Queen’s Speech

My Lords, I begin by reminding noble Lords of my farming interests. I am a member of the NFU and the CLA, an honorary associate member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and of the BVA, and currently president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers and of LEAF. My thoughts this afternoon will reflect the contributions of other noble Lords today: all are born out of our regard and concern for changes in the climate, the future of world food production and, alongside that, respect for the environment for future generations. I wish Ministers every success when they go to Copenhagen because it is extremely important that we achieve a good resolution at that meeting. This time last year I drew attention to the plight of farmers, particularly the losses being suffered by many dairy farmers and the minuscule rewards earned by hill farmers. I wish I could say that things have radically improved for those sectors, but I cannot do so. At the same time I also welcomed the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. But having passed through its parliamentary inauguration, it is already being shipwrecked because of the way in which this Government are carrying out their mission. It is not the legislation itself, but where the new organisation has been located. Even as we debated the clauses of the Bill, the Government were consulting on the location for the flagship Marine Management Organisation. Plymouth, with its history, its Marine Laboratory and its Marine Institute, had a strong case. However, alas, Defra did not have an office there and so it lost out to Newcastle in the north-east. Last Monday, the Western Morning News carried the report that only 11 out of 78 staff have agreed to locate to that city. What a waste of skill and knowledge. If 78 staff were considered necessary to run the organisation, what hope is there that a mere 11 can achieve the vision to, ""create a new marine planning system designed to bring together the conservation, social and economic needs of our seas"." Last year, too, I drew the Government’s attention to the amount of money they spend on their IT systems, voicing concerns that the country would be faced with bills for overrunning projects. Last month I sought to know how much the Government have spent on the IT system for the single farm payment scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, replied that the National Audit Office value-for-money report quoted costs totalling some £246 million over four years, made up of some £63 million for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09, with a lesser £53 million for 2007-08. So this cost is not falling. I turn to the value-for-money report, under its official title A Second Progress Update on the Administration of the Single Payment Scheme by the Rural Payments Agency. I was astonished to read on page 5: ""In the absence of reliable records we estimate"—" estimate— ""that the IT costs of the scheme"," and then it goes on. This amazing statement was closely followed by: ""around a third of the changes made to the finance system have been ‘invasive’, requiring changes to the source code, although the Agency did not keep an accurate record of the changes made"." On page 6 it states: ""In the absence of proper documentation or quality control, not all original payment errors were corrected"." There are pages of similar criticism. The cost of the administration is running at £1,743 per claim per farmer, compared with a Scottish average of only £285. Under the heading "Value for Money Conclusion" the National Audit Office states: ""The cost of administration … is very high"—" I think we would all agree with that— ""and there are no signs of it coming down. Efficiency has not improved, the IT systems are expensive and cumbersome, and the information in those systems is still inaccurate"." How can a Government who preside over such a fiasco possibly aspire to restructure the financial sector? I have read again the list of legislation to be introduced to Parliament in this Session. How much better it would have been to concentrate on correcting some of the existing machinery rather than introducing new ways of failing. Over recent years I have tried to emphasise the excessive quantity and cost of regulation. Last month I asked yet another question on the subject. Much of this burden is introduced through statutory instruments which, as we know, can be debated but only accepted in their entirety or rejected as a whole. Many of these SIs stem from Bills going through our House. The record of SIs registered in each year from 1950 to 2006 shows that in only four of the first 40 years did the number exceed 2,400. Since 1992, it has not fallen below 3,100, and the creation of the Scottish Parliament resulted in an additional 204 to 667 in each year after 1998. It is frightening to note that, prior to 1965, the total number of pages of legislation contained in SIs was lower than the number of SIs in each year since 1992. We now have to read and study more than 10,000 pages of secondary legislation every year. What a pity it is that the Government have not tackled this. On 26 October this year, the Daily Mail reported on quangos. Its research indicated that, in 2007, quangos cost the British taxpayer some £77 billion and that the total rose by £13 billion to £90 billion in 2008. Between them, quangos employ more than 534,000 people, the top echelons of whom are selected, appointed or approved by Ministers for recompense well above average earnings. Many of them are tasked with carrying out vital parts of the Government’s plans. Success is appropriated by the Government, but they sometimes distance themselves if there is a hint of failure. The Government do not limit their spending to departments, agencies or quangos. They also finance, with taxpayers’ money, various schemes for improving the lot of citizens. Among them is tenancy deposit protection, whereby the Government support three independent arbitration schemes. The operators are under contract until the end of April next year. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether they will have to apply for these contracts to be renewed or whether the Government intend simply to extend the term for an further one or two years. I turn to affordable housing. Can the Minister explain a Written Answer that was given on 8 June? In response to an inquiry from my honourable friend Grant Shapps about expenditure on additional housing stock, the Minister supplied annual figures from 2000-01 for, ""allocations made through the Affordable Housing programme specifically for new affordable housing provision".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/09; col. 750W.]" The figures show a fairly steady rise in expenditure from £493 million in the first year to £2,587 million in 2008-09, representing a total of just over £13 billion. How many houses does this represent and at what average cost? What proportion has gone on land and infrastructure, what on building the houses and what on other overheads? This is probably too detailed a question for an immediate answer, but for that amount of money account needs to be provided. I welcome the Flood and Water Management Bill and associate myself with other comments. The deluge in Cumbria has been disastrous. The Minister said in his opening remarks said that responsibility for overall management would fall, first, to the Environment Agency and, secondly, to local authorities. But where does that leave the Secretary of State? Two Bills not included in the gracious Speech were the anticipated animal health Bill—in particular, cost-sharing and the Government’s continuing unwillingness to tackle the causes of bovine TB—and a food labelling Bill, which would be small and precise and benefit consumers when making choices. I have not spoken a great deal about the challenges facing British agriculture or about its contribution to making our society and the environment a better place. The reason for this is that I have been lucky enough to secure a debate on 10 December. Today, we are reflecting on some of the Bills announced in the gracious Speech, but one has to wonder how many will see the light of day.