gangmasters
Lord Rooker Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness can be reassured by the fact that the GLA works with a number of enforcement agencies, particularly as a partner in the Government’s human trafficking strategy. However, there are principles that underline the red tape challenge’s review on employment. The Government’s workplace rights compliance and enforcement review is now considering an enforcement architecture which would cover all workplaces and vulnerable workers, and how that can be made as effective as possible. This is part and parcel of the way in which the GLA may well be able to provide particular expertise to that body.
Lord Rooker
Given the success of the GLA, which has just been admitted in the industry that it manages and looks after, why can its remit not be extended to the construction industry? Why should the construction industry, which is as full of gangmasters as agriculture and farming, be exempt from the kind of activities that the GLA does on behalf of workers?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I have just given the noble Lord the answer to that question. Indeed, there is a review of all vulnerable workers across the piece. Noble Lords will accept that there needs to be balance. We do not want employment to be so difficult and complex that people are discouraged from taking on employment, but we all have a duty to make sure that vulnerable workers are properly protected.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Rooker Excerpts(15 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I will intervene briefly in the debate because I realise that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, have been incredibly helpful. It is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I just want to raise an issue that was not really covered by the Minister’s statement—otherwise I would not be standing up. That relates to the forests being used for motor sport.
Last year, the motor sport industry contributed almost £1 million to the Forestry Commission for 41 events, 31 of which were stage rallies. There is nowhere else they can take place. Each one of those is estimated independently to bring to the local community about £2 million when it takes place. Ministry of Defence land used to be used. That is not really possible in any event because of use in the past so the forests are the only areas where these rallies can take place. There was a centrally managed agreement between the Forestry Commission and the Motorsports Association, which is the governing body for UK motor sport. I have a couple of questions, because the Minister said that a measured and rational debate was not taking place, so it is going to take place with the review.
First, will the independent chair be appointed as a result of an advertisement or a few phone calls? It is quite important that we know that. Secondly, will the Land Access and Recreation Association have a place on the body? I am making a special plea because that is the one way that the motor sport industry will be represented. It employs 38,000 people, 25,000 of whom are professional engineers, and is worth something like £4 billion to the economy. Most of the teams that we see with foreign flags are actually in this country, where the cars are designed and produced. We are talking about big business here, where the forests play an absolutely crucial part, particularly for the rally side of the industry. It is very important that they can put their piece at the table and are not reduced to external flag-waving or lobbying. If LARA is represented on the body, then I am assured that the issues relating to motor sport can be raised, because the issues have not gone away. If I can be satisfied with that, there will not be any need to raise this in future. I realise that forestry is coming out of the Bill. Nevertheless, as this body and review panel are going to be meeting, if we can get these things settled now, it will make life a lot easier for the ministry and for Defra, which, I presume, is going to have to fill a hole in its funding in due course.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I thank the Government, particularly my noble colleague Lord Henley, for intervening early in this debate, which was extremely helpful in setting us on the road for debate in certain areas. I want to thank the Government generally for their common sense in dropping the forestry clauses from the Bill, or at least proposing to support the dropping of them when we get to them. The Government have listened to what has been going on; I suspect as well that they have been retreating in a certain amount of disarray in the face of the public opposition which they did not expect. I am not, however, going to stand up and talk about U-turns and that kind of thing. It is always strange that when Governments put forward things that some of us might not like, they are accused of being obstinate and stubborn if they refuse to listen to what people say. However, if they agree to change and withdraw things, they are accused of making U-turns. They can be accused of anything by people who want to accuse them but I am delighted by the Government’s decision to take out these clauses.
I speak in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. I would have signed it if there had been any space when I first discovered it. I have tabled several amendments in this group, which are now all dead parrots or perhaps dead budgies—or, since we are talking about trees, dead woodpeckers. I do not know; I get lost among these metaphors. The Minister talked about Sherwood and suggested that my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby might be Maid Marian. I was not sure whether he was putting himself forward as the Sheriff of Nottingham. If he is, the right reverend Prelate could be Friar Tuck. All I can say is: please can I be Robin Hood?
When I proposed that Clauses 17, 18 and 19 should not stand part of the Bill, I originally did so for traditional House of Lords Committee reasons. These clauses needed a great deal of probing and discussion, which the stand part debates would have allowed to take place. I was also concerned about what appeared, on the face of it, to be fairly draconian Henry VIII powers being granted. In retrospect I was right to be concerned, but as time went on I became more convinced that this was not the appropriate legislation to deal with the future of the Forestry Commission and its land, woodlands and forests. Therefore, I became more serious in believing that this House ought to take these clauses out. I now believe firmly that if the Government had not seen sense on this, this House would at least have taken them out before it sent the Bill to the Commons. Nevertheless, we are now in the position that we are in.
I praise not just the Government for their action but those who have campaigned on this matter. It is easy to attack or criticise the campaigners by saying that some of their messages were a bit simplistic and not all of the 535,000 people who signed the 38 Degrees petition had a detailed knowledge of all the issues. That is absolutely true but how many people have a detailed knowledge of all the issues when they cast a vote in a general election? Once these campaigns started to mushroom, I was determined to make sure that the people running them had as much knowledge and understanding as possible of what the Government were putting forward, what the Forestry Commission does and the facts and figures about the estates, as well as parliamentary procedures. They could then at least have some slight understanding of how the Bill would go through this House. Not many people have such an understanding—including some Members of this House, probably—but I thought that was at least a useful thing to do. If I have been able to play a small part in that, I am very pleased to have done so.
