---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, I shall address my remarks to rural issues. As usual, I declare an interest as an owner of land in the north of England. One of the Bills listed in the gracious Speech, which will have a profound on rural life, is the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. In essence, I support the main thrust of the Bill, which emanates from the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. Frankly, anything which streamlines and simplifies the Defra delivery mechanisms must be welcome. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, in what I might describe as an admirable speech. We took great interest in what the noble Lord had to say. I have long argued for the amalgamation of English Nature and the landscape and access side of the Countryside Agency because, in reality, the two cannot be effectively separated, as has been clearly shown in the past. But the Bill is a substantial piece of legislation, and it will require scrutiny, particularly in view of the new powers that will be given to the new integrated agency. The preamble to the Bill states that economic prosperity has an essential role in achieving both social and environmental benefits. I am sure that your Lordships would concur with that simple objective. But it goes on to state that the new integrated agency will be expected to take a fresh approach to the natural environment and rural issues and to work in partnership with others to develop solutions that provide environmental, social and economic benefits. The words "in partnership" are particularly important. If a partnership is to be effective, both sides must play an equal part, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that this is actually what is intended. There is nothing which gives the new agency an obligation either to promote or to take into account the economic and social well-being of those who live and work in rural areas, other than through management of the natural environment. As the Country Landowners' Association puts it—and I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with what it said—the Government are being somewhat na-ve if they believe that economic prosperity automatically flows from environmental regulation. In truth, it is far more likely to be the other way round, whereby a healthy and robust rural economy has the ability to produce the jobs and the infrastructure to provide well managed environmental policies, in partnership, where necessary, with the government agencies. I believe, therefore, that for this Bill to reach its full potential and create the prospect of genuine partnerships and respect between the public and the private sectors, it will require the new agency to have a statutory commitment towards sustainable development, as anything less will result in a distorted approach to the rural economy. I noted with interest that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in her opening comments talked about government policy involving people in their communities. In my view that involvement can come only through a genuine partnership. I would like to say something about access in the countryside. The new access rights under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act have already come into being in some parts of England and Wales. In my area in the north Pennines they come into being at the end of this month on 28 May. I think it is fair to say that despite the very real concerns expressed by land managers and farmers alike there is a genuine desire to make the new provisions work as effectively as possible and with the minimum amount of acrimony. Real difficulties are arising, as we predicted, particularly in the absence of statutory access points from which visitors can establish what restrictions are actually in place at any given time. However, by far and away the most contentious issue is that of dogs. Quite frankly, unless the Government and the access authorities take steps drastically to reduce this problem, widespread damage will occur and real bitterness will escalate between those responsible for the management of the land and the dog owners themselves. I am bound to say that some of the abuse which is handed out to land managers by dog owners when asked to put their dogs on a lead is at times simply breath taking. I believe that in the Peak Park in Derbyshire, where open access has been in operation for longer than in most places, the dog issue is regarded by many as now being out of hand. Despite signs and warnings and special restrictions on grouse moors, which the Government introduced in recognition of the economic and wildlife importance of this type of management, the wardens are finding more than 40 per cent of dogs off leads. The general view among land managers is that in the absence of rangers, the figure is much higher. There is, I believe, a growing body of opinion from across the board that the only way that the problem can be curtailed is through further sanctions against those who wantonly ignore the rules and abuse the system. After all, what is the point of English Nature designating large areas of the uplands as sites of special scientific interest, special protection areas and special areas of conservation if dogs are allowed to run wild in the spring and summer wreaking havoc on ground nesting birds? The land which I own and manage in the Pennines is part of an SSSI and is also part of the North Pennine Moors Special Protection Area. The designation places—and I looked at this very carefully the other day—an obligation upon government to promote the conservation of the site and to take steps to avoid disturbance of the species for which the area has been designated. So I have this question for the Minister—like others I welcome the noble Lord to his new position. What steps are the Government planning to take to comply with their statutory obligations? To do nothing would, in my view, be highly irresponsible and very dangerous. I should like to finish by making one or two general comments about farming. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, there has been much debate recently about the future of the British countryside, particularly since the decoupling of payments from production to environmental management, and what is rather loosely described as rural development under Pillar II of the CAP. Like most people, I welcome this move as being long overdue as subsidies undoubtedly distorted markets and had an adverse effect on the environment. However, I am bound to say that whereas I acknowledge that around 20 per cent of the single farm payment which farmers now receive is still geared towards price support and export subsidies—and should be phased out as soon as possible, along with the fact that some degree of switch (or modulation as it is called) will be necessary from Pillar I to Pillar II to meet the Government's commitment to the entry level scheme and the higher level scheme, both of which I very much welcome—I think it is quite wrong when some commentators continue to criticise the single farm payment and persist in describing it as a subsidy. I do not think that is right at all. I believe that it should be seen for what it is—a payment to farmers for delivering specific environmental and animal welfare standards. As the main architect of the current CAP reforms, Herr Fischler himself put it recently: "The Single Farm Payment is justified because E.U. farmers could not compete on a global basis and still conform to the E.U. Regulations on animal welfare and environmental management without such payments". Of course I acknowledge that the new world in which farming finds itself will present new challenges and there will be winners and losers. That is inevitable. Rewarding farmers for good environmental stewardship is something that I warmly welcome and I believe that it is long overdue. However, as a general principle I feel equally strongly that the Government must not abandon the notion that farmers and the well-being of our countryside go hand in glove. I believe that the Government have a moral obligation to support our farmers in every way possible. There are certain things that the Government could do which they are not doing. They should support Defra's efforts to secure a much fairer allocation of the EU rural development cake. Red tape, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, must be reduced. How about a three-year moratorium on new regulations and directives affecting the rural area? The Government should ensure that new licences do not prevent the operation of small abattoirs which are so vital to the local production of food. The Government should facilitate the proper labelling of British food so that consumers know what they are eating. The Government should help promote local food without infringing EU state rules. The Italians do it very effectively—why cannot we? The Government should face up to the problem of bovine TB, as my noble friend Lady Byford mentioned. The Government must also do more to promote alternative crops for renewable energy—a point which I know the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will mention later this evening. Affordable housing has already been mentioned and is so essential in making sure that we have houses in the countryside that people can afford to live in. This list is supposed to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I believe that with genuine effort it is attainable. Finally, I believe that it is incumbent on us all to support our farmers whenever we can and to ensure that the landscapes of Great Britain are productive both in terms of high quality food and the environment. It is the farmers of this country who are best placed to deliver these clear objectives.