asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, during the years 1997 to 2000, there was an average of 58 fatalities a year on British mountains. The data are compiled by the Mountain Rescue Council of England and Wales and the Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland, and they have produced a provisional figure for 2001 of 47 fatalities. The Government are concerned at the loss of life on British mountains and urge all who go on to the mountains to take sensible safety precautions.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the number of people losing their lives on our hills and mountains is unacceptably high and that the loss of life and the level of injury far exceed that for any other sport or outdoor activity? Can we improve the information available to walkers and climbers, particularly information about weather conditions, the level of risk that they face on the mountains and the jeopardy in which they place themselves and our excellent emergency rescue services?

My Lords, I agree that the situation is undesirable. Every one of those deaths represents a personal tragedy for family and friends. But the figures do not far exceed those for deaths in other sports. In fact, the number who drown—100 people every year—is substantially higher.

I agree with my noble friend that the provision of information—about the weather conditions and the terrain—is important, so that walkers are well prepared to make informed judgments about the level of risk to which they are exposed. There is already a range of good quality information and advice available. There is an avalanche warning system for the Cairngorms, and weather information relating to the Lake District and other areas is generally available by telephone. The UK Government and the Scottish Executive will, I am sure, continue to support the excellent voluntary work done by so many people to help people in difficult circumstances.

My Lords, the Minister said that people were putting themselves at risk. Does he agree that they put other people at risk besides themselves? Is there some way of organising a test for people who climb mountains, so that they can do so without causing many other people to risk their lives looking for them?

My Lords, at one level, the noble Baroness is right. If rescuers have to go out into the high Cairngorms in a blizzard in February to get someone out of an ice gully, they will face a degree of risk; it is dangerous. On the other hand, the Government would be wise to listen to the considerable depth of experience in the British Mountaineering Council and the safety bodies that regulate mountaineering. They strongly support the retention of the voluntary principle. They do not want the mountains closed or restricted to people who have passed fitness tests. They want people to enjoy the high mountains so long as they have proper experience and have been trained for the relevant level of risk. We must listen to their advice, and there are mechanisms to ensure that that is possible.

My Lords, as someone who lives in the Cairngorms, I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Mountaineering Council of Scotland believes that the way forward is through educating people planning to go into the hills about the hazards and about the safety practices they should observe. The council's ability to do that is severely limited by lack of funding. Is there any way that more funding could be made available by the Government or even the possibility of lottery funding?

My Lords, because the Question referred to Britain, I answered in respect of Britain. I am cautious about being drawn too far into issues that are the province of the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament. I agree with the noble Lady that the provision of information is important. The Scottish Mountain Safety Forum is, I am told, publishing an educational film on mountain safety. It will be launched in Inverness at the end of April. I had not heard that there was strong feeling about an acute shortage of funding. No doubt, the Scottish Parliament would be interested in such representations, if made.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the worst problems faced by rescue teams is that they do not know where missing people are? There should be a simple electronic device that walkers could carry which would enable rescue teams to reach them, thus avoiding an enormous waste of time, as is often the case today.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is a major problem when a mountain rescue team takes a call—increasingly from a mobile phone—notifying it that someone is in distress. The caller may fail to give an accurate grid reference or any grid reference at all. In practice, the devices referred to by the noble Lord are available. I believe that there are geo-positional instruments costing around £100 which give an accurate reading of where you are. There are pros and cons to that argument. Relying on such technology because of an inability to read a map properly is also, I think, not wise. However, what the noble Lord has recommended is available for walkers if they want it.

My Lords, my noble friend will know that I live in the heart of the Lake District. Can I tell my noble friend that a mass of information is made available? Walkers do not need training, advice or regulation. All walkers need to use is their common sense.

My Lords, yes, but, as we well know, that is the scarcest commodity of all. Broadly, I agree with my noble friend. Certainly, when I walk in the Lakes or in Scotland, I carry in my rucksack the relevant card giving the phone number for information about weather conditions in the area. It is extremely easy to call beforehand and get such information. However, I disagree with my noble friend to the extent that clearly there is still loss of life, some, but not all, of which is avoidable, and some of which could be reduced if better information and promotion were available.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in the past, lives have been lost in the Cairngorms in April due to the arrival of sudden blizzards?

My Lords, yes. Anyone who has visited the high mountains knows that some of the best possible walking weather occurs at Easter when frequently one is able to walk in snow and ice. If one is suitably experienced and prepared, it is wonderful walking. However, the inexperienced can easily assume that, once the worst of the winter is over, the high mountains will be warm and sunny and consistently so. The danger arises when the weather changes suddenly. Inexperienced walkers go out ill-equipped with food and equipment believing it impossible that they could suddenly be freezing.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, sexual and reproductive healthcare in developing countries continues to be a key priority for the Department for International Development. Achieving universal access to reproductive health for all by 2015 underpins our approach. Good reproductive health is of course also vital to achieving millennium development goals related to lowering maternal mortality and combating HIV/AIDS. DfID's total bilateral expenditure on sexual and reproductive health activities, including HIV/AIDS, has risen from £38 million in the financial year 1997–98 to over £206 million in 2001–02.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Does she agree that educational programmes for girls and women are often successful in improving sexual and reproductive health? Can she tell the House what her department is doing to enable such programmes?

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. Educational programmes are vital for girls and women because they are an essential vehicle for the promotion of gender equality, which lies at the heart of trying to ensure safe sexual and reproductive healthcare practices. The Department for International Development is working with respect to education in three areas. First, it is working on addressing the gender inequities in basic education. Noble Lords will know that we are committed to the millennium development goal of achieving gender equity in primary education by 2005. The second area is the development of skills-based health education. For example, in Kenya we are supporting the Primary School Action for Better Health programme. Thirdly, I refer to the area of adult education, in particular the work that we are undertaking in literacy for livelihoods.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that this subject is a key element of DfID's responsibilities. Can she enumerate briefly what are the other comparable elements of DfID's responsibilities to which she has referred?

My Lords, noble Lords will know that since 1997 our policy, enshrined in the White Paper, is to work towards the eradication of world poverty. In that respect, we are committed to the Millennium Development Goals which include the halving of poverty by 2015, gender equity in education, and elements of health and education which relate to sexual and reproductive health, as well as to maternal mortality.

My Lords, does the Minister think that sufficient information about sexual diseases, including HIV, is provided to Britons visiting developing countries? The problems of HIV are very serious. Furthermore, is she aware that not enough health education is provided to the general public here in Britain?

My Lords, the noble Baroness's question goes slightly wide of the Question, but I shall endeavour to respond to it. Obviously, public awareness with regard to HIV/AIDS is very important indeed, not only domestically but also with regard to those travelling abroad. We have sought to make information available through our travel advice. For example, there is a "Know Before You Go" campaign on the FCC) website which seeks to ensure that British travellers understand the key facts that they need to know about the countries to which they are travelling. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that raising public awareness remains a key concern.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that what might be helpful in speeding up this cause would be for Mr Derek Wanless to be hired to prepare a report? The report could then be considered by the UN Conference on Population and Development to be held at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. A good firm copy of that report should then be sent to the Government of the United States of America.

My Lords, the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg at the end of July this year will form a key part of this process. If we are talking about sustainable development and if we are talking about poverty elimination., then we must also talk about health-related issues, including the severe impact of HIV/ AIDS, focusing on the negative impact that it is having on countries, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa, which I fear will not be able to meet the Millennium Development Goals. This issue remains important in terms of the international agenda.

My Lords, following on from the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, what steps are the department taking in terms of both healthcare and education to help those people who are most at risk of sexually transmitted diseases, such as prostitutes?

My Lords, we are working in three areas in this respect. We are targeting interventions to high-risk behaviour groups, including commercial sex workers; we are looking to combat sexual tourism and the wider issues related to that; and we are very concerned about the growing practice of human trafficking, including that for sexual exploitation. Those are the three areas where we are looking to help girls and young women, who are particularly vulnerable.

My Lords, what is being done to prevent female circumcision?

My Lords, again, this subject is wide of the specific Question. The noble Baroness will know that we are working in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, she will also know that work is being carried out in the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lady Rendell, in particular, has asked a number of Questions in the House on that issue.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we are committed to supporting Pakistan's economic and social development for the long haul. The ultimate aim is the reduction of poverty, as set out in the Government of Pakistan's interim poverty reduction strategy paper. Our bilateral programme is focused on three objectives: creating the economic conditions for poverty reduction; improving health outcomes for poor people; and improving education outcomes for poor people. We are pursuing these through a combination of technical assistance, advice and financial aid.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that education is key to Pakistan's long-term development? What specific action is being taken to support primary education, particularly for girls?

My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend that education is key to development. Our support is directed towards improving access and quality in elementary education in Pakistan. Integral to this is improving educational opportunities for girls. Our spending on education in Pakistan, which is mainly in the form of technical assistance, is expected to grow to £4 million this year.

One of our concerns is that Pakistan continues to make slower progress than other south Asian countries towards achieving the millennium development goal. Primary school enrolment growth rates, which are currently at about 70 per cent, have remained stagnant. We must ensure that those rates go up in order that girls and boys get into school.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have recently returned from Pakistan after visiting schools in that country with 40 schoolchildren? When will Pakistan be readmitted to the Commonwealth? Does she not agree that Pakistan deserves every possible help, both moral and material, in view of the staunch stand it is taking in a very important part of the world?

My Lords, I was unaware that the noble Lord had recently returned from a visit to Pakistan. I am pleased to hear it because the more we know about what is happening there, the better it is for all of us. As to Pakistan and the Commonwealth, Pakistan remains suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. At the last CMAG meeting—and, indeed, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—it was agreed that the road map to democracy, which should end in national and provincial elections in October 2002, is a good way to start. This issue will remain on the agenda of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. I agree that Pakistan has played an important role in the region. We all recognise that and we have supported President Musharraf in what he has sought to do.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the commercial and legal environment for multinational business has improved greatly under President Musharraf, even though there is still some way to go in eliminating corruption and unnecessary bureaucracy? Can she confirm that the Pakistan/UK Business Advisory Group, which was formed partly as a result of discussions between the Prime Minister and President Musharraf during the Prime Minister's visit in January, has full access to Ministers in Pakistan and is therefore doing an excellent job? Can the Minister think of further ways in which to encourage UK investors to take a more sanguine view of the prospects in Pakistan, which there undoubtedly are?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the business environment has improved. Despite the drawbacks, the UK is now the biggest investor in Pakistan. The launch of the Pakistan/UK advisory group will enable both sides to explore new opportunities for developing the bilateral commercial relationship, including improved investment.

My Lords, while work is being done in primary education, the Pakistani people are very intelligent and could achieve much by improving their higher education facilities. We could do a lot of work from here. Can the Minister confirm that we are paying attention to that?

My Lords, it is important that we work at all levels in regard to education. I am sure that there will be opportunities for partnerships—for example, between universities in Britain and Pakistan. However, our priority in terms of the achievement of the millennium development goal remains in primary education. I take the point of my noble friend's question.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is most important, especially in the context of anti-terrorism? Is it not essential that Her Majesty's Government are seen to be supporting education in vulnerable countries such as Pakistan, which has an exceptionally high level of illiteracy?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl. Our bilateral programme focuses on education, health and economic management. This year we plan to spend £47 million in Pakistan. The planned level of expenditure for 2002–03 is £60 million, of which a significant proportion will go to education.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, since 11th September, the principal parties involved in the public/private partnership have regularly reviewed NATS financial position. All of these parties are making a contribution towards ensuring that NATS has a robust financial structure for the foreseeable future. Against this difficult background, NATS has successfully brought into operation the most technically advanced air traffic control centre in the world at Swanwick and, additionally, has made a capital investment of £78 million in 2001–02.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the decision of easyJet to consider writing off its £7 million investment in NATS must at least call into question his use of the word "robust" in describing its financial future? Is he prepared to tell the House how much public money the Government are prepared to put into NATS—or is this the Railtrack of the skies?

My Lords, easyJet has made an intimation—it has not yet made a decision. If it did make such a decision, in many ways it would not be inconsistent with the stance of the Airline Group members. In essence, this was an identity of interest with the Government to ensure that there was an air traffic control system of the highest quality in Britain. They were happy to put in investment—as the noble Baroness will recall, they were willing bidders—and to be active partners, with the Government as a shareholder, in ensuring that those objectives were fulfilled. It was in the public's interest and their commercial interests. Therefore, in most cases, they were not particularly seeking a vigorous financial return but the long-term, high-quality air traffic control that we expect.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government hold a 49 per cent share of NATS, which is, by any regulatory definition, a controlling interest? Will the Government make a further £30 million available to NATS, or will they support the proposal by NATS to increase its charges by 5 per cent?

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Viscount, for allowing me to answer the second part of the Question, which I failed to do. The Government have made available, along with money from the four banks, a £30 million loan—providing £60 million of short-term additional loan finance. The House will be aware of the reason for that. Some seven weeks after NATS came into existence, it faced the biggest disaster that the airline industry across the world had ever experienced. Unavoidably and naturally, that significantly damaged its business plan and prospects.

The short-term loan facility has been put in to give appropriate time for the board of NATS to arrange for an injection of additional equity, on which discussions are under way. It is well likely that if, as is expected, additional equity is put in, the Government will match-fund that as a stakeholder to preserve their 49 per cent—they do not have a majority holding; the Airline Group and the employee interest control 51 per cent.

As regards the charges imposed by NATS on its customers, the airlines, the Government do not have a free hand, as the noble Viscount well knows. That is a decision for the Civil Aviation Authority. NATS has made a proposal to the CAA that instead of the pretty tough financial targets that it had of RPI minus 4 per cent and RPI minus 5 per cent for the two subsequent years, the figure should be above RPI but not massively so. That will be a decision not for the Government but for the CAA.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of recent reported NATS computer failures, which caused serious air traffic control delays? Presumably, those computers are not the new ones to which he referred previously. Under the new structure, does NATS have to pay compensation to the airlines or to the passengers affected by the delays?

Yes, my Lords, I am well aware of those delays. I well recollect hearing about them on the "Today" programme and seeing the prospect of a Starred Question coming over the horizon.

For the avoidance of doubt, the computer failures were not at Swanwick, which continues to be a very successful roll-out of a large-scale and complex new system. They were in the flight data processing system at West Drayton, and were similar to problems that occurred last summer. They involved some 19 minutes and some 16 minutes of down-time on separate occasions. At one level, that is not seen as particularly disastrous, as 99.95 per cent reliability is being achieved. However, the consequences of any downtime are severe for passengers. Therefore, the management of NATS is examining the situation very seriously. It has already introduced replacement software which it believes should have cracked the problem. It has also established an internal inquiry, separate from the responsible management, in an attempt to see whether anything else could or should be done to avoid a repetition of the inconvenience. NATS is also re-appraising its investment strategy to see whether it might require reconsideration in the light of those events. I should stress that there was no safety problem for the public, although there was clearly inconvenience to the travelling public on those two days.

