---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. He always makes such wonderful sense on all topics relating to agriculture. It is, indeed, a privilege to take part once again in the debate on the gracious Speech. As one of the 90 elected Peers, I feel there is always a sense of unease when there is mention in the election manifesto of reform of your Lordships' House and, indeed, the vague reference mentioned on Tuesday by Her Majesty only can cause further concern for the way this country is governed. If the Prime Minister wishes your Lordships' House to be a rubber stamp, then there surely will be a strong case to abolish this House altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, reminded the House last week of the Irvine commitment, as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, only yesterday. I too would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who has always been so courteous to my constant bombarding of questions on rural affairs. I will always cherish the moment when he accepted the RFTO amendment during the passage of the Energy Bill. I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his place. I must as always declare an interest as someone who tries to farm, albeit that I am outwith the control of Defra, living just over the border in Scotland. I also declare an interest as the unpaid president of BABFO and as a grower of industrial oilseed rape. I listened with interest to the two references to the countryside. Of course both are dependent on a buoyant and, most important of all, a profitable agricultural industry. That prompted me to go back a few years to look up some facts and figures. My small farm 45 years ago had 31 employees. In 1979, I inherited a workforce of 17. Today, I am farming a bigger acreage with just three men. Some 20 years ago, malting barley was selling for £160 a tonne, and during harvest the telephone was seldom silent at lunchtime. Last year, the telephone was consistently quiet, not surprising with malting barley at £65 a tonne. In those 20 years, wages and all other inputs have more than doubled. Diesel alone costs three times what it did 10 years ago, and yet the price of the end product has more than halved. I often wonder how civil servants, or indeed the Minister, would feel if they had to return home to inform their families that their income was about to be halved from what it was 20 years ago. That is indeed a sobering thought. I am aware that sadly farming has as low a priority with this new Government as it did with the last. The continuing absence of the word "farming" from Defra's title makes the point better than I can. However, a government who fail to safeguard the nation's food supplies are playing fast and loose with the national interest. We must not forget that UK farmers still produce about three quarters of all the indigenous foodstuffs consumed here and about two thirds of the total food consumed. That is done with just 1 per cent of the work force. It is fairly shattering to realise that 40 years ago 40 per cent of the family wage went on food. Today, that figure is just 16 per cent. Surely it is time to cut out the appalling and hindering bureaucracy imposed on farmers, which has reached unbelievable depths in the single farm payment application form that now has to be completed in all its complexity by any farmer who wishes to claim his entitlement under the scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made that point extremely forcefully. It has not been easy to get clear guidance on the workings of the SFP, and in my case my staff, advisers and I have spent over 200 hours on this vital topic. At the last count, my small farm belonged to six such varied schemes. Her Majesty's Government have said that they wish to reduce red tape across the board and in all industries. I applaud that; but in the next breath Defra plans a manure tax, suggesting that muck heaps will attract new fees and rules. It is bad enough having to pay to have a passport for a horse that is never going to end up anywhere near the food chain, but surely the idea of a manure tax is bureaucracy gone completely mad. If introduced, it will do untold damage and harm to the many small horse businesses already being crippled by large rates increases and unrealistic health and safety requirements. We are indeed fortunate that farmers are so efficient at food production, because that gives an opening for fuel production on land that is currently not used for food. Will the Minister assure us that the new Government will put their full weight behind the renewable transport fuel obligation? Under it, fuel companies would have to provide a given proportion of their total sales as biofuels. That would be a major new use for our agricultural resources, as well as a valuable diversification of road fuel supplies away from fossil fuels from politically uncertain sources. Surely both Gulf wars are a poignant reminder of that. Government thinking on the whole subject is confused to say the least. Last time I had a Starred Question, being anxious to know the Government's response in advance, I contacted Defra, the DTI, the Department for Transport and finally the Treasury. I discovered to my horror that there was no clearly-defined policy on renewable energy and no one department in overall charge. There must surely be a lesson there. Many of us are worried about how the Government are going to reach their Kyoto objectives, let alone their domestic CO2 reduction target of 20 per cent by 2010. I agree with the points made by my noble kinsman Lord Hunt. By implementing the RTFO major improvements will immediately be seen in our reduction of CO2 emissions in the transport sector, where emissions are sadly still rising and are predicted to increase—increase—by 15.8 per cent by 2010. Last week the Economist ran a major article on biofuels. It revealed how once again the United Kingdom is being left far behind by its European partners, not to mention the United States of America, where bioethanol production is rising by 30 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was equally forceful on that point. Brazil, the world leader, "is pushing ahead as fast as the sugar crop will allow". Every farming magazine in the past month has had a banner headline supporting the biofuel industry: "Racing to be a bio fuels leader", and, "Will Ministers prime bio fuel pumps?", to quote two such headlines. At present only some 25,000 tonnes of biodiesel are being produced in the UK and about half of the raw material is imported. There is no bioethanol produced as road fuel in the United Kingdom. The EU directive 2003/30/EU has set the target of 2 per cent biofuel usage by the end of 2005 and 5.75 per cent by the end of 2010. For the UK, the first target would mean about 800,000 tonnes of biofuel. This could be met only by massive imports. The Government support of a duty rebate of 20 pence per litre is not sufficient to make biofuel production profitable. However, with the fuel duty rebate and a renewable transport fuel obligation, the 2010 target could be met and from home grown feedstocks. Something over 2 million tonnes would be required. One million tonnes of biodiesel could come from land currently lying idle under the discredited set aside scheme and a further 1 million tonnes of bioethanol from the 3 million tonnes of wheat exported most years from this country. One further word of caution: the reduction of CO2 emissions is rightly a central policy objective for the Government. The RTFO must, however, be designed so that UK feedstocks for the production of biofuels compete fairly with imports. The UK is rightly proud of its agricultural and production schemes, which allow close scrutiny of CO2 emissions at all stages in biofuel production. Imports must be subject to the same level of scrutiny lest they be given an unfair advantage in the UK marketplace above domestic production. Finally—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—I too must mention the threat from Brussels of a maximum week of 48 hours. No one involved in rural activities, except perhaps civil servants, would even contemplate abiding by such a completely unrealistic rule. I know that other industries equally decry that idea. In rural Britain today, one has only to think of stalkers, ghillies, gamekeepers, orra men and farm workers. My three men can easily clock up 48 hours in less than three periods of 24 hours. When the corn is ripe, you simply have to go. You cannot yet tell a black-faced ewe who lives on a barren Glenshee mountainside when to produce her offspring. When I worked on the shop floor, I regularly worked 60 hours a week and I admit to being thrilled with a greatly enhanced pay packet as a result. I find it difficult to believe that the idea of this legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Surely it is one's fundamental right to work as long or as short a time as one wishes. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to persuade his Cabinet colleagues that the idea of a 48-hour week is simply a non-starter. The situation in the countryside is grim. Indebtedness by UK farmers last month reached an all-time high at a staggering £8.5 billion, which was £0.3 billion up on the previous year. Rural Britain needs all the help that it can get. We must try to do all that we can to pass on a healthy countryside to the next generation for future generations to enjoy. I hope that the Minister will do all he can to ensure that aim, before it is too late.