Debate on the Address

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the Minister in opening this debate on the humble Address. The Minister has done her best to summon up enthusiasm for the Government’s future programme, but she cannot avoid giving the impression that it is pretty thin gruel. There was not much sign of the ““vision thing””. We all know that it was supposed to have been very different. None the less, it is particularly pleasant to be able to welcome the Climate Change Bill. We on this side of the House look forward to debating it shortly. I am sure that all Members of the House are delighted that the Bill is starting here. Many noble Lords are particularly well qualified to contribute to the debates that will surround the Bill, which attempts to address a key issue of our time. It creates a precedent for binding future Secretaries of State to long-term targets in a way that is quite unlike any other measure previously presented to Parliament. I hope that the Government will debate the issues raised by the Bill with an open mind; the rest of the House will certainly do so. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, knows that he has the broad support of these Benches on this Bill, in its general application if not in its detail. Indeed, he will know that had the Prime Minister not funked the election, an incoming Conservative Government might well have been introducing a Bill with a similar objective. It is useful to have a draft Marine Bill to consider, following last year’s White Paper, A Sea Change. I will not criticise the Government for taking their time if it doth, in turn, turn, "““into something rich and strange””." I hope that the Government will again consider pre-legislative scrutiny, as they did with the Climate Change Bill. The Joint Committee of both Houses worked very well and produced a robust report, which will inform our debate on the Climate Change Bill. If this approach is taken again with the draft Marine Bill, I ask only that the Government give sufficient time; a Joint Committee should not feel pushed by time constraints. Before I leave the affairs of the department for which I have specific responsibility as Opposition spokesman, I will comment on the state of British agriculture, the countryside and the widespread dissatisfaction with Defra. I ask the House to note my active interest in my family’s farming and horticultural business. Her Majesty popularised the phrase ““annus horribilis””, which must surely apply to Defra’s year. The previous two years have seen the department strangle itself and British agriculture with the single payment scheme. This year’s self-inflicted Defra catastrophe is the foot and mouth outbreak at Pirbright, which continues to leave distress and financial crisis in its wake. Those will have long-term consequences. Has the department calculated the cost of the outbreak? The Welsh farmers have. They reckon the UK-wide cost, with direct and consequential market losses, to be £520 million. It is no surprise that the Minister has been reluctant to accept Defra’s role in this disaster; I believe that he owes it to British farming and to country dwellers to do so. No sooner had the two linked outbreaks disappeared than bluetongue arrived. I am reassured that the Government have at last sought tenders for bluetongue vaccine. They will not get away with a cut-price solution if we are to eliminate this disease from Great Britain. Meanwhile, the protection zones and the arbitrary nature of boundaries create great difficulties, with animals stranded—cattle from their winter housing, rams from ewes, washland cattle short of fodder and facing winter flash floods. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that Defra has a duty of care to farmers who, through no fault of their own, have to cope with all this—let alone the animal welfare concerns. All this had been preceded earlier in the year by the Suffolk avian flu outbreak. Fortunately this was contained, only for it to return to Norfolk yesterday. We can but hope that it is confined to a single occurrence. We will be grateful for access to today’s statement on the outbreak. The latest Defra mix-up—I leave it to noble Lords to interpret that euphemism—concerns funding for local authority animal health and welfare teams. Failure to keep track of spending means a budget overspend of more than £1 million—and who is to pay? Defra has told local councils that they must cut 12 per cent off their budgets now. What sweet timing. The summer’s floods caused widespread damage extending way beyond farming and rural communities. The Association of British Insurers estimates that the total insured cost will be in excess of £3 billion—the largest natural catastrophe loss recorded in the UK. I continue to receive letters about the failure of the Environment Agency’s ability to maintain the river system in good order—not surprising when the maintenance budget for flood defences was cut this year. I pay tribute to the work of individuals in their efforts to reduce the consequences of these summer floods but there remains an institutional failure in the agency. I have a copy of a letter from the chairman of Witham Fourth District Internal Drainage Board to the chief executive of the Environment Agency cataloguing failures of communication, understanding and decision-making during these events. It tells of the agency’s failure to maintain watercourses, despite being urged to do so. It cannot go on like this. The Minister is widely respected within this House and outside but Defra’s standing and that of its agencies is at rock bottom. It is a failing department. If it were a school, it would be in special measures. I have heard from the Minister twice today. I know that he genuinely seeks ways of easing the regulatory burden. I know that he believes that government procurement should be directed towards British produce, but he appears to be a sole voice crying in the Defra wilderness. I am sure that many noble Lords will express similar sentiments. They are likely also to point to sector crises, such