---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, many noble Lords in today's debate have begun by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, on his promotion in the Government, and I would like to echo them. But I would also like to congratulate the Government on having chosen the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, to move the gracious Speech. Both speakers have very strong north-west England links. That is appropriate because in the past eight years or so Parliament has spent a great deal of time talking about Scotland and Wales. In that period, it seems to me that the north of England and some of the other regions of England have become almost a kind of poor relation. In its own way, the north of England is as significant as either Scotland or Wales, yet obviously its relationship with London is clearly different, but it is none the less important despite that. Sometimes that relationship gets overlooked by London's metropolitanism, which we should all be conscious of. The debate today focuses on economic and industrial matters. I propose to start my remarks on that topic, but because this is the only day on which I can be here I should also like to move on to one or two others, which I understand is permissible. The gracious Speech focuses on legislation, obviously. Arguably, the most important economic legislation to affect this country in the foreseeable future and in the medium term was not touched on in it. I refer, of course, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, to the Lisbon agenda, which was intended by the European Union to get European competitiveness back to an internationally acceptable level. Sadly, that process has degenerated into talk rather than progressed into action, as the European Council recognised when asking Wim Kok to draw up a report on its workings and which the Barroso Commission has endorsed. I should like to know from the Government whether we in this country will be in the vanguard of taking that forward. Now that the European Union has enlarged we have more allies who approach the world from the same perspective as us than we did in the previous Europe of 15 countries. The Lisbon agenda is something which, if it goes wrong, will render a great deal of domestic economic legislation nearly irrelevant if our economy should crumble in the face of Chinese and Indian tiger economies. It is as simple as that. If we do not get that right, a huge number of other things follow, almost all of which will be to our individual, collective and national detriment. Although it is often debated under its own heading, agriculture and farming are primarily businesses. I declare an interest as a farmer and a non-executive director of an agricultural supply company. While many people would welcome the changes proposed to the common agricultural policy by the mid-term review, I would like to know whether the Government are happy with the amount of bureaucracy that has been imposed by the paperwork inherent in the organising of the single farm payment system. I know from first-hand experience that it is driving many farmers and their advisers to distraction. The way in which the system is being administered is, on occasion, pettifogging. I heard of a case recently where a form was returned because the manuscript amendments on the plan had been initialled and not dated. I heard of another instance locally where it was said that a farmer rang to complain that one of his fields had been omitted from a plan which the Ministry had returned to him, only to be told that he was lucky—someone else had had the field included but the farm omitted. The system is not working as it should. I sense that a number of small farmers are finding the prospect of what the paperwork entails such that they are simply not bothering to return it. It is not surprising that in the past couple of days Tim Bennett, president of the NFU, was talking about the way in which small farmers are being driven out of agriculture by this reform process. Both in this country and at the European Union level we pay lip service to cutting red tape and bureaucracy. Yet how can one endorse that particular episode? I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, said about regulation in other areas. It is not simply a matter of pious expressions about the stewardship of public money; it is about arranging a system of regulation that can deal with the easily anticipated pressures that will be placed on it. If the Government regulate—and I think that it is inevitable and right that they should regulate from time to time—they owe it to those who will be affected by the regulation to do so in a manner that is cost-effective, efficient and businesslike. The quid pro quo for accepting the regulation is that the Government should regulate in an appropriately robust and sensible manner. At this time, it is also politically "cack-handed". Unlike many on this side of the House, I believe that the United Kingdom should be a leading participant in the European Union. In today's modern interdependent World, it is the system for collective decision making in Europe. These days, it is the only system we have. What has been happening in this area, and for that matter in many others, is that the silly little things which cause the trouble seem designed to encourage those who become disaffected to heed the siren voices proclaiming a unilateral approach as an alternative way of doing things interdependently. But there is no such alternative. Many of the policies that emerge from the European Union are no doubt ill-conceived, but that is true also of Westminster, of local government at whatever tier and of regional government. However, they can be changed only through the workings of whatever system of administration applies at the level at which they are formulated. We have to avoid throwing out the baby with this particular load of bathwater. I hasten to predict that when the moment arrives that this Government come to an end, one of the reasons probably will be excessive regulation, intervention and nannying. Recently a senior figure in Cumbria told me that if you count up all the quangos, agencies and local authorities within the category, there are now 49 separate "agencies" at work in the county. Frankly, that is absurd. For that reason, I welcome very much the idea behind the Government's proposal to bring together a number of agencies affecting rural Britain. But having brought them together, it is most important that they act in a sensible and responsible way so as to balance all the legitimate concerns of everyone affected. Equally, and subject to the same proviso, I welcome legislation on the management of common land. No doubt it will be the long-awaited follow-up to the Commons Registration Act 1965. A number of quite significant outstanding problems have arisen across England and Wales from the pre-enclosure Act system of land tenure. These need to be put on a proper footing, and I very much hope that they will be. I conclude with two constitutional points. First, on 17 March this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland said in response to an intervention of mine in a Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about electoral fraud and malpractice that, "there was no evidence of a widespread problem".—[Official Report, 17/3/05; col. 1437.] Many of us did not believe it then and I am extremely pleased to note that the Government do not do so now, and that legislation is being brought forward to deal with the matter. The legal and political legitimacy of our electoral system depends on both participation and the integrity of the process. If either is lacking, the process is flawed. Let us hope that the detail of the Bill will deal with these substantive issues. Secondly, and I speak as an hereditary Peer lined up in the Government's sights, we must move towards closure on the composition and function of the second Chamber. We all love talking about it and we do so almost endlessly, but we are not as good at taking things forward. Once it is the case that some Members have been ejected from this House, the principle of possible ejection hangs over us all the whole of the time. I believe that will remain so until the chapter of reform is closed. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory both for us and more widely. The inability of Parliament to resolve these matters lowers its standing in the country at large. This issue needs to be progressed to a satisfactory outcome, whatever it might be. After all, there are more views on Lords reform than there are Members of both Houses combined and then squared. It is a matter for another day, but whatever is done must be done, and be seen to be done, in the wider public good and not gerrymandering for any particular interested party. Lastly, just as the law made by Parliament is subject to review by the courts, so law made by Parliament should be subject to parliamentary checks and balances in its creation.