My Lords, the Minister hinted that NATS would pay compensation to passengers who suffered loss as a result of the computer failures. Will he expand on that and say whether any payments are due from NATS to the airlines, which also lost substantial sums of money?

My Lords, I apologise: I missed the point about compensation. No, to my knowledge there is no liability to pay compensation, nor any intent to pay it.

My Lords, the Minister referred to computer glitches at West Drayton. Will he indicate how reliant on West Drayton the Swanwick system is? My understanding is—and perhaps he can confirm this point—that the West Drayton system is hopelessly obsolete and relies on computer code written in the 1970s, and that there is no prospect of its upgrade much before 2007, if then.

My Lords, the noble Earl is right: the basic software for the West Drayton system is not the most modern or recent. I do not think that it was a high priority in terms of immediate replacement. By and large, it was operational and was not a safety-critical system; therefore, it appeared to be working reasonably well. However, in the light of those events, because it is crucial that the public have confidence in the air traffic system, I am sure that the management and the board of NATS will be reconsidering the position. Whether they will consider that it justifies a change, I do not know. It might not. But they are certainly giving the matter their consideration.

rose to call attention to the state of the livestock industry; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to call attention to the state of the livestock industry. I declare my interest as a livestock farmer and stock breeder for many years of my life. In more recent years, my involvement has been in the food and agricultural trade, both in Europe and throughout the world. That experience was largely focused on the difficulties in such a volatile business, where disease and pestilence can determine market demand and can disrupt trade overnight.

The concern of livestock farmers is the direction which production has taken in economic terms for a substantial number of years. Government have made a great deal of effort to understand the complexities of the industry and the difference between the sectors and to try to get to grips with a fiendishly difficult set of conundrums, aggravated by BSE, by foot and mouth disease, by the increasing problem of tuberculosis, mid by animal welfare problems which continually raise their heads—all of which may have caused a lack of confidence in the future on the part of many livestock producers.

If the solution to our problems were easy, then clearly it would have been found a long time ago. The fact that these problems have only got worse due to the constant turning of the financial and economic screws is significant. It suggests that the matter requires an in-depth examination, following the lessons that we have learnt—and I hope that we have learnt many over the last year in particular—bringing with it the confidence that has not yet been restored, given the refusal of a full and open inquiry into last year's problem.

Farming businesses have become fewer and larger. The very size of some of them has resulted in a dramatic change in the face of the British landscape and in the natural balance of British agriculture. However, let us not get confused about these observations and implications. One can deal with large arable farms by allowing fields to expand and by using larger machinery tied into co-operative marketing systems. In terms of efficiency, therefore, it is a natural development. However, the environmentalists prefer fields to be smaller, and the conservationists prefer to see a greater spread of bio-diversity—as was recently emphasised in the Curry report—and it changes the whole structure of village life and family farming.

However, when we look at the livestock sector, especially at extensive livestock, we are confronted with quite a different world. The so-called intensive farming areas of livestock production—mainly pig and poultry—have not been in a good state for some considerable time. The clearest possible evidence of the malaise in this sector is the vast reduction in productive capacity which has taken place over many years. Confidence in the future of the business has been considerably reduced, due to two inter-related influences. First, the pressure of controls has created more red tape. That was dealt with in the report produced a while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I am delighted to see that he is speaking after me. Maybe he can answer that point and tell us where his report got to. We are looking for a considerable reduction in red tape.

Secondly, there is the influence of global trading and the pressures that create competition with countries that are able to trade at much lower costs. Recent figures show that the overall costs of production in the United States are 40 per cent lower, due to a smaller legislative burden. Lower costs result in higher incomes.

Moreover, methods of pig farming that involve tethering sows and using sow stalls are banned in this country, but they are still allowed in many of the countries with which we compete. Those countries have lower production costs, giving them considerable economic advantages over United Kingdom producers purely on the basis of the method of pig farming. It is not surprising that such countries are receiving an increased proportion of global business, leaving British producers with a considerably smaller slice of the overall market.

A similar situation has arisen in the poultry business. An ever-increasing percentage of the poultry that we consume is imported from many other countries. Labelling, including country of origin, would help. Those issues are of concern to the consumer and, particularly, to the producer.

The overall picture shows an extremely serious mixture of negative influences on farming in general. The likely implications for the future of our country deserve more than a passing thought, for many reasons. First, the fact that the two sectors have been under such pressure has resulted in much more of their production being transferred to other countries, with a consequent negative effect on the United Kingdom grain market. Whereas traditionally many pig and poultry units used home-grown cereals, that demand is now diminishing, which means that grain producers have to find a market in other countries. The logic—or the illogicality—of that situation seems far from clear. We are likely to export our grain to feed pigs and poultry in other countries, but once our products have been consumed, those countries send their end products back to us. That makes little sense in environmental terms. In financial and competitive terms, in the context of the transport pollution argument, it becomes total nonsense. Secondly, the foreign importer buys our grain, taking full advantage of the strength of the pound and the United Kingdom importer of finished pig and poultry meat gets a better deal when he buys products in those countries.

Either way, the United Kingdom livestock industry loses. It is not difficult to see why. We have the worst balance of payments—a massive —30 billion deficit on imports—since records began, with a deficit in food trade that has risen from —6 billion three years ago to —10 billion today. That is a third of the total negative balance of payments. The slogan that I used to use regularly, "Why import it when we can grow it?" seems to have changed into "Why grow it when we can import it?". I am told that 2,000 refrigerated containers full of food come through Dover every day, with a number of unrefrigerated containers as well. That makes it impossible to check food safety. That seems strange. We say that we cannot stop products coming in from those countries, yet there are other countries not far away from us that continually block the products that we are trying to send to them.

Thirdly, let us look at the dairy sector. Last year, in a similar debate in this House, I drew attention to the situation of a young farmer who had taken over his father's farm, with an investment in excess of £1 million. He had great difficulty keeping his head above water, despite working very long hours. At that time, he was selling his milk for approximately 20p a litre. Today, about 10 months later, he tells me that he will be lucky to sell it for 15p a litre. At the moment some people are getting only 13p or 13½p a litre for it. To break even, paying his debts to lenders and covering all his overheads, he has calculated that his farm should give a return of £45,000 this year. That would include his own salary. That is impossible when he is trying to sell milk at 15p or possibly 13p a litre. That milk is then processed, packaged and sold to the consumer at 75p a litre, which is even less than the equivalent price for bottled water. That is bordering on economic suicide for the producer. Would any other industry face such a situation?

I realise that academic economists may think, "Well, that's his problem". Does not that example justify our reasons for serious concern? A British farmer has to compete with other countries offering imports at low prices solely because the exchange rate works in their favour and no duty is payable on their aviation fuel and so on. If the young man whom I mentioned as an example goes out of business, we, as the managers of this country's economy, must consider our responsibility.

Do we say that it is none of our business, as our American friends said some time ago when they got rid of all forms of aid and subsidy? Now they have stepped back in to help farmers to survive. Many of your Lordships might be surprised to know that the subsidies that many American farmers receive are higher than those received by European farmers.

When the constant drive for cheapness at the farm gate does not allow a proper return on investment to cover the labour and expertise that are required, the livestock industry could be faced with a development of incalculable damage. The issue has to be addressed urgently, honestly and without spin or rancour. A fair deal in the marketplace is all we ask. This is not a cry for more subsidies.

Then we come to the extensive grazing livestock, the sheep and stickler cow business. I declare an interest as president of the National Sheep Association. I shall come to that section last. It is not my intention to speak of the camelid and goat sectors. I hope that the latter will he effectively dealt with by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is an accomplished keeper and a specialist cheesemaker.

That the beef sector has gone through an extremely difficult period does not need to be emphasised. In the context of this debate, we should reflect on issues such as the strength of the pound, which continues to put pressure on the whole sector. It is worth noting that 765,000 head of cattle were lost through a combination of anti-FMD culling and the livestock welfare disposal scheme.

The sheep sector used to be a net exporter, but the number of people involved in it has gone down by 25 per cent over the past 10 years. Today, it is something like 75 per cent self-sufficient. That still leaves approximately 70,000 people involved, but the level of confidence is extremely low, with new entrants a very rare commodity.

The state of the livestock industry paints a fairly depressing picture. We must understand the implications of that not only for livestock producers but for the entire UK economy. The grazing animal in particular has a vital part to play in the continual grooming of the countryside. We must ask what the consequences would be for flora and fauna and for the environment, ecology and general biodiversity if the grazing animal were removed.

People also need to understand that the continual pressure on family farms, and almost all livestock farms of that ilk, puts enormous pressure on individuals such as the young farmer who cannot take a holiday with his family; the older couple who must raid their nest egg and pension to keep their business running; and the wife who, having worked all day, must take on an extra job at night. Regardless of the minimum wage or the maximum number of hours worked in a week, the list of people facing such pressure is endless. Last year alone, with the more than £9 million we had collected, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institute helped more than 8,000 farming families. This year, many of those families are coming back for assistance. Although they were not necessarily all victims of foot and mouth disease, they are all very needy cases.

We need to examine the extent to which a well-farmed, well-groomed countryside forms the base of a healthy tourist industry. We need to examine which part of our livestock industry is relevant to the balance of payments equation. We need to question the true cost of importing from other countries, of the eco-toxicity issue, of the loss of UK jobs, and of the potential loss facing the whole of the rural economy. I noted with interest that 25,000 rural businesses are challenging the Government on the losses which their operations suffered because of foot and mouth disease.

We have a duty to care for our country and for our citizens. We have every reason to alert the public to the fact that we are thoroughly examining the causes of and solutions to a potentially considerable disaster that cannot he ignored.

One consequence has been that people in retail and catering have been forced to depend increasingly on imports from other countries. Such imports account for approximately 40 per cent of estimated UK consumption in 2002, compared with 22 per cent in 2000. Some time ago, after our debate on the Animal Health Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, sent Me a letter providing those quite revealing figures. The letter also contained a table on meat imports which involved,

"FMD susceptible species [cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and reindeer] between Oct 2000 and Sep 2001 from countries where FMD is endemic".

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the time limit is 15 minutes. He has now spoken for 17 minutes.

My Lords, I thank the noble Countess and I shall come to a conclusion. However, I wanted to deal with those particular figures, which are of considerable importance. The 108,000 tonnes of meat which came into this country during the foot and mouth disease outbreak is of considerable concern to all of us.

We shall have to rely on the benefit of the links between the various organisations, and more research and development will have to be done. Above all, we do not want to be a dumping ground for meat products produced below the high standards expected in British production. I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I feel obliged to declare my many and somewhat contradictory interests in this subject. Until recently, I was chairman of one of Britain's largest food manufacturers, Northern Foods—a smaller bête noire of the agricultural industry. I have also been in some partnership relationships with supermarkets for some years—a much larger bête noire of the British agricultural industry. On the other hand, I am the father of two farming sons. I also have an Irish connection, which gives some suspicion to certain people. I have recently retired as the "better regulator", which gives a lot of suspicion to a lot of people. I am also for the most part a supporter of the current Government as well as having given them some advice on recovery from foot and mouth.

All of that suggests that in today's world, because the suspicious might argue that I am merely arguing my vested interests, I should he debarred from engaging in this debate. I shall try, however, to avoid the trap. Moreover, my interests are so contradictory that I have every expectation that I shall upset everyone—which has been my achievement in recent months.

The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has vividly and convincingly stated the situation of the British livestock industry, which is a very serious matter. I have my own concerns, the first of which is uncertainty. Uncertainty applies right across British agriculture. The industries with which I have been involved, when faced with uncertainty, became frightened and refused to invest. In this case, however, it all comes down to British agriculture's uncertain relationship with the euro and the uncertainty surrounding the pound. That seems a fundamental issue. The other great uncertainty is the continuing debate about where the common agricultural policy will lead. We must sympathise with farmers about that uncertainty in trying to plan their future.

Putting the matter in perspective, however, the Government have offered substantial compensation for BSE in the past five years. There are those who argue that some of the compensation for foot and mouth disease may prove to have been overgenerous rather than undergenerous. Substantial funds are still being provided because of the common agricultural policy. Remarkably—because they are either idiotic or very prudent—the vast majority of culled-out farmers have returned to the business from which they were removed. They have restocked. It is an interesting picture. Breeding stock prices are increasing remarkably. Three weeks ago, the Perth bull sales achieved unprecedented prices—another sign of confidence in the future.

Export demand in pig breeding—a business which I know very well—has been very strong. As soon as the restraints were lifted, foreign buyers wanted to buy our high-quality breeding pigs. That is very encouraging. As I have gone round the country, despite all the difficulties and the concerns about milk prices which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, rightly mentioned, I have found many farmers investing substantially to increase yields and throughputs and to reduce costs. Those are all good, very businesslike developments.

It is all a bit puzzling. My advice to farmers is not to overstate the crisis. The Treasury loves an overstated case that it can demolish. To overstate one's case when dealing with the Treasury is very bad tactics.

The three groups to which we look to deal with the crisis must be, first, the European Union, secondly, the British Government, and, thirdly, farmers themselves. I shall deal with each very briefly. At the top of the European Union's agenda in the next six months approaching enlargement must be radical reform of the CAP—costly, bureaucratic, corruptible and imposing unnecessary restraints on progressive farmers. The second priority, which I think will he dealt with following the French elections, is a lifting of the French ban on British imports. I suspect that that will happen in the next few weeks. Thirdly, we need a more co-ordinated European approach to controlling animal disease. That approach must deal with imports, research, and the vexed question of vaccination against foot and mouth disease.

We come next to the role of the British Government. First, the Government must not directly intervene in the exchange rate; no British Government seeking to do so have succeeded. However, the moment that the exchange rate is compatible—when sterling is 10 to 15 per cent below its current level against the euro—the Government should seriously consider entering euroland. If there is one group in this country who will benefit, it is British farmers. There may be questions and disadvantages elsewhere, but British farmers must see that it is in their interests.

The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, mentioned my role in regulation. We submitted a very compelling report to the Government about the need to simplify and codify and to make inspection simpler. The Government have had to deal with foot and mouth disease. However, I beg them to return urgently to that report and to implement its many sound findings. The Government must continue to press very strongly for reform of the CAP. I know they are doing so.

More cash is not the solution to the problem. If that was the case, we would not have a problem. The British Government must encourage British farmers to help themselves. How? First, farmers can themselves tackle huge inefficiencies. The spread between the best and the worst British farmers in any sector would he unacceptable in any other industry. It is amazing that the worst farmers survive. That issue has to be faced.

Secondly. British farmers must learn to co-operate in the way they buy, in the way they share their assets and, above all, in the way they market. We are far behind all our major competitors in the area of cooperation. Thirdly, any industry which is not investing is going backwards. Despite the uncertainty, I plead with British farmers to invest, to raise standards, to improve quality, to get better yields, to rationalise, to increase throughputs and to improve animal welfare.

Fourthly, British farmers must replace the 40 year-old culture of dependency with one of enterprise and recognise that the world has switched from a producer-led market to a consumer-led market. The days when the president of the NFU could go in all his pomp to Whitehall to ask for, and expect to get, large handouts from a grateful government are, I am afraid, over. We have to live with the reality that farmers, like everyone else, have to learn to stand on their own feet. I am confident that British farmers can do just that.

My Lords, in my view livestock farmers will never survive unless they have a realistic price for their end product. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, agrees with my views. I also thank him for initiating this debate and for his excellent, informative opening speech. I hope that the Minister will now take the necessary action to help our ailing industry.

I have been involved with the agriculture industry all my life. I have exported and imported meat from Europe and I am proud to be the patron of the Welsh livestock auctioneers who have looked after the interests of farmers in Wales for generations. I will challenge anyone who believes that there is a better system of marketing livestock than the present auction system. The producer has the final say whether the auctioneer can sell his stock. He will know exactly how much he will get for his sheep and cattle. Many firms of auctioneers pay on the day of the sale. What else can you ask for?

The Government are still failing to prevent a new outbreak of foot and mouth disease by refusing to allocate extra financial resources towards stamping out illegal meat imports. Welsh farmers have been at the forefront of efforts to stop illegal meat imports and to close a loophole allowing people to bring in a kilo of meat from abroad for their own consumption. However, the growing illegal trade, believed by many experts to be supported by large criminal gangs, poses an increased risk to health in this country.

The media have highlighted the potential dangers from bushmeat entering this country for over a year, yet virtually nothing has been done to prevent this meat reaching the United Kingdom. Last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease was imported into this country from abroad. Who is to say that other diseases, such as the deadly human Ebola virus, will not be next? I believe that the Government must commit greater law enforcement resources to crack down on this illegal trade.

According to Bob Parry, the President of the Farmers Union of Wales,

"Gangs and individuals who smuggle illegal, potentially diseased, meat must be dealt with in the same way as heroin or cocaine traffickers".

I wonder whether the Minister agrees with the president's comments. Time will tell.

Mr Clive Lawrance of Ciel Logistics at Heathrow is the company manager transporting for inspection products of meat origin into Heathrow. Mr Lawrance is concerned about the ineffectiveness of the powers to search just granted to Customs and Excise officers. He says that they omit the power to stop and search, so that officers are not empowered to stop a moving vehicle, and that shows a lack of urgency by the Government to deal with the problem. Mr Lawrance believes that the revenue to run an effective enforcement authority at all ports of entry should be raised through a tax on all passengers of, say, £1 per passenger. Some 65 million passengers a year pass through Heathrow alone so you get some idea of hat sums could be raised through a tax of this sort.

Not only would such revenue be used to fund a proper enforcement authority, but the amounts raised at the larger ports such as Heathrow and Dover could subsidise developments at smaller ports. Mr Lawrance firmly believes that the poster campaign introduced at ports last January stipulating that illegal meat importers can he fined up to £5,000 or gaoled for up to two years is unenforceable due to lack of staff. The reluctance of the Home Office to deport culprits back to their home countries is another problem.

As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, 2,000 refrigerated containers arrive in Dover daily and 6 million containers arrive in Britain every year. I urge the Minister to persuade DEFRA to get its act together over what has become a major topical issue.

We have strict livestock movement controls in this country following the foot and mouth outbreak, but nothing has been done to control the importation of illegal meats. What we need now is action, not words. The Minister responsible for agriculture, Margaret Beckett, has promised to help the agriculture industry, yet DEFRA seems to me to be slow to act on her proposals. Farmers are desperate to move forward and produce good, home-produced food at a reasonable price for the consumer. Concerted effort must he made to stop foot and mouth entering this country from abroad in the future. I ask the Minister, is there any glimmer of hope in his view that things will get better and improve during the year to help those who are desperately calling out for help and guidance?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for instigating this debate. I declare an interest as I have three breeds of sheep and a pony stud.

I can say from first-hand experience that there ale many worries at this present time with livestock farming. Time, energy and dedication have to go into producing livestock. I hope that this debate will also help to educate some people who do not appreciate what goes into producing a litre of milk: the early rising; keeping the cows and equipment clean; the feeding and grass management; the fencing; keeping all the records; covering for farmer or staff illness and vets' bills. It is endless.

So many people are still living in the shadow of foot and mouth disease. In the past two weeks there have been two scares in North Yorkshire. The fear of many different diseases hitting the livestock industry seems to be ever with us. I quote from this week's Farmers' Weekly,

"After F&M comes bovine TB crisis. Bovine TB is the forgotten disease of UK stock farming. While the nation focused on F&M a TB time bomb began ticking".

The National Beef Association's Beef 2002 event has switched venues to Wooler in Northumberland after the discovery of possible TB reactors on the original farm site. Bovine TB could end beef and dairy farming on the South Downs if the fears of a West Sussex producer are realised. He believes that a rapid rise in badger numbers is responsible for the first TB outbreak in the county for six years. Wales and the West Country also have a problem. There is a serious debate about how bovine TB is passed from cattle to cattle—or does it come from badgers?

Robert Forster, the chief executive of the National Beef Association said,

"if badger protesters truly have the interests of their species at heart and genuinely wish to guard its welfare, they must protect it against TB".

I ask the Minister: what progress there is on this matter across the country, and is there a problem of bovine TB in other European countries?

The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK has highlighted the dangers of illegally imported meat, as has been said. It is thought that that is how the disease entered the country. Other diseases, such as Ebola, anthrax, swine fever, salmonella, E. coli, sheep pox, pseudorabies, African horse sickness and Nipah virus—that causes agonisingly painful death in pigs and humans—could be introduced into the UK via meat. Those diseases are present in countries that illegally export bushmeat to Europe and the US. That threat is very real. Last year, the UK suffered from swine fever and foot and mouth. In 2000, there was an Ebola scare at Heathrow airport when the carcasses of 15 monkeys were found hidden in a cargo of fruit and vegetables, along with an anteater and some tortoise legs. Fortunately, that was just a scare. Another time, we might not be so lucky.

More than 1,000 tonnes of meat is illegally imported into the UK each year. There are about 200 airport seizures a month but it is thought that airports detect at most one-tenth of illegal meat. About 90 per cent of passengers on flights from West Africa are illegally importing meat into Britain. The trade in bushmeat does not just jeopardise wildlife populations; it also poses a very real threat to human and animal health in Africa. Europe and the US. Should we not have far more sniffer dogs at our airports? I am told that the concentration span of a sniffer dog is about 20 minutes. There would need to be teams of dogs that work on rotas.

Knowing that this debate was to take place, I was asked by someone who recently flew to Australia and New Zealand and complied with their strict regulations—they prevent the entry of any form of disease into their countries, whether plant life or animals would be affected—why no such regulations were in place in Britain. We continue to fear for the protection of the livestock industry from many diseases, let alone ourselves.

Does the Minister agree that our rare breeds are part of our heritage and need preserving? I am a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. It exists to conserve rare and threatened breeds of our indigenous farm livestock and has, over nearly 30 years, worked in many different ways to achieve that. The trust does much to protect the nation's stock of rare breeds of farm livestock from disease. The RBST does much work educating the public and supports its members. The farming industry feels that it is not wanted or understood by the Government. I hope that the Government realise that without farming and livestock the countryside will become a desolated wilderness.

My Lords, the House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Plumb for initiating this important debate. He said that livestock agriculture in the United Kingdom will never be the same. That is absolutely true. That is the result of devastating diseases such as BSE, swine fever, foot and mouth disease and so on. Agriculture in the UK—livestock agriculture in particular—has always been resilient. Britain's livestock agriculture is characterised by the fact that it can respond to various needs, as we saw during the Second World War.

According to the National Farmers Union, only about 6 per cent of holdings that were affected by foot and mouth disease have no plans to restock. The rest will do so and will not leave the industry. Those who remain will carry out the valuable task of rebuilding and maintaining the livestock industry. They will work within important strictures, which include environmental demands, food quality, exports, feed additives and so on. It is contingent on Her Majesty's Government to assure the livestock industry that the devastating diseases that we have suffered during the past couple of years do not occur again and that domestic diseases, from which there have been great losses, will be enormously reduced.

There has been much concern about animal welfare. Animal disease is often linked to poor health among animals and is a major cause of poor welfare. Indeed, in my own profession—the veterinary profession—large animal work increasingly focuses on animal health and productivity rather than merely on the "fire brigade" work of attending to the individual animal that is ill. In order to do that, the profession needs appropriate tools for surveillance, early diagnosis, appropriate treatment and preventive action, such as vaccines.

Surveillance, especially of exotic diseases—several noble Lords have already mentioned that—is not as good as it should be. Not only do we not place curbs on the introduction into this country of food products from all over the world, although other countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, do so, but major quantities of foodstuffs are imported into this country and we have no idea where much of it comes from. Bushmeat, for example, has been mentioned.

Surveillance also applies to our domestic diseases. There is a particular need to get vets back on farms. Many livestock farms never see their veterinarian from one year to the next. The surveillance of disease is therefore very poor. A programme by which local veterinarians served as veterinary health welfare officers would he valuable. One way to do that would be to revisit the old Veterinary Investigation Service, which was once a major jewel in the crown of disease control in this country but which has been whittled away. Although it is now effective as the Veterinary Laboratory Agency, its manpower situation is not good.

Another approach is to designate certain livestock veterinary practices as sentinel practices, which are charged with overseeing animal health and management in their area so that they can report periodically on the general health status of livestock in their area. A somewhat similar recommendation was made in the Phillips report, which recognised the great need for increased surveillance of BSE.

Critical to disease control is early diagnosis. We know from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease that if we had had an adequate early diagnostic test we should have been in much better shape than we were. Again, this issue requires research but, unfortunately, the research capacity of the veterinary profession is not as good as it should be. Although he is not in his place this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Selborne chaired a very important committee which looked into this matter for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Disease prevention is, of course, an issue which is particularly addressed by vaccination, as mentioned earlier by noble Lords. Again, we need effective vaccines that are easily administered, can be produced in large amounts, remain active for a long time and can differentiate between vaccination and infection. With the modern biotechnologies of genomic characterisation, we should be able to do that.

In all of this, I would say that the price of freedom from disease is eternal vigilance. We must take that on board. If noble Lords will permit me, perhaps I may finish by making one positive comment on what I consider to be such vigilance. A meeting was organised on Monday and Tuesday this week by DEFRA to look at antibiotic resistance in animals and animal feeds. It was a most impressive congress. I congratulate DEFRA on setting it up and initiating important research in this area. To my mind, that is an example of appropriate vigilance. I hope that it can be extended to other livestock areas where the needs are just as obvious as those relating to the misuse and imprudent use of antibiotics.

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting as the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, is about to speak. As two speakers on this side of the House took longer than their allotted time, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that we are each limited to six minutes.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the reminder. I shall be brief. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for initiating a debate on such an important subject. At this point, I declare an interest. Until recently I was chairman of the Cooperative Group, the CWS, which owns Farmcare. It is the largest active farmer in Britain, operating more than 90,000 acres.

Farmcare has substantial livestock interests, particularly in the dairy sector, milking more than 3,000 cows. But we also face some of the current difficulties in terms of falling firm-gate prices for milk. As part of a recent strategic review, Farmcare moved out of some livestock production, particularly pig production, when frankly we had neither the scale of operation nor the expertise to compete on an added-value basis with our global competitors.

Among other reasons, that is why I believe that the Curry commission's proposals that an English collaborative board be established is sensible. It is a very welcome step in the right direction and could realise the potential of the farming and food chain with co-operation between them. It could also have significant benefits for the livestock industry. I am hopeful that the Government will adopt that recommendation as part of their agricultural strategy. Indeed, it has received the support of my noble friend the Minister.

In many other parts of the world—other EU states, the United States of America and New Zealand—cooperation and collaboration have long provided a proven business model which can lead to prosperity for agricultural producers. In Scotland, for example, formal structures to promote and develop success in farmer co-operation already exist with the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society taking the lead. Tile Western Isles Livestock Initiative was launched a couple of years ago to help crofters in Lewis, Harris, Uist and Skye to bring their lambs up to marketable weight and condition by placing them on east coast feeding farms. In Wales there has been the launch of the Red Meat company, which brings together Welsh livestock farmers in marketing their meat, particularly lamb.

Perhaps I may refer again to Farmcare. We have—I should say "they have" but I cannot help referring to Farmcare as still being part of my organisation; my heart is still there—put our money where our mouth is. Two experts have been recruited to spearhead new-style farm co-operatives in Cumbria, where livestock farmers face particular problems in rebuilding their markets following the devastation of foot and mouth disease.

I believe that farmers should work together on a collaborative and co-operative basis. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Haskins has already referred to that. I do not believe that the solution to the industry's long-term problems lies in parading down Whitehall begging the Government for relief. I believe that farmers are self-willed and self-reliant enough to make a success of their own industry by working hard together in collaborative and co-operative terms. There are sound, sensible and logical reasons for that. It means a basis for mutual benefit by sharing knowledge and equipment, benchmarking, setting up joint ventures and funding and developing new added-value markets.

Four minutes have elapsed. I am compensating for the over-run of some noble Lords. I believe that cooperation and collaboration are the future for the farming industry in the UK. They are also in the national interest.

My Lords, much of what is wrong with the livestock industry is what is wrong with farming as a whole, as many speakers have already pointed out. Therefore, I must start by clearing the ground and saying briefly what the Green Party would do about farming as a whole.

We believe that the most basic problem lies in the free trade set-up and the international agreements to enforce it. We believe that every nation is entitled to food security and that, therefore, agriculture should be taken out of GATT. Thus, we look forward to an end to monoculture and the existence of a populated countryside filled with small mixed farms.

We do not believe that that is pie in the sky, and a start might be made by our Treasury making a U-turn in actively encouraging the European grants for our farmers instead of, as at present, discouraging them in order that they should not have to match them. At present, the result of their attitude, as Richard North has tirelessly pointed out, is that our farmers are up to 40 per cent worse off than their opposite numbers on the mainland—a position by no means wholly due to the strength of the pound.

I now turn to the more specific livestock side of farming. Here one of the most difficult problems is that of humane farming. I believe that there has been a shortage of input into this debate about the welfare of the livestock about which we are talking and to which we owe a debt of moral duty. When I entered the Chamber, I saw four Bishops on the Bench opposite and I had great hopes that they would contribute to the debate. Alas, that is not to be, although one is still present and will no doubt carry back the message.

One of the most difficult problems is that of humane and economic farming. Your Lordships will know that I view with abhorrence all forms of factory farming. I have introduced into your Lordships' House Bills for the prevention of cruelty to broiler hens and pigs. At present, there is before your Lordships a Bill concerning the welfare of ducks.

I pay tribute to the tireless work of Peter Stevenson and Compassion in World Farming in not only campaigning for the welfare of animals, but also in setting up a dialogue with farmers who, for the most part, have consciences and really care.

Among civilised people, it must be possible to feed a nation in such a way that we also treat our animals humanely. If the economic system prevents that, the economic system must be changed. As noble Lords have said, this is a time, in the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak, to start on some of the obvious steps that will allow for more civilised farming. One of the easiest ways is to refrain from resuming the export of live animals for slaughter. Whatever regulations are, in theory, in force, in practice it allows for an enormous amount of animal suffering.

Another method is the increase in labelling requirements, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, to whom we are grateful for instigating the debate. That would allow customers an informed choice, which I believe will increasingly be an informed moral choice. Another is the establishment of a channel for the voice of farmers other than the National Farmers Union, which is the voice of the agricultural industry—something else altogether. I have high hopes that that may soon emerge.

This debate is to call attention to the state of the livestock industry and I hope that I have called attention to the state of the livestock. I believe that this has been a necessary contribution and I hope that it will inform the thinking of the Government in the future.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for introducing the debate and for putting the case for farming so starkly. According to Farming and Food—the Curry report—farming is on a path that is not sustainable; the CAP is unacceptable: farming is still in crisis: farm incomes are on the floor; and output is falling. That is a pretty dreadful state for any industry. The Government give the impression that they are not particularly interested in farming.

This week I received on my desk from the Secretary of State a document entitled Essentials for Life. It is full of visions and aspirations. At present, "vision" appears to be the buzz word of the Government. What does it mean in practice? When and what will happen to the CAP? Under the present CAP farmers will receive more than under any other system. That is why Eastern Europe is so keen to join the European Union at the present time. When will there be discussions on changes to the CAP? Can the industry be more involved before Europe comes up with more damaging directives?

The air is full of political advice, but not advice on how to produce quality food at a moderately profitable price. Farmers deserve a fair return on capital invested and on farming, a subject about which they have knowledge. They should not be expected to diversify into all kinds of odds and ends for which they are not trained.

Both the Government and the various agencies appear to have gone daft on modulation. Already it is reducing subsidy payments and it is accelerating. Modulation means less production subsidies—the first pillar—and more for rural development—the second pillar. Farming will lose out, which is serious, particularly for the less favoured areas. In passing, I ask why I have not received my LFA payment by mid-April when it should have been paid in mid-March?

I demonstrate the point with the countryside stewardship scheme and I lean heavily on the comments made by Jim Walker, the excellent president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. In Scotland there are 380 farms in the scheme: 266 farms in environmentally sensitive area schemes and 125 receiving organic aid. That is 771 farms receiving rural aid out of 30,000 farms. That shows that the vast majority of farms receive nothing whatever for any effort made to support the environment.

As an alternative to going down the route of modulation, which drives most farmers mad, particularly the calculations on the number of livestock units that they have, the Government could enter a new scheme of a national envelope, as allowed by the European Union under the farm budget. incentives can he given, but that can be argued only by British Ministers in Brussels. Can the Minister tell the House whether we are to do that? I believe it has to be done this month if at all.

The National Farmers Union of Scotland, like other unions, is against modulation as a blunt instrument to fund the second pillar on rural issues. If it has to be imposed it must be universal across the European Union and not just with this country carrying most of the burden as usual.

As well as beef, milk is also in crisis. Another drop of 3 pence per litre will he made in the near future. The competition policy will be seen to have failed farmers. The situation is serious indeed. The Government must consider the exchange rate which is a major problem in milk and they must activate the agri-money option, which they can if they wish to. Again, that must be done in April.

Like others in my part of the world, I lost my sheep flock because of foot and mouth. I have two questions for the Minister. Unlike this Government, the European Union set up an inquiry and has been taking evidence. Was the Minister correct to say the other day to that inquiry that the Government had full legal rights to cull on the "3K" scheme—the contiguous scheme—livestock that was free of foot and mouth?

I also notice that some authorities have been criticising the Army for taking so long to take over logistical control. Can the Minister confirm that the Army was ready and waiting for three weeks before the Government would give authority? The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, have rightly raised the issue of imports, which is a burning issue with farmers. They are very concerned indeed. Do we have sufficient meat inspectors? When will the Government do something about airports? I travel to and from America and on coming into this country no one appears to care two hoots from where one has travelled. What, in the near future, will the Government do about that?

I commend the Meat and Livestock Commission which appears to take positive steps to try to help farmers with their action plan. I hope that the Government will give all the support that they can. There is much to do and the Government have to make early decisions if farmers are to get out of the dreadful hole that the Government have dug for them.

My Lords, I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for giving us the opportunity to take our minds off the Budget and to debate the state and future of our livestock industry. Today the livestock industry may be a small part of our GDP, but it is an important factor as the provider of food for our population, as the user of much of our land, as the shaper of much of our environment and as a source of income, either directly or indirectly not only for farmers but also for many other businesses and people in the United Kingdom.

I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread, a company with a large number of restaurants and hotels and as a member of the Wessex regional committee of the National Trust, which is a substantial landowner.

I want to indicate some reasons why, if we look after our own interests, we should not be pessimistic. One should understand that, because of low prices and the disastrous effects of animal disease, the livestock industry today is in a depressed state, with the value of the production of pigs, cattle and sheep down in 2001. Part of that production may have been lost permanently, but part of it may represent the necessary restocking. Poultry production, as befits a nation whose national dish is chicken tikka masala, is holding up pretty well, but we are losing some share of a growing market. We would not choose to start from here, but this debate gives us a chance to look forward and I do not see all gloom.

It is many years since the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and I negotiated deficiency payments. It was not an idyllic age then. The same problems arose in relation to balancing public expenditure with a sound agricultural industry. I do not want to look backwards but to concentrate only on where we are now and how to stabilise and improve the prospects for the industry and hence for the supply of food in the shops.

I shall mention three points but develop only two. First, I draw attention to the natural advantages in the UK for livestock and animal products. I believe that in the recent climate of crisis we may be forgetting some of those advantages. We shall remain competitive at the production level if we do not shoot ourselves in die foot by importing animal disease, by over-regulation, by accepting disadvantages in the setting of support prices because we are outside the euro-zone and by other distortions resulting from agricultural policy It is the duty of government to see that we do not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Secondly, I want to draw together, as effectively as possible, the various strands of future agriculture policy which may result from the continuing reform of the policy in the European Union and from the good analysis set out in the report of Sir Donald Curry's commission—Farming and Food—which I view very positively.

Thirdly, it is obvious that we cannot recover a good position in the livestock industry unless in the future we do better on animal disease than we have in the recent past.

I turn first to our advantages. I do not want to overstress the point, but I believe that we have quite considerable advantages in our farm structure for integrated meat and beef production. We have developed an efficient system for lamb production. Those advantages remain, even though perhaps at the present time we are 80 per cent or less self-sufficient for lamb because of foot and mouth disruption.

Those of your Lordships who travel on the Underground—that is all of you I imagine—will have seen a poem which reads:

"I am the grass; let me work".

I remember that when I am at home in Somerset. It is good for our livestock industry.

Turning to the future, we shall not necessarily be competitive at the final level, even if we are competitive at the production level, unless we look at marketing. The Curry commission suggests that the marketing chain for red meat is too long and should be examined. I hope that the Government will look favourably at that recommendation.

Secondly, I turn to the main issue, which is the development of agricultural policy in the European Union with the much greater emphasis which we want to put on agriculture as the manager of a living and attractive countryside. The Countryside Stewardship Scheme is very good, but I agree with the Curry commission that as we aim to switch resources to environmental objectives, we should opt for a new, broad and shallow stewardship tier, open to as many farms in the United Kingdom as possible, with a simple whole farm plan. I ask the Minister whether the Government are favourable to that approach. I argue for it because I think that the management of environmental change is important for us all. We exaggerate sometimes the environmental damage. The British landscape looks probably better now than it ever did in my 67 years. But we need to manage environmental change. I am in favour of a wide scheme of stewardship.

Another reason why I should like a wide and shallow stewardship scheme is that I think that it would tie in with the continuation of a safety net for livestock farmers, to which I attach very considerable importance, if prices collapsed to very low levels. We are committed by the Treaty of Rome to,

"ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community".

We now need to move to a combination of the wider stewardship scheme with a simple fixed grant if prices collapse. I am strongly against the abolition of the safety net. We need it. We can control the cost if it is properly capped. The cost of the common agricultural policy is currently 1.2 per cent of public expenditure—I repeat, 1.2 per cent of public expenditure—in the Union and its member states. That is a good deal, but under a revised system it would probably be less.

We can do many of the things that we seek to do. We need to look to our marketing. We need to develop a wider policy for a wider stewardship grant. and back it with a genuine safety net if prices collapse.

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Plumb for instituting this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said that the farming industry should not overplay its hand with the Treasury. I do not know a single farmer in this country who would not wish to have a government that supports the farming industry like other governments of other European countries have supported their farming industry.

I declare my interest as a trustee of the Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust. We have two pedigree herds. We have a pedigree herd of Aberdeen Angus cattle and a pedigree flock of North Country Cheviot sheep. I want to speak entirely about the pedigree sector which has long been neglected. The pedigree livestock sector, as your Lordships will he aware, is the seed stock for the entire livestock industry of the United Kingdom. It is a high-risk business. It is much higher risk than normal farming. Some years are good; most years are awful. Unless that sector is preserved and maintained we will be subject to the vagaries of questionable and variable meat coming in from other countries where its origin is uncertain and the welfare standards, to which the beasts have been subject, is also uncertain.

Shows are the lifeblood of the pedigree sector. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his press release of 11th April and the resumption of livestock at agricultural shows. Of course that comes with a downside; it comes with increased bureaucracy. There are 28 pages of guidance notes. Attached to the 28 pages are seven sets of appendices that people have to plough through. So we win by getting our shows back; we lose by a great deal more bureaucracy.

I turn to the important aspect of genetics in pedigree breeding. The export of genetics has been a significant revenue-earner for this country. The trade is a two-way process. Many breeds have relied heavily on the importation of new genetic lines from overseas.

In October the EU intervened. It imposed a ban on the importation of embryos and live cattle from a list of countries, including our most important supplier—North America. That has severely disadvantaged many of our traditional beef breeds. Aberdeen Angus is one of the breeds affected. If one breeds Charolais, Simmental, Limousin or other non-indigenous breeds of cattle one has a much wider genetic pool than the traditional homebred breeds of Aberdeen-Angus, Hereford, Shorthorn and Galloway.

Cattle from the Americas have been imported into this country for many years. There is no evidence of any vertical transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in any of their offspring, if indeed their parents or grandparents were ever exposed to mammalian derivative protein sources. The continuation of this ban is morally and scientifically unjustified and should be revoked with immediate effect. I hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance that he is taking action on that front.

Turning to the sheep flock, one of the problems that we face in common with others is the genotype grading under the National Scrapie Plan. In simple terms, there are five categories under that plan. Category 1 is the best and category 5 is the worst. The category that affects most hill breeds—not only hill breeds in Scotland such as the North Country Cheviot, but hill breeds and rare breeds in this country such as Herdwick sheep—is category 3. If one's ram or tup is tested in category 3, one can continue to sell that animal until 31st December 2004 and to breed from it until 31st December 2007. However, that poses a great many problems, because many flocks fall into that category. It is the very timescale that is deterring owners of flocks from joining the National Scrapie Plan. There is also a significant loss for the breeder. On one day his tup may be worth £2,000, say, but on the next, because of the draconian dateline, it is worth nothing. Northern flocks face many problems as a result, which are especially serious for those in Shetland.

For pedigree breeders, there is another knock-on effect. From now on, people who want to purchase pedigree stock will look not for the best sheep for their flock or for the bloodline, but for sheep that are category 1 or 2 under the scrapie plan. We may produce the wrong sheep for the future. Will the Minister reconsider the dates and set back both the 2004 and 2007 dates by three years?

My Lords, I suppose that I, too, must thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, although he must be a little tired of all the congratulations and would prefer action.

The figures that I—and most noble Lords—received from the National Farmers Union are most significant. The product of the livestock industry—I am not sure if this figure is for England and Wales alone—is down by about £600 million since 2001. The situation is serious and the Government must do something about it. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said: it is up to farmers to do a great deal. But farming is an industry in such a state and so subject to variation in world trade that it needs some government regulation.

When we consider that foot and mouth disease cost the industry £9 billion—again, according to the NFU—we realise that we need proper control, as other noble Lords have said, of the import of meat from countries in which foot and mouth is an indigenous disease. That must mean one simple thing: the Government must employ many more people at ports to check not only where meat comes from but that proper regulations concerning the removal of certain parts from the carcass have been enforced. That is an important part of what the Government must do.

Regulations must be enforced across the European Union. They must be regularised, because we all have experience of the fact that different conditions are insisted on here as regards, for example, pig farming, than elsewhere.

Fish meal is still banned, I understand, for use by ruminants, but fish meal fed to ewes and lambs has a most beneficial effect and produces good lambs. I cannot understand what harm fish meal can do if it comes from countries that have supplied it to us for many years.

Those are things that the Government can do. Another is to help co-operation. I look back on the happy days of the Milk Marketing Board and greatly regret that it has departed. The Government controlled that body and did not allow it to take advantage of its position, but it ensured a reasonable price for farmers, whereas now Milk Marque, which was an endeavour by the industry to organise marketing, is split into four. That is a difficult situation when the buyers, the supermarket chains, seem to cooperate happily in trying to keep down the price.

The Government must take an interest in all of those matters, but I entirely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Haskins and Lord Fyfe, that eventually the remedy must come from farmers themselves. A tremendous amount is being done in all kinds of fields. No one can obtain a return on growing grain at present prices, although I suppose that it is an advantage to a livestock farmer to have cheap grain. To take advantage of that needs co-operation, help from the Government and advice.

I have always taken the view that supermarkets market beef badly. Their whole philosophy is that everything should go out of the door as quickly as possible, whereas we all know that good beef needs to be hung. It costs a certain amount to hold it during that time, but it makes a big difference. In that respect, many breeders, such as the Aberdeen Angus breeders, are doing much to promote at good prices the excellent beef that we produce in this country.

Farmers can help themselves—they are, in all kinds of ways—but they need a regular and fair atmosphere in which to operate. I shall finish by criticising the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, a little. He made a good speech, but spoilt it at the end by saying that farmers should stand on their feet, like the rest of us. I constantly hear cries from every industry for government help, so farmers are not as bad as all that.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is not too bored with receiving thanks, because I, too, want to thank him for initiating this debate, which is of great importance to our farming community and, indeed, our nation.

Many speakers here today are highly knowledgeable on the subject, and I do not pretend to be up to their standard. But I want to say a few words because of my great interest and belief in our rural areas and the people who live there. Many lessons were learnt from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which must teach us all, but especially the Government, how to plan for the future—as they are doing.

When I saw that this debate was on our agenda, I guessed that there might be a fair bit of criticism of the Government, and I have not been disappointed. However, being optimistic, I want to bring a glimmer of light to our debate. I shall give a few examples of what the Government are doing for the livestock industry, and shall then turn to something that has not yet been mentioned: the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Agreement has been reached at EU level on a package of measures to assist member states' sheep industry by helping to address environmental problems, including overgrazing, and by improving production and marketing of sheep meat. For a long time, the Government have been pledged to more efficient administration of the Common Agricultural Policy. With the establishment of the Rural Payments Agency, for the first time everything related to that issue is under one administration.

Protecting public health from diseases transmitted by livestock and the prevention and control of animal disease must be a key part of the Government's strategy, and it is. The Government believe that an integrated animal health regime will be vital. That will depend on involving shareholders, stakeholders, including the livestock industry, veterinary practitioners, government—especially DEFRA and the Department of Health—and the EU. Perhaps I may pause here and ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can tell us at the end of the debate the current position as regards the Animal Health Bill.

The lessons of foot and mouth show the need for an updating of the existing operational contingency plans, and this is being effected. The operational response regime, developed during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth, is being further developed. It will cover national and local disease control centres, including their staffing and resources, the provision of disposal facilities, and the updating of current veterinary operating procedures. All the latter were obviously lacking in some respects during our recent foot and mouth epidemic.

I turn to the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission, which plays an important part in the livestock industry. As a butcher's daughter, I have a natural inclination towards eating good, red meat. I believe that nothing is better than British good, red meat. Obviously, with the foot and mouth epidemic, the MLC recognised the need to sustain the willingness to eat meat in this country. By and large, the evidence shows that it has been generally sustained. However, as has already been mentioned, there is currently less red meat produced in Great Britain, and consumer requirements are becoming more diverse.

The Meat and Livestock Commission sees its main challenges to be: to ensure that British products are eaten rather than imports, as has already been stressed; to ensure that the products are nutritious, quick and easy to prepare; and to help the British livestock industry in its efforts in the area. On 7th March, the Industry Forum, which includes the MLC, DEFRA, the Institute of Grocery Distribution and the NFU, held a conference. The results of that conference echoed those of the Curry commission on the future of food and farming, and highlighted the need to improve the industry's competitiveness, profitability, and quality of products.

Research carried out by the Meat and Livestock Commission identified a number of key trends in meat consumption. Individuals are moving away from set, traditional meals: they are eating what they want, when they want. Diets have changed and people are reassessing what they eat. The time that most consumers are prepared to spend shopping, cooking and eating is going down in their list of priorities—hence the need for quick and easy preparation. However, although traditional cooking skills are in decline, cooking for pleasure has become a leisure pastime as people experiment with new tastes and flavours.

All such changes have vital implications for the livestock industry. The production of meat and its presentation has to respond to demand. The MLC is working with those in the livestock industry on such issues as the size of packs of meat; ready-made or ready-to-prepare meals; assurances of health and safety of the meat produced; the market for luxury or premium meat products; selecting better breeding stock; and the development of products that fit into current diet and lifestyles.

There is no doubt that the future of the livestock industry depends on all stakeholders recognising and accepting the need to work together for its future. And the Government are the key players in that future.

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, commences his contribution, I rise simply to say that we are now running so far behind the clock as regards the timing of the debate that, if we continue at the same rate with the next group of speakers, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be prevented from partaking in the proceedings. That, of course, would he a terrible shame for your Lordships' House. Therefore, perhaps I may appeal to the remaining speakers on the list to curtail their speeches for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who used to he one of my constituents—hence she developed the taste for good, red meat. We are all most grateful to my noble friend Lord Plumb for initiating the debate.

Many people are reporting on the livestock industry, but I wonder what is actually being done about it. We had the Policy Commission of Sir Donald Curry for a "thriving and sustainable rural economy", which dealt principally with modulation. We also had a policy commission on food and farming, which emphasised the need for farmers to develop their own industry and farmers' markets. Then we had the rural payment agency, the rural development service and the integrated administration and control system, as well as the report by the Rural Task Force under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on the future of our country. However, I believe that the noble Lord was rather misguided in his thinking about organic grazing.

In every area of local administration we currently have a regional director, a rural affairs forum, a regional development agency, a local countryside agency, and blow me down if we do not now have a new concept called the "vital village programme", which has just been introduced. All that is spin, and summed up in one particular document that was sent round to all of us at no charge to anyone, entitled the Essentials of Life, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monro. It claims on page 23 that the Government are "rural proofed". But they fail to acknowledge what has had the most profound effect on the English countryside; namely, hunting with hounds. That has had the most amazing effect on the whole way that our countryside is developed.

At present, a period of negotiations is in process. But what is really needed in the future is a statutory hacking for the independent hunting authority. A map must he re-drawn so as to remove the hounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, suggested, from areas where they are an irritation. I should like to view the map that is issued every year showing the density of population. I believe that we should withdraw the hounds from areas where the population exceeds 600 persons per square kilometre.

It seems wrong not to realise the contribution that is being made by livery yards, by horse breeding establishments and by hunting. They are all part of the livestock industry, and no subsidy whatever is involved. If you want to think in terms of the Essentials al Life, the livestock industry is what keeps the English countryside alive. It is most encouraging to observe the desire of all stockmen to return to the job that they know best. The Cumberland survey was issued just the other day. A few people in the industry thought that they would like to retire, but, as a whole, most farmers have paid off their overdraft, taken the wife on a holiday, and now want to get back into the business that they know really well.

During the foot and mouth difficulties, 4.4 million sheep were slaughtered. A high proportion of those ewe lambs were kept back from the previous year's lambing—2001—and retained for breeding. I am certain that a similar situation will now apply. However, following the reform of the sheapmeat regulations, DEFRA will make use of the newly-gained independence to reduce the support payments to English sheep farmers. Scotland and Wales are using their discretion to maintain the payments of the annual sheep premium at £22, but DEFRA is considering reducing the amount to £20. When he responds to the debate, can the Minister clear up that point? We do not need to distort the sheep market; we need to ensure that our small lambs are exported to Spain, and that we recover the market in France for our other lambs.

My Lords, in deference to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, I have taken all the frills out of my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has already declared my interests for me; and if I start to talk about goats I know that I shall overrun any time that I may have.

I understand that DEFRA has convened a working group with a membership drawn from the livestock and insurance industries. Its brief is to look at means of insuring the livestock industry against future outbreaks of infectious disease. My attention has been drawn to the fact that cheese makers who produce cheese from the milk of their own animals are in an unusual position, should they be affected by an outbreak of infectious disease such as foot and mouth disease. They stand to lose their animals and their cheese stocks. Can due regard be given to finding an insurance policy that will cover both, not just the animals? The specialist cheese industry in this country has been built up over the past 15 years. It now provides valuable exports, as well as the domestic market, and must be supported.

We have lost the knackers who used to destroy injured animals for us and take their bodies away. We are about to lose the hunts, who used to come to kill animals humanely and incinerate them for us. Because of the SBO regulations, that job has become too expensive. I am concerned on two grounds. On welfare grounds, I am concerned that there is no one to kill the animals. We all know that veterinary euthanasia is extremely expensive, and farmers are not skilled slaughtermen. Sick or injured animals may he left to die in pain, instead of being quickly dispatched. Dead animals may be buried or may be left out for scavenging creatures such as the fox. There is a disease risk in that. The situation is not satisfactory, and I ask the Minister whether DEFRA is addressing the problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, said that the Minister apparently told the European Parliament's FMD inquiry that a contiguous cull had been carried out with the approval of the European Union and that its legality had been tested in the courts. If that is correct, can the Minister kindly give the House the exact reference to European approvals, as the relevant directives make no mention of the slaughter of animals not exposed to disease? Will lie also tell us which are the relevant court cases?

I fully understand that the Minister was a trifle upset at the result of the Division on the Animal Health Bill. As a hereditary Cross-Bench Peer who does not vote often and has had next to nothing to do with the hunting debate, I was a little disturbed by the incontinence of the Minister's remarks to the media on the day following the debate about my motives for voting as I did. As a Cross-Bencher, I am not whipped; nor am I Lobby fodder. As noble Lords know, I take my duties in the House seriously. I vote when I have listened to a debate and have been able to make up my mind or when I already have a firm opinion on the subject on which the House wishes to divide. I am sure that my colleagues do likewise.

My Lords, I add my query about what the Minister said to the European Parliament to those raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm.

It is pointless to think that we can learn the lessons for the future of the livestock industry unless we have a proper, deep, full public inquiry into the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. When he is asked about that, the Minister tends to get cross. I get cross, too. I am reminded of what de Gaulle said about Churchill:

"When I am right, I get cross. Churchill gets cross when he is wrong. We are cross at each other much of the time".

That is the Minister's attitude to the public inquiry. It is also the attitude of the rest of the Government; after all, the Minister is only—I nearly said lickspittle, but that would be unkind—a hewer of wood and drawer of water on the Government Front Bench.

I should have declared my interest. I have a few Dartmoor grey-faced sheep, some Hebridean sheep and some black Berkshire pigs with white feet and black bodies.

In the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the Minister made two claims about the contiguous cull. First, he claimed that the cull was legal and had been tested in the courts. Secondly, he claimed that the policy had been approved by the European Union. I believe that there was only one operative court case, which included a wretched pig called Grunty. Mr Justice Harrison ruled that DEFRA was not entitled to apply a blanket slaughter policy and had to take specific circumstances into account. He ruled that the animals had shown no signs of disease and that it was sufficient that they were monitored and tested. Mr Justice Harrison refused DEFRA leave to appeal and awarded costs of £40,000 against the Government.

Although that case applied to what DEFRA considered to be a dangerous contact, rather than a contiguous cull, the key element of the judgment was that the Minister had no power to order a blanket policy of slaughter and had to take specific circumstances into account. In this context, where Schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981 authorises slaughter "in any case", the wording of the Act seems to support the contention, to the effect that, if the power relates to "any case", a judgment must be made in respect of every case. There would seem to be no power for a blanket contiguous cull policy.

The indications are, therefore, that there has been no legal challenge that supports the Minister's contention that the contiguous cull was legal. I echo the words of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and ask for details of the cases to which the Minister referred that support his contention and for details of the judgments in those cases.

The operative EU instruments are Council Directive 85/511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC and Council Decision 90/924/EEC on veterinary expenditure—I was briefed on this, by the by. In respect of Directive 85/511/EEC, Article 5 is relevant. It states that,

"all animals of susceptible species on the"—

infected—

"holding shall be slaughtered"—

and that,

"the competent authority may extend the measures provided for in paragraph 1"—

which authorises the taking of samples and the carrying out of examination—

"to adjoining holdings should their location, their configuration, or contacts with animals from the holding where the disease has been recorded give reason to suspect possible contamination".

On the face of it, the directive appears to authorise only testing and examination. That is endorsed by Article 8, which requires surveillance to be maintained on holdings where,

"foot and mouth disease could have been introduced from other holdings".

However, Article 11(4) of Council Decision 90/424/ EEC states that,

"Without prejudice to the measures to be taken in the context of the common organisation of the market"—

the relevant financial contribution shall cover compensation for,

"(i) the slaughter … of animals, (ii) the destruction of milk. (iii) the cleaning … of holdings, (iv) the destruction of contaminated feedstuffs … (v) losses incurred by farmers as a result of … emergency vaccination.

It shall also cover,

"(b) where applicable, the transport of carcases to processing plants"—

and,

"(c) any other measures which are essential for the eradication of the outbreak of the disease".

That reference to "any other measures" could be taken to mean legalisation of a contiguous cull, as it appears to indicate that there is provision for measures additional to those set out specifically in 85/511. However, for such additional measures to be eligible for compensation, the article goes on to state—this is the vital point—that the Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 41 of 90/424, define their nature. That requires an application to the Standing Veterinary Committee and approval by the Commission by way of a decision. Of the many decisions promulgated by the Commission during the foot and mouth epidemic, all of which have been published, none appears to apply to the UK's contiguous cull policy.

My speech has been detailed and, possibly, I have been more boring than I would normally be. There have been too many slashes. However, I ask when and under what terms did the EU approve the UK's contiguous cull policy? What documents attest to that approval? Can the Minister make those documents available to the House?

My Lords, I should explain to noble Lords that I was expecting to speak in this debate. In order to facilitate that, I called the Government Whips' Office because I thought that that would be the easiest thing to do. Either the inarticulation of the speaker, the difficulty in hearing on the part of the speaker, or the inadequacy of the telephone communication system, resulted in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, being put on the speakers' list as opposed to "Earl Ferrers". That was bad luck for the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes.

I declare an interest in that I have been involved with agriculture all my life. It is sad to see agriculture now in total decline and I think that the livestock industry has been hurt more than most. Before BSE in 1996, we were 113 per cent self-sufficient in beef and were great exporters. Now we are only 66 per cent self-sufficient and are major importers. The United Kingdom was the largest sheepmeat producer in the European Union, but in 2000 we were net importers of sheepmeat and this year we are only 80 per cent self-sufficient. That percentage is the lowest for almost 20 years.

Of course, as people eat more, there is a greater demand for meat, in particular beef. Thus we shall become less and less self-sufficient. British people want to eat British beef. They want to eat locally produced food sold at a reasonable price. Furthermore, they want animals to be kept in proper conditions. But what happens is that we import food from all over the world. Bacon comes from Denmark, pork from Romania and chicken from Thailand. Much of that food is produced in conditions that would be totally unacceptable in this country. The result is that the conditions maintained by our producers are put at such a premium that they become less competitive against imported meat.

When imported pork or chicken is cut up in this country, simply because it has been cut here it is then labelled as "British food", which of course it is not. As any schoolboy would say, that is "unfair". It is right for the Government to take action. All this militates against farmers and British agriculture.

I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, with—if I may say so—incredulity. The noble Lord said that farmers ought not to "overstate the case". I do not know how you can overstate the case for going bankrupt. On another occasion he said that farmers ought to "stop grumbling" and be "more competitive". Today he said that they ought to "invest", "raise standards" and "improve efficiency". That is all fine, but how can you invest when you do have not the money to do so? Even if you do find the money to invest, having done so, what is to be done about an inadequate return?

I have told noble Lords on previous occasions that potatoes may cost £150 per tonne, but when they are sold in the supermarkets, they are sold for £8,500 per tonne. That makes one wonder who ought to take on the competitive element. A loaf of bread may cost 50p, but it contains only 3p worth of wheat. The notion that farmers ought to be more competitive and lower their prices further is, I believe, misdirected. The fact is that the supermarkets have a stranglehold on British producers by purchasing from anywhere in the would at the lowest possible prices.

Some five years ago, the price of milk was around 25p per litre. It then fell to 13½p per litre. The price rose again but, as my noble friend Lord Plumb pointed out, it is now falling again to somewhere around 13½p per litre. Those are crippling factors. With the greatest respect, it is no use for the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to say that people ought to compete. You cannot compete like that; you will go bust. If that is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, then it worries me that he is actually advising the Government. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that he should take the advice of his noble friend with great care and that he should take some advice from me as well.

Despite the fact that milk prices can drop to 131/2p Dr 15p per litre, supermarkets now sell six pints of milk for £1.37p. That amazing figure demonstrates quite clearly that British agriculture is going through the most appalling time.

A bereft livestock industry passes on its misery to others. If we have 5 million fewer cows to feed, then less cereals are required for livestock feed. Therefore the arable farmer is hit. Two years ago the price of' wheat rose to £75 per tonne, but today it is likely to be around £55 per tonne. According to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, we ought to be more "competitive". Given those kinds of prices, I do not see how one can be any more competitive.

Some £42 million worth of European funds were made available in April 2001 to take account of alterations in the rates of exchange. The Government never took them. Then £57 million worth were made available in October 2001. Again, the Government never took them.

It is often said that the common agricultural policy ought to be reformed. I quite agree, but the fact is that I do not believe that it will ever be reformed because too many bees are buzzing around the honeycomb. As the European Union grows larger, so more and more people want to pursue what benefits can be had from it.

I recall visiting New Zealand some 17 years ago. Commonwealth preference was being wound down and the New Zealander farmers were in despair because their government were going to remove all farming subsidies. They said that it could not be done. Around eight years ago I happened to return to New Zealand. I sat next to the same person who some years previously had said that subsidies ought to go. He told me that New Zealand agriculture had never been in a better condition. That was because all subsidies had been removed, and thus the bureaucracy and mess that goes with them went as well. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the Government will try to do the same rather than simply divert European funds towards bugs and beetles. Rather they should try to put British agriculture back on to a proper footing.

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a non-executive director of a medium-sized company which manufactures and sells feed and other products to farmers. Perhaps I should also declare the interest of being a barrister who, over a good many years, has derived enormous professional satisfaction and occasional personal advantage from the litigiousness of farmers, in particular in North Wales.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on initiating this debate. The noble Lord and others have reminded us of the scale of the livestock industry. Livestock production remains the major stakeholder in the United Kingdom's agriculture industry and therefore the major stakeholder in the countryside. That remains the case despite the dramatic loss of beef and sheepmeat production which we suffered between 2000 and 2001 as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.

Unsurprisingly, some noble Lords have spoken of the effects of foot and mouth. In the time available, from these Benches I would simply express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the best steps available to guard against any repetition and to enable us to deal with any repetition, if it occurs, far better than last time. In that context, in my view it remains regrettable that, welcome as diverse inquiries from different viewpoints are, there is not to be one comprehensive inquiry—informed by those other inquiries, by academic and by international expertise—to devise an action plan for critical events in the future. It will be inexcusable if, or perhaps when, we suffer another crisis of this kind, but there is no ready action plan available. There must be better ways of tackling outbreaks of foot and mouth disease than those used over the past year or two. As my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie pointed out, estimates of the cost of that outbreak have been put as high as £9 billion. Surely we can do better than that.

As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Geraint, the livestock markets have an important role to play. They have fulfilled an important role in the history of the livestock industry, but they have a future as well. Such markets are major employers and they are the hub of much of the business life of hill-farming communities. Incidentally, they also provide an important point of social contact between often isolated farmers, their spouses and families, who go to market in order to make that social contact. The markets are struggling to source sufficient livestock because of the 20-day standstill rule. I invite the Government to look at this with great care.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Geraint, have referred to the inconsistent enforcement of control measures by our European Union partners. Imported carcasses carrying specified risk materials are still being found in the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, spoke of dangerous imports of other kinds. That is a very important issue. Because we have lost to disease our self-sufficiency in beef and sheepmeat, the risks posed by imports have increased and therefore the vigilance with which we police such imports must be increased.

As my noble friend Lord Mackie remarked, the Government must take a firm line over the improvement of inspection procedures and in ensuring that offenders, whether individuals or governments, face real sanctions. Furthermore, I would ask DEFRA to examine the facilities available to port officers. If one visits ports, as I have, one finds that officers often work with completely inadequate office facilities and do not have the space in which to carry out all the inquiries needed. That matter requires attention.

The noble Lords, Lord Haskins and Lord Fyfe, referred to co-operation among farmers. Farmers have co-operated for hundreds of years, and to imply that farmers do not co-operate is not fair. However, there is always room for improvement and there are initiatives for improvement. The industry forum, the findings of which were published in March this year, was an example of co-operation between different parts of the industry and, indeed, DEFRA. It is an example of good practice.

The industry forum identified an obvious, but not always expressed, conclusion, which was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. To ensure that shoppers buy British meat, it must be butchered and prepared in a way compatible with modern aspirations and lifestyle. Frankly, usually it is not so butchered and presented. The butchery industry has quite a lot to answer for in this regard because of the unattractive way in which it often prepares its produce as compared to imports. One has only to look at the average high street butcher's shop in a small French town and the average high street butcher's shop in a small English town to see the difference in presentation.

Welsh shoppers, for example, want to know where their meat comes from. My noble friend Lord Hooson, who was in his place earlier, is a distinguished and celebrated producer of Welsh black beef, and yet I would not be able to identify his Welsh black beef in a butcher's shop in Montgomeryshire where we both live.

The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that there are issues about labeling—indeed, there are scandals about labeling—which anyone who, like myself, has practised in the trade descriptions area of the law will have seen time and time again. The Government should take steps to ensure that food is labelled in a way which identifies accurately where it comes from—including the country of origin and, if possible, more specifically the source—so that British shoppers can buy and enjoy local produce, preferably well cut.

The noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, referred to Farmcare and pig production. If the CWS, through Farmcare, cannot make economic pig production and sell British pig meat in a profitable way, no one can. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, there is a great need for a cooperative venture to ensure that there is a strategy for pig meat production. Anyone who has dealt with pig farmers over the years will have seen highs and lows—a kind of manic depressive market—which have never ensured consistency and have guaranteed that pig farmers are the risk takers among the farming community.

I turn now to the issue of local killing and local abattoirs. Local killing is attractive to purchasers. Small abattoirs have an important part to play in the supply chain at both ends of the market: for choosy shoppers who, as I said, want to buy local meat; and to deal locally and quickly with casualties. The continuation of small abattoirs could be easily achieved, particularly if, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said, the veterinary service is available on a proper basis around the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, rightly referred to the landscape as a part of the picture derived from the livestock industry. He referred to the livestock industry "grooming" the landscape. I would put it in a similar way. Livestock farmers are the gardeners of the landscape—or, at least, their animals are the gardeners of the landscape. If we do not have sheep and cattle on the hills, dereliction will follow. There is nothing more ugly or more derelict than a derelict countryside. It is every bit as derelict as a derelict industrial area, but it is much more obvious to everyone.

That brings me to an old cliché about villages and rural communities. It is a valid cliché and I make no apology for using it. In recent years there have been more farm bankruptcies than ever before. The level of depression and other mental illness among farmers is very high. For example, there is three times the level of suicide among farmers than among doctors, who have every-day access to lethal drugs. It is a very disturbing picture. I applaud the rural stress action plan—the Government have done a lot to help farmers who are depressed, isolated and suffering from mental illness—but, when one has a picture of a very high proportion of suicides and a high proportion of bankruptcies, one has to be concerned about the future of rural communities.

For rural communities, where there is livestock, there is hope. The Government can ensure that there is continuing hope by supporting a strong livestock industry in the future.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Plumb for his excellent and thought-provoking speech which drew the Minister's attention particularly to the question of imported meat, both legal and illegal. I declare a family farming interest. We are pig farmers—although we are getting out of pig farming—and cereal growers.

It is a scandal that a huge amount of illegal meat continues, largely unchecked, to enter this country when the Government have had evidence regularly brought before Parliament, both in debates and Written Questions. The Minister surely cannot say that he is unaware of the problem.

The Government's latest response is the working party announced by Margaret Beckett two weeks ago. A working party is the last thing we need. We need enough inspectors to stop the trade immediately It would be even better if one person were to take sole charge of the situation. As other noble Lords have said, Clive Lawrence has produced evidence of this illegal trade, but what have the Government done? How many arrests have been made? How much illegal meat has been prevented entering through Heathrow? Do the Government have any idea of how much more is coming in through other ports of entry?

This issue is of vital importance because such trade threatens to bring infection into our country. It is a major concern not only for animal welfare hut, as other noble Lords have said, for human welfare too. The Government have totally failed to act. Perhaps the Minister will tell us more today.

Noble Lords have referred to many extremely important issues today. I dare not run over my allotted time, so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not refer to each point individually. Pedigree breeding, modulation, import controls, labelling, uncertainty over future business, the need for cooperatives, the risk of a recurrence of TB, the use of livestock as an important part of our wonderful biodiverse countryside, the use of fallen stock, which has been taken by the hunts in the past and is of crucial importance to the future—so many topics have been raised by your Lordships. I apologise that I shall be unable to touch on them all.

Let us not forget, nor ignore, that the recent foot and mouth outbreak, about which we have spoken many times in the House, hit hard not only those whose farms were infected and culled out, but also those who were not culled out but who could not move their animals; who could not make sales; who could not have animal pregnancies, and who received no compensation. Much of their subsidiary income disappeared. There was no renting out of their grazing land; no farmhouse bed and breakfast; no local produce sold to bed-and-breakfast businesses; and no contracting. But their costs were still there—their feed costs, their fertiliser costs, their medicines, their inspections, their investments to meet legislation and their Meat and Livestock Commission levies. I forget the saying about a sinking ship—but "the band played on".

As to regulation, I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in his place. I thank him for taking part in the debate and for his report on better regulation. I wish that some action had been taken on it already. Some 439 European regulations relating to agriculture were promulgated in 2001—not quite so bad as the 615 in 1997, or the 617 in 1998. There were also some 25 directives in 2001, most of them still requiring legislation in the UK. Is it any wonder that our business is on its knees? As we have heard from other speakers, farming incomes are on the floor. Yet more and more regulations are being piled on to producers.

In UK farming as a whole, income per full-time equivalent person fell from an average of £23,000 in 1996 to £8,492 in 2000. On that basis, each individual suffered a loss in income of over £48,000 over the four years from 1997 to 2000, compared with the figure for 1996. On top of this disastrous situation, the MLC's publication. Key Trends in Meat Consumption, indicates an increase in imports of red meat as a percentage of home production. Home production fell from 50.1 per cent in 1970 to 28.9 per cent in 1990. Other noble Lords have referred to the down-grading of home- produced meat and the increase in imports. That is especially true in relation to pigs and poultry.

That brings me to the problem of processed food. Our farmers are expected to conform to the highest standards. According to Written Answers that I received on 30th June 1999 and 28th March 2002, there was only one—I repeat, one—instance of spinal cord being found in a UK-slaughtered bovine carcass in the past 68 months. Yet UK farmers are still having to pay for special inspections in all abattoirs, with the obvious extra cost to our own producers. At the same time, there have been many cases of imported meat containing spinal material. I raised the matter recently with the Minister.

I want matters to move forward. The Government produced a rural White Paper in November 2000, but no time has been given to debate it, although it was deemed to be an important document. The report on better regulation by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, has neither been debated nor acted upon. More recently, the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, chaired by Sir Don Curry, has reported. Its recommendations will require money, time and effective effort. Doing nothing is not an option. The crisis in the countryside is still acute. I wonder whether, while we have been debating the matter this afternoon, any money has been allocated in the Budget to help to implement the recommendations set out in the Curry report.

The Minister will doubtless point to the effort spent by his department in dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak. I accept that demands were made. But if he could arrange for even a small proportion of that effort to be put into stopping disease coming into the country in the first place, we might at least be more confident about the future. The question of confidence was raised by a number of speakers.

A year ago in this House I despaired publicly of the Government. They seemed indifferent to the crisis facing farmers, uncaring as to whether food is produced by UK farmers or whether it is imported. It was not until foot and mouth struck, the countryside closed down and overseas visitors cancelled bookings, that the Government began to understand the link between a healthy farming business and rural business and tourism. The fact that industry was haemorrhaging, with bank borrowings at an all-time high, investment at an all-time low and thousands leaving the industry did not register. No wonder the rural community accuses the Government of a miserable record.

The Curry report gives us hope for the future. It contains a variety of practical ideas. It deals with the question of what we can do. It agrees that some of the requirements need EU and WTO agreement. But, even within that stricture, there are things that the Government can do. Do the Government have the will to tackle regulation? Do they have the will to promote nutritious food and to tackle the long-term problems of obesity which are already affecting the younger generation? Do they have the will to ban food imports from countries which produce food to lower standards than those required of our farmers? I believe that they should do that.

Will the Government recognise that promoting fair trade between producer and supermarket through the food chain centre, as recommended in the Curry report, does not cover catering and processing, and is not, therefore, of direct help to some of our food producers?

Finally, with all these things left undone and with the challenges that lie ahead, is it inappropriate for the Government to answer to a public inquiry abroad, and yet to fail to hold a full public inquiry in this country? Why is it important to do that overseas, when there is a refusal to do it here?

Our farmers are willing to take up the challenge, but they must be given the freedom to do so. They must be enabled to move forward. In relation to co-operatives, I hope that no restrictions will be placed on our farmers in terms of the percentage that they are able produce together, as indeed the Commission prevented in the past.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for initiating the debate and for introducing it in such a wide-ranging and forward-looking way, while at the same time analysing the difficulties sector by sector in a succinct and telling way. Coming to farming, as I do, several decades later than the noble Lord, it is clear to me that although there are some common themes across the sectors—and most sectors have been in serious difficulty over the past few years—there are different problems which need to be addressed somewhat differently.

However, there is, both in the debate and out there, cause for hope and cause to celebrate the prospects for British farming over the medium term. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that we have a competitive advantage in livestock farming which we ought to exploit. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gibson, that the taste, quality and nutritional value of British food—even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicated, it is not always well presented or well marketed—is the best in the world. We ought, therefore, to build on that advantage.

My noble friend Lord Haskins, whose speech I agreed with to a significant degree, usefully divided the debate into the areas of responsibility where the future well-being of the British livestock industry rests: the CAP, the UK Government, and the industry itself. I shall therefore attempt to organise my remarks in that order. I shall also refer to the issue of disease, which has clearly overshadowed the industry. I refer not only to foot and mouth but to the results of the BSE crisis, which hit the reputation of British livestock farming—a problem from which we have yet to recover.

So far as concerns the CAP, the Government strongly support the general thrust of the recommendations of the Curry report. We believe that the present CAP is expensive and that it distorts both farming production methods and farmers' relationship with their customers. We want, therefore, to shift the balance of support for farming, across Europe, away from production-related subsidies and into support which ensures that the farming sector meets the land management, environmental and rural development objectives set out in the report and in the Government's policy.

There are a number of different ways in which that can be done. Some will be longer term; some can be addressed in the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, on which negotiations are just about to begin; and some are already available to us. One way that is already available is modulation. It was the one issue over which there was a degree of controversy when the Curry report was published. The broad sweep of the report was welcomed, both in farming and in the rest of the food chain. Putting its recommendations into operation may be more difficult. Nevertheless, its initial reception was positive, apart from the issue of modulation.

Modulation is a means which already exists of taking some money away from production subsidies and putting it into broader forms of support. It presents some difficulties. The matters on which the money can be spent are fairly restricted by European law, and there is also the slight difficulty of requiring match funding from Her Majesty's Treasury, and therefore it has to take its place alongside other public expenditure requirements which will not be addressed today but will be addressed in the spending review in the summer, which was always the intention.

Modulation provides us with an existing mechanism whereby we can move in a direction that will be of long-term benefit to the way in which we farm and to British taxpayers, British consumers and the rural environment. It enables us to take some money out of production subsidy and put it into the broader rural development and environmental management of the countryside.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that modulation, which involves removing money from the growing sector and putting it into land management, worsens the position of traditional farming?

No, my Lords. The bulk of the support would be to allow farmers to produce food and rear livestock in an environmentally sensitive way. Modulation does not stop them doing that and make them take a lawnmower to mow the hillside instead. The aim is to ensure that their production methods meet certain standards. The point of the broad and shallow system that Curry advocates is that if they meet those standards, they will qualify for support. As many noble Lords have said, including the noble Earl, current environmental schemes often have a high overlay of bureaucracy and administrative costs to farmers. The broad and shallow scheme will be much more accessible and will relate to methods across all sectors of farming. Many smaller farms would benefit from that and there would be a decrease in the over-intensive areas of farming, such as over-grazing.

Besides modulation, there are other existing mechanisms. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, attacked one of those—the more flexible use of the national envelope under the sheepmeat scheme that was negotiated in December. As well as a more stable figure for the overall price of sheep support, flexibility was given back to each nation on how it could use roughly 2 euros of that support. The Welsh and Scottish administrations have already decided to add that to the existing premium. We are looking, immediately or in the longer term, to use that flexibility to ensure a better structure and a more environmentally sensitive form for sheep farming. We shall make that decision within the next few weeks. That mechanism already exists.

We have been criticised under the CAP head for not picking up all the available agrimonetary compensation to compensate for the major problem of the sterling-euro exchange rate, which is a large part of the reason for the relative decline in income in the British livestock industry in recent years. Again, that is three quarters paid for by the British taxpayer and any call on it has to be judged against other forms of public expenditure. Your Lordships should recognise that since this Labour Government came to power, a total of £785 million has been drawn down in agrimonetary compensation. The system will no longer exist after this year. That is a substantial level of support, mostly financed by the British taxpayer.

The second area that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, identified was the specific role of the UK Government, over and above their European responsibilities. Much of that is epitomised in the Curry report. We have broadly accepted that report and have already announced a number of measures covered by it, including the establishment of a food chain centre, which will look at the problems of producers getting such a low proportion of the value added in the food chain and of the price that the consumer ultimately pays. That involves relationships all down the chain. As my noble friend Lord Fyfe and others have pointed out, it also involves collaboration within the industry and a change in the balance of power between the farmers and the other economic movers to whom they sell and from whom they buy. That must be an important part of reversing the decline in farm incomes over recent years. If we can restore some balance to the farmers and have some fair trading in that system, we can achieve a lot.

We also need to ensure that farmers address the other problem referred to by my noble friend Lord Haskins— the relative spread of efficiency within farming. We want to get the poor farmers up to the average and the average up to the good. The Government still take responsibility for advice and support to the farming industry on productivity and production methods that we do not take for other industries. For example, we are establishing a fourth agricultural development scheme with £5 million of government money to improve marketing performance and competitiveness. There are other schemes on the production side. We are already moving rapidly on some of the measures in Don Curry's report. The central measure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others said, is modulation and the CAP, which will he addressed over the summer.

I deny some of the suggestions about what we are trying to do to the structure of the industry. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, suggested that we were against the market system. That is not the position of the Government, although we believe that a greater proportion of markets will probably be dead meat markets rather than livestock markets. Nevertheless, both play an important part in the industry. Beyond the market, the farmer must look more at the ultimate consumer, both directly through direct selling and by getting further down the food chain to get more of the profit.

Another responsibility for the Government relates to imports. A number of comments have been made about the adequacy of the present import checking system. Sometimes people confuse the level of imports with their quality. We are not in favour of going backwards on trade. We believe that the figures for self-sufficiency that people are talking about—66 per cent and 80 per cent—are pretty good achievements for the agriculture sector in an increasingly globalised economy in which trade is likely to be more liberalised rather than less. The question is not whether liberalisation will occur, but on what terms and how rapidly. We cannot go backwards on that.

We accept that the Government have a responsibility for doing more to check the quality of imports, particularly with regard to disease. My right honourable friend Margaret Beckett has taken further initiatives in that respect, although a considerable amount of additional intelligence gathering and co-ordination of checks has taken place on the commercial and passenger trade in recent months. We also need a proper overall assessment of the risks posed by illegal imports of meat. We need greater cooperation between the various agencies involved—the public enforcement agencies and the private sector, such as airlines and port authorities. We need greater enforcement powers, some of which we are already enacting, and we must ensure a tighter and more co-ordinated approach at European level on regulations such as the 1 kg maximum import allowed for passengers.

My Lords, what progress has been made on that subject? The Minister is talking about generalities. Where have we got to now? How many meat imports have been stopped? It would be helpful if he could share that information with the House.

My Lords, there is a high level of checking of the commercial container trade. That has stopped a number of imports. The higher profile issue is passengers at Heathrow and other airports. Much of the trade that has been stopped and identified by recent checks could not carry FMD. There were other problems in those cases relating to bush meat, endangered species and probably organised crime, but they do not relate specifically to the diseases that have broken out in Europe. Several hundred tonnes have been identified, indicating that there is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

Whenever we discuss imports, I also point out that there is a tendency for some in the industry to argue that tighter import controls are the totality of what we need. We need tighter import checks, but that is not an alternative to surveillance, internal biosecurity measures and controls on internal movements. All countries, even Australia and America, have some imports of illegal meat, despite their substantial checks. The point is that, in Australia and New Zealand in particular, if something gets through it is rapidly stamped out. The problem in the recent foot and mouth epidemic was that we did not cut it out as quickly as we could.

I have talked about responsibilities within the CAP and the responsibilities of government. There is also a huge responsibility on the industry itself to face up to some of these problems. For those coming to it from outside, it is a strange industry in many respects. It is a mixture of huge self-reliance and individualism, with a great desire to work as hard as possible and not to be dependent on others. In reality, however, when the industry is in difficulty, there is an awful degree of dependence on government and a tendency to come to government for help and money. We have to change the psychology in that respect. That means both greater co-operation, as my noble friend Lord Fyfe said, and, as my noble friend Lord Haskins said, a reduction in the degree of dependence on government to sort out the industry's problems.

The industry itself can deal with most of the problems of structure such as the need for a shorter food chain, more value added and greater cooperation. Nevertheless, the Government will endeavour to support those changes and to help in other matters referred to by noble Lords, such as labelling. Labelling is partly a Government and EU responsibility. It is also a matter of farm assurance. The Curry report made a very substantial recommendation on boosting the awareness and effectiveness of the red tractor scheme, to ensure that consumers understand that meats and other products produced to British standards are not only high value but meet high environmental and safety standards.

The Government are therefore acting in Europe and in relation to our own responsibilities on trade and the internal structure. We are ensuring that we facilitate changes that the industry itself needs to make.

shall use my remaining time to make a few points on the disease, which has cast a shadow over the debate and about which a number of points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, "Never again". I think that we would all say amen to that. However, we have to ensure that it does not happen again. We have initiated an unprecedented level of inquiries into the disease. I do not really want to go into the public inquiry issue now; the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, correctly said that I get slightly irritable on that point. However, we have an inquiry into the science, an inquiry into the organisation and the logistics, and an inquiry into the finances. We have answered to the Select Committees of the UK Parliament. We have answered to the Temporary Committee in the European Parliament. We also answer questions time and again in your Lordships' House. We could not be more open, nor could we have a system that will deliver anything closer to the truth.

The proof of the pudding—for those who are still highly sceptical, which I appreciate includes a number of noble Lords—will be in the quality of the reports from the Royal Society in June/July and over the summer. The Government already accept that we would do some things differently; I have made that clear to the House and elsewhere. There will be more recommendations to the Government and to the industry during the course of those inquiry reports.

Various issues were raised in the debate, the most acute of which was the legality of the cull. I shall cite just two cases: MAFFv Winslade, which we won in the English courts; and Westerhall Farms v Scottish Ministers, which we won in the Scottish courts. The British courts' and the EU endorsement therefore fully support the comments that I made in Strasbourg and have repeated today. The legality of the cull is not in doubt.

We do, of course, recognise that the powers that we have are not necessarily sufficient. That is why we brought the Animal Health Bill before your Lordships' House, and why I very much regret that, for whatever motive, your Lordships voted down that Bill. The Bill would have given us powers effectively to deal with an outbreak of the disease before a full reassessment of the situation following all the British and European-level inquiries. However, the Bill was defeated. We recognise that, in terms of the procedure of the House, that decision cannot be directly overturned. Nevertheless, the consequence is that, were there to be an outbreak of the disease over the summer, the British Government would not have the powers that we believe we need. In such circumstances, the responsibility would therefore be shared by all noble Lords. I think that we should face up to that responsibility.

My Lords—

My Lords, before the noble Baroness intervenes, I should say that I shall write to her, to Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers and to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who moved the Motion, indicating that, in the light of that decision, were there to be another outbreak, we would hope to see co-operation in introducing emergency powers. Regrettably, that option could be pursued only when Parliament was sitting, and we would have a problem if Parliament were not sitting. Nevertheless, in those limited circumstances, we would look to the House for co-operation in ensuring that we have the powers that we and the House believe we should have.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his confirmation on that point, and we have indicated that he would have our support. I have, however, to challenge him on one point. He said that the contiguous cull was legal, but I thought that that was his only fear about being able to control a new outbreak.

My Lords, the contiguous cull was legal. However, it was inhibited and ineffective because we were unable to enter certain premises due to resistance based on the current legal position.

My time is up, so I must finish there and allow the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, to reply.

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contribution to the debate, which has been excellent. It is also a continuing debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for their replies. I also thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

rose to call attention to the Green Paper Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change (published by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions); and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords., the next two and a half hours will offer noble Lords an opportunity to have their say on Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change now that the consultation period for the Green Paper has expired. It is a delight to be taking part in a debate alongside so many experts and practitioners in this vitally important sphere of our country's decision-making. Several noble Lords have indicated to me their very great interest in this debate despite the fact that prior arrangements have not allowed them to attend.

People get passionate about planning whether they are waiting for the decision on a new dormer window or a new large-scale development plan for a Brownfield site. Many years ago, as a local councillor in South Oxfordshire, many of our council deliberations were conducted in splendid isolation as far as the public were concerned or even cared. However, when it came to planning meetings, more chairs were always required. The Green Paper's conclusion is that our current system is deeply flawed and simply not delivering as it should for those very people.

Some might say that the modern planning system has served us well. Established in 1947, it indeed helped to guide vital post-war reconstruction. Since then, it has shaped the development and renewal of our towns and cities. It has protected our countryside and historic heritage. It has to some extent prevented urban sprawl. However, while planning policies have been successful for the most part, planning processes are now undoubtedly failing. There is a widespread perception that the current system is increasingly complex, bureaucratic and inflexible. There seem to be too many plans, too many of which are out of date and unco-ordinated. Decisions take too long to be arrived at. Too often, the system fails to engage adequately with the community it serves. In that context, I welcome the Green Paper's determination to set out major changes to the planning process, with the aim of speeding it up and making it more efficient.

Why is a radical overhaul required? Many will say that the current system lacks transparency and accountability, that there are too many tiers of decision-making, and that the slow rate of decision-making means that businesses are losing unacceptable sums. As Digby Jones, the CBI director-general has said,

"Our current system undermines UK competitiveness and discourages firms from expanding here. The present planning system is the best friend of Germany and France".

Others will say of the need for fundamental change that there is now an urgent need to "upskill" and to build capacity within planning departments and among elected councillors in their task of dealing with applications. Better training and resource allocation are absolutely necessary, now.

Local plans are often over long, inflexible and out of step with national guidance. An architect friend of mine once made his case at an appeal he attended on the basis that his views entirely fitted with current government thinking and policy. He was told in no uncertain terms that that was all very well but that that was not the way they did things around there and was certainly not the view of the local planning committee.

Very few local authorities want the time, trouble and cost involved in updating their development plans. Since the start date of 1991 some of those plans have yet to appear. Current planning policy guidance notes are too prescriptive and complicated, totalling more than 850 pages. Those making applications often do not know what to expect from the system. Although local communities are consulted, they are not actively engaged in decisions; rather, the protracted system seems to favour organisations with deep pockets and the endurance to dig in for the long haul.

Finally, on the problems front, there are those of us who believe that our present planning system lacks vision. Planning should be forward looking. It should not be only about regulating development and controlling, but also about a vision for the future that connects with the total reality of people's lives, jobs, prosperity, neighbourhoods, the way we spend our recreational time, our ability to enjoy the countryside and our need to sustain our environment. Good planning can do all that. Indeed, the purpose of planning should be to create better places in which to live and work and a better quality environment. Good planning should be anchored at one end in national policies and at the other in the needs and wishes of the community.

We acknowledge the problems and we have a pretty good idea of the purpose of planning, but the question for this debate is whether the proposed reforms set out in the Green Paper and in the daughter papers can successfully deliver the real changes that need to be made. As we know, the proposed reforms include the introduction of local development frameworks to replace local, structure and unitary development plans. It is proposed that those LDFs would include a statement of community involvement. It is also proposed that the county council be removed from the development control part of the planning system and that regional planning guidance be replaced with regional spatial strategies on a five-year review. It is further proposed that planning policy guidance be more strategic and less prescriptive and that new targets for decisions on applications be set. It is proposed that commercial developers as well as residential developers provide affordable housing contributions. Many more changes are proposed which I shall not go into now but which I am sure will be well aired in our debate.

Early reactions to the Green Paper have ranged from the positive, as in the case of the Countryside Agency which believes that the Government's plans will make it easier to deliver affordable rural housing, and the CBI which has described the proposals as "sensible" and a way of accelerating economic growth, to those organisations which support the broad thrust of the Green Paper, as in the case of the LGA, but which have concerns about the removal of county councils from the system. Friends of the Earth is very concerned about the fast-tracking of major infrastructure projects.

Change is urgently needed as regards major infrastructure projects. I am sure that when BAA made its application to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow it did not expect to wait eight years for an answer‡ Government changed hands in those eight years and major players in that planning inquiry at the beginning of the eight-year period were probably happily retired by the end of it. A lot can happen in eight years, and a lot of economic opportunities can be lost and never regained.

In conclusion, if we are to plan better places in which to live and work and grow our economy sustainably, we must get policies right at the national level and make sure that they are clearly expressed and understood. We must make sure that there is a clear connection between those national policies and the way in which they are interpreted regionally and locally. We must have experienced planners who can think spatially to create a vision of how environments can be improved within the framework of policy. We must engage people in what they want for the future of their communities. We must tackle the lack of affordable housing in rural as well as urban areas, especially with young people in mind. We must encourage business development and improved infrastructure because, as we know, planning must maintain the vitality of the economy. We must create more opportunities for better housing, accessibility to jobs and services, and the renewal of our most deprived areas.

My noble and learned friend the Minister is on record as seeing the need,

"to restore people's confidence in the planning system".

I believe that this Green Paper goes a long way to doing just that. I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, has done good service in raising this matter and giving us the opportunity to debate the Government's Green Paper on planning. She suggested, quite rightly, that there are failures in the present system. She referred to what she called major changes suggested in the Green Paper. However, with deep respect I say that there are not enough major changes. I shall come to that matter in a moment.

The Green Paper is right to state that there is a need for change. Indeed, it states that "fundamental change is needed". But it is regrettable that not enough fundamental changes are suggested. Indeed, in considering the appeal system at paragraph 5.43, the only improvement that the Green Paper suggests is a reduction from six months to three months in the time available for applicants only to appeal. I suggest that whether applicants appeal, or third parties are given the right to appeal—I shall come to that matter—they or anyone else should be allowed only six weeks within which to appeal. That would reduce the delays to which the Green Paper refers in several places. It is vital that the delays should be reduced.

Another vital matter regarding appeals is one that I raised a week ago at Question Time. I see that the noble Lord. Lord Filkin, is present. He did his best to reply to the Question. I shall come later to some of the things that he said. I asked whether Her Majesty's Government would introduce legislation giving third parties rights of appeal. Perhaps I should have referred for greater clarity to giving objectors the right of appeal. The government reply referred to third parties and so does the Green Paper. Perhaps we can have an understanding that "third parties" is the broad expression that would he most applicable and that the word "objectors" might be too narrow.

As I say, the Green Paper considers third party rights of appeal. It does so at some length in paragraphs 6.19 to 6.23. The effect of the Government's suggestions on this vital matter is, briefly, that there should be no change of substance. That is a very regrettable point of view. In paragraph 6.22, the Government oppose giving third panics a right of appeal because that,

"could add to the costs and uncertainties of planning".

I want to deal with that.

In reply to my Question last week, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that,

"a third party right of appeal … could add to the … delays and uncertainties of planning".—[Official Report, 10/4/02; col. 409.]

However, I suggest that if we reduced the time of appeal for anyone to six weeks, the delays would he considerably reduced. That cannot be denied.

Uncertainty is another factor that worries the Government. All appeals involve uncertainty but a high proportion of appeals succeed. If I may say so, I well remember that from my experience in practice as a barrister, when I did a number of appeals. I do not say that I always won them, but they were frequently won. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who will reply to this debate, knows that well.

As to costs, in order to get the right decision in the public interest, some extra costs would surely be well spent. For those reasons, I earnestly hope that the Government will extend to third parties the right of appeal.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for initiating the debate on this important subject. We touched on it a few weeks ago in our debate on public services. From these Benches, we agree that it is Lime to review the planning system. I declare an interest as a member of Suffolk County Council and of the Local Government Association. As someone who has hands-on experience of the planning system, I readily concur that some change is necessary.

Individual planning applications often take far longer than they should to be processed. The plan-making process is slow and unresponsive to changing circumstances. We are all aware that major infrastructure projects can have a long lead-in time. Where we profoundly take issue with the proposals in the Green Paper is in relation to the suggestion that those problems of themselves necessitate the radical overhaul that is being proposed. There is no inherent virtue in being radical. Unless radical change is called for, surely it would be far better to spend time improving a system that has served us well for more than 40 years.

Delays in dealing with individual planning applications stem mainly from a shortage of planners at the district council level. The proposals do not address that—indeed, they add to the workload of district planners by the removal of the county tier.

So far as major infrastructure projects a re concerned, we need to get the problems perspective. Since 1984, only 12 public inquiries have lasted longer than three months. Some of them—for example, at Sizewell in my own county and Terminal 5—dragged on and on, mainly because the inquiries were attempting simultaneously to deal with issues of national policy alongside very local issues such as bus routes and road alignments.

The Green Paper proposes that major applications will be determined by Parliament. However, unless there is a clear national spatial plan that addresses issues such as housing numbers, major transport projects and energy, Parliament will be in no better position to deal with the issues than a public inquiry would be. How often do we complain that legislation arrives in this House ineffectively scrutinised by another place? Are we really to believe that Parliament is the right forum in which to debate and determine planning applications? Is it right that large government majorities can be mobilised to force through projects such as Terminal 5?

It is axiomatic that in a country the size of ours and which has such regional concentration of development, land-use issues will always be hotly contested. Clearly, not everyone will be happy with every decision that is made. A good planning system must ensure that there are mechanisms for making locally unpopular decisions where the broader perspective demands it. A plan-led system has helped to ensure that that happens. That has made it all the more important to have a system in which democratic and participatory processes are embedded. County councils have traditionally served that function. The public have come to expect that their democratically elected councillors, who are accountable to them, will take key decisions in the development of their area.

Major planning decisions that are made by the Secretary of State, on the advice of civil servants who perhaps have no knowledge of an area, will not be popular with local people. Nor will they be if they are decided by an as yet unelected regional tier. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton refers to that as the demimonde of the quango. Until there is a fully functioning and democratically elected regional tier, the removal of strategic planning from counties is premature to say the least.

Structure plans are indeed over-prescriptive, but that is the result of government guidance—it is classic Civil Service gold-plating. It could quite easily be foreshorened by concentrating on key strategic issues. Counties can work with districts, which can provide the local detail to strategic plans. This sort of partnership works well in other fields and should be practical with regard to planning.

Much of the time that is spent in developing structure plans involves statutory consultations and examinations in public, which are organised by the Government. County councils are being blamed for delays that are not of their making. The proposals to abolish county structure plans will compromise all of that—they will remove the link between land use planning and county functions, such as transport, minerals and waste disposal. Joint working could preserve those linkages.

Under the Green Paper's proposals, the functions that are carried out by the 35 shire counties will be transferred to 238 district councils, which will affect the strategic decision-making capacity and compromise the development control work of districts. Perhaps most importantly of all we should remember that, given the immense economic implications of land use planning, the current system of checks and balances acts as a guard against malpractice. There have been rare examples of unethical planning decisions, but never at the county level. The current high standards of probity and the ensuing public confidence should not be lightly thrown away.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about the proposals that are contained in the Green Paper, given the many concerns that have been raised by a whole range of organisations. The new local development frameworks should build on the existing close relationships between counties and districts. That would ensure that all councils, with their expertise in all local services and their links with all of the partner organisations, would be involved. The expertise and resources of all tiers would be used to best effect. That would make sense to the public, for whom these barriers are an irrelevance.

My Lords, I declare an interest as director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which does much research into planning issues, and as director of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, which deals with planners on inner city sites and on a big development on the edge of York. I apologise for the fact that the high pollen count may somewhat inhibit my delivery.

The Planning Green Paper and its annexe on reforming planning obligations states that it sets out to secure delivery of affordable housing as one of its key themes. I ask whether it is likely to succeed in that noble aim.

Broadly, it must be good that reforms are intended to reduce complexity and bureaucratic barriers that distort opportunities to deliver much-needed extra homes. We are producing fewer homes than we have done since 1924. At the same time, the requirements for new homes have been growing. The gap between the two is producing alarming problems that are likely to grow in years to come.

I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of the Government's proposals relating to the tariffs which developers must pay when they develop new sites. That is introduced in place of the current arrangements whereby local authorities negotiate site by site with developers for the planning gains that they can squeeze out of those negotiations.

I suggest that the current arrangements are proving anarchic in the differences between local authorities throughout the country and are in need of substantial simplification and reform. They require local authorities to be skilled negotiators with sophisticated developers and the results differ wildly from place to place. Research which the trust is supporting at the Universities of Cambridge and Sheffield have been studying what is happening on the ground. They show wild variations in practice, with different definitions of what comprises affordable housing; with different quantities of affordable housing required; with different sums attaching to those numbers; with sometimes few skills in negotiating with developers in that process; and with differing outcomes in virtually identical circumstances.

A standardised tariff system sounds less complicated, more predictable and simpler and it would not require the same shrewd skills which do not always exist among the planners. It is also a tax which will apply to all but the tiniest of developments, instead of the current planning gains which apply only to medium and larger-scale developments. It is a tax which will apply to commercial developments and that seems sensible because those produce demands for extra homes as well. It is also a tax which will be able to be commuted—compiled from one site and spent on a different site, giving it flexibility—and transferred to another local authority if agreement can be reached.

In broad principle, therefore, the idea of a tariff sounds excellent. However, some dangers are inherent in that radical new proposal. First, it cannot be too standardised across the piece because the demand for affordable housing in its different forms will vary greatly from area to area. In some areas of the country there is a glut of social housing, while in others the shortages are very acute. Therefore, standardising the tariff obviously will not work.

Moreover, some negotiations will still be required within each local authority on a site-by-site basis because each parcel of land has its own peculiarities and the opportunities for that site to be productive to yield the dividends which can pay for affordable housing will vary site by site. We have discovered that one can be caught out by the sudden discovery of environmental constraints: beware the natterjack toad‡ In York, one may, half way through the development, discover a Roman fort beneath the ground; flooding has become more important to us; and there are many requirements on those seeking to develop a piece of land which cannot be standardised in advance. Negotiations will continue to be required in order to work on a site-by-site basis.

Finally, as regards such tariffs, clearly the guidelines which government produce must be sensitive and contain both flexibility and the assurance of simplicity and a measure of standardisation which prevents the current anarchy continuing. However, the amount of resource yielded by the new tax for affordable housing and other good purposes must not be over-estimated. That will not do the trick in producing all the resources needed to fill the gap between the amount that is required in terms of affordable housing and the amount that is currently being produced. That gap is now so wide that I fear tariffs from the new system alone will make only a modest but perhaps important contribution towards meeting it.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for giving us the opportunity to consider this very important matter. I would like to touch briefly on the issues which affect leisure, tourism, heritage and archaeology.

Leisure is a rapidly changing area of economic and social life. Within the UK it is now the single largest item in the household weekly expenditure. But when the current planning system was set up, leisure property was not the economic force which it is now. It was associated far more with individual operators and non-commercial providers.

As Business in Sport and Leisure points out, the planning system reflects that. In almost every area and level of planning, leisure is seen as a "bolt-on". Guidance on leisure in PPGs is spread across several notes. PPG 17 deals with sport and recreation and PPG 21 deals with tourism. But most commercial schemes are affected by PPG 6 (Town Centres and Retail Development) and by No. 13 because of transport implications.

So how does the Minister expect that the proposed changes will bring about a more coherent approach to leisure planning? How will they enable the next generation of sport, cultural and entertainment properties to meet the demands of local communities more readily?

I welcome the Government's commitment to review the PPGs. Can the Minister say when his attention will turn to Nos. 17 and 21? I noticed that the Minister's Written Answer of 21st January this year stated that he would shortly be putting forward proposals about PPG 21 on tourism. How shortly is "shortly"?

As the English Tourism Council points out in its briefing, tourism is a vital regeneration tool. It cautions that the abolition of structure plans in shire county areas will mean the loss of a county-wide opportunity for a strategic view of tourism. I understand that the ETC has produced draft guidance which reflects the spirit of the Green Paper and could be used as the basis for a consultation on tourism planning. What is the Minister's view of that draft guidance?

The Government state at paragraph 4.61 of the Green Paper that PPGs 15 and 16, which cover the historic environment and archaeology, will be in the small number of PPGs on which