The huge petition that the noble Lord, Lord Clark, mentioned was quite astonishing. Similar petitions—about, perhaps, more important things than the forests in many people’s eyes—rarely get into six figures but this one, if the Bill had got to the Commons with the forestry clauses still included, would clearly have been signed by a million people. This is an astonishing phenomenon. In addition to that, several national campaign groups were set up and campaigned mainly via the internet. They included Save England’s Forests, which got its first real boost of publicity from the celebrity letter to the Sunday Times. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, in his place. He was thought to be a celebrity who might like to sign the letter. Nobody bothered to ask me but that does not worry me at all because I am not a celebrity.
There was also Save Our Woods. The young people who run that have done a very good job in setting out a vast amount of factual information and creating a forum where people could exchange information. I believe that all this has contributed to the amount of knowledge and understanding in the campaign groups being much greater than it was at the beginning. In addition, providing huge local support to the campaigns were local organisations, some of which were enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Clark. Some of them covered big forests such as the Forest of Dean and the New Forest, others covered larger areas such as the Lake District, and many more, springing up almost by the day, were concerned with their own local forests. Add to that all the access groups, which were absolutely united against the proposals. Towards the end of the campaign, a lot of the established groups, such as the Woodland Trust and the RSPB, were coming on board. It was an astonishing campaign. The involvement of the internet, Twitter, Facebook and all these realms that I do not know much about has been a complete eye-opener to me.
Basically, the problem was this. First, the Government, although they would put it in slightly less brutal terms, botched the entire publicity throughout the last six months of last year of what they were doing. Different Ministers, although not the noble Lord, Lord Henley, were saying different things. It was not at all clear what they were saying. That gave the campaigns a lot of fertile ground. This was also about trees. As a local councillor for many years, I learnt long ago that you mess about with trees at your peril, unless you explain to people exactly what you are doing and why you are doing it and you get them on side. It really came home to me on one occasion, when Pendle council—I declare that I am a member of Pendle council—was proposing to remove some trees outside the municipal hall, which is a council-run theatre in Colne. These trees were diseased and needed removing, yet there was huge public opposition to it. We now have some nice birches there, which are much better. Nevertheless, at the council committee meeting at which this was being decided, a lady addressed the committee in tears. She said, “Do you know, me and my husband, we had our first kiss under that tree, and you’re going to chop it down”. That is how people think about trees. If you are going to do things to trees, you have to be very careful; you have to prepare your ground and you have to take people into your confidence from the very beginning.
I support many of the comments made about the independent panel and some of the questions. How will it be chosen? It is all going to happen fairly quickly if it is to report in the autumn, as is intended, so how will it be chosen? What are the criteria and the mechanisms for deciding who should be on it, and what are its terms of reference? The Government have to come clean about these questions from the very beginning. Furthermore, will there be any ongoing information and publicity about the panel’s work until it produces its report? If not, there will be a vacuum for several months during which all sorts of rumours will develop and gain credence. The organisations that have now been set up are not going to go away. They will continue to ask questions; and if there are no answers, all sorts of information will get out there that may or may not be true. It is in the Government’s interest to be as open as possible about the work of this panel and how it will work.
There is a further question about the 15 per cent. The Government have said that they have suspended selling any more of the 15 per cent until they have better protections on access and biodiversity. That is very welcome. How will these protections be announced, when will they be announced, and will the panel be involved in that work as well as deciding the long-term future of the majority of the estate?
A major consultation was run by the Forestry Commission in 2009—not very long ago—which seems to have been dropped and forgotten. A lot of organisations fed into that consultation. Will the proposals and submissions that resulted from that consultation be fed into the panel as information on which it can consider their views, along with everything else? Will there be a means by which the public can input into the work of the panel, or is all consultation now dead? I was disappointed when the Government dropped the consultation—although I was delighted when they said that they would remove these clauses—because a lot of organisations were doing a lot of work preparatory to putting in their views. It sounds—to a cynic outside, anyhow—as though the Government have said, “We have looked at the first results of the consultation. We do not like them and therefore we are stopping the consultation”. However, a lot of work contributed to that consultation, and it would be helpful if organisations in the field, campaigning groups and everyone else were at least able to contribute to the work of panel by putting in their views.
Agriculture: Farm Animal Disease
Lord Rooker Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, the group is independent and will consider all matters. As a result of that, as my noble friend will be aware, it will certainly consider the point that she has made.
Lord Rooker
Given that the Government are willing to share this issue, would a clean solution not be an insurance-based system that could be made compulsory for animal keepers? The problem at present is that no company would carry the risk, which, by definition, would be too great. The solution would therefore be to have the same system for animals as exists for terrorism: there would not be a commercial market were it not for the pooling system of the contributions, backed up at the end of the day by the Government. This would not be an open-ended commitment, but it would be a very practical solution. I admit to failing, when I was in the Minister’s position, to get that kind of system up and running.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am surprised to hear the noble Lord admit to ever failing in anything, but he makes an interesting suggestion and we will certainly look at it. He will understand, however, that I would rather not comment before the independent advisory group produces its report, which is due to come out in December. When it comes out the noble Lord will want to see it, as will I and, indeed, the Government.