as that in the pigmeat industry. I continue to hear from cattle markets such as Newark about the collapse in their trade. I have heard these anxieties first hand from a large meeting of Welsh sheep farmers at their wits’ end. There is some room for confidence. We are entering a new era—a new chapter in British farming. Once again the demand is for increasing food production. Set-aside is back to zero. Food security is back on the agenda. Consumers are looking to local supply and supermarkets are seeking to exploit this in their marketing and buying programmes. I am sure that British agriculture can cope with this. My only concern is whether the Government and Defra are equal to the task. I urge the Minister to ensure that the department recognises the task ahead. It needs to change its approach. Its role must be less regulatory and, indeed, less negative. This is a question of attitude, of trust, as well as of legislative restrictions and regulation. The approach must be more positive. There needs to be a concerted effort to form a serious and trusting partnership with the industry. The Government must back British agriculture. I move on. Since the Queen’s Speech we have had the First Reading of the Local Transport Bill. I will not attempt to give its Long Title, a task with which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, had to wrestle last week. We welcome those features of the Bill giving local authorities power to manage more effectively integrated transport systems. But the Government will not have support from these Benches for road pricing. We will scrutinise that part of the Bill very carefully to make sure that it does not extend by stealth to ““spy in the sky”” national road pricing. Meanwhile the need for an efficient infrastructure is greater than ever. Freight and distribution increasingly drive the British economy. Public transport, as the Minister said, is a prerequisite for meeting emissions targets. The final stage of the Crossrail Bill is included at last in the legislative programme. We on these Benches have always been positive about the concept of Crossrail, and we will be looking to ensure that the project cost estimates are realistic and can be delivered on budget. At one time it appeared that this hybrid Bill procedure might suit other major projects. However, the considerable time that this Bill has had to spend in Committee suggests that this cumbersome procedure may well have added to the cost. The problem also affects other large-scale projects, and the Government’s response has been to introduce the Planning Reform Bill. This builds on the White Paper resulting from the two Barker reviews. On major projects the planning system is frequently an obstacle and not a solution. We support the idea of reform but there needs to be a proper safeguard for local interests. There is a need for balance; a need for local people to be involved; and a need for local people to be part of the decision. Meanwhile local government struggles on, frequently underfunded and with increased burdens from central Government. Local authorities have had to contend with the considerable inaccuracies in population figures. The Government need to make sure that funding properly follows and allows for migrant population growth. Fair funding needs true figures. As with finance, so with structure. We believe in localism. The Government remain wedded to regionalism. Across England local authorities are having their arms twisted to reorganise to suit the Government’s agenda. They find themselves struggling with their local development frameworks. I turn to the Housing and Regeneration Bill. We accept the need to build more homes. We seek to encourage balanced development, particularly in rural areas, consistent with local decision-making. We support the idea of the brownfield building programme, but we have considerable anxieties that the green belt may be under threat. After all, Natural England, of all bodies, has said it favours such development. We are particularly keen to support rural communities, villages and market towns. A priority must be to ensure that local people can afford to live and work in the rural economy. This must include housing for rent as my noble friend Lord Plumb would have said had tragic circumstances not prevented him being here today. Here again the key factor must be to ensure that there is an adequate local input to support these developments and that infrastructure requirements are properly anticipated. I conclude by observing that in all these areas much more is needed than a legislative programme. Governments also need sound administration. This Government often give the impression that intention is enough. They are strong on promise and short on delivery. We can see that in the way they conduct their business—an announcement of a new initiative preferably repeated several times. Who cares about the outcome? The people do. Those running local government do. The commuter stuck in traffic or on a train does. The HGV driver faced with an inadequate road system does. The drainage board engineer does. A farmer struggling with his paperwork after a day’s work in the most highly regulated sector of the economy does. The Government could and should ensure that legislation already in place is properly used for the provision of a better quality of life for all people. As the noble Baroness said, the areas of government that we are discussing today concern our place in the lived-in world. Throughout the day’s debate, we will be ensuring that there is a good and proper balance between the interests of the nation as a whole and those of the local community, and between the interests of the local community and the individual. We rightly expect local people to identify with, and help to sustain, their local communities. We must not deprive people of the sense of ownership that drives these instincts. When we on these Benches come to consider the Bills proposed by the Government and the programme presented to us in the gracious Speech, we shall consider them on those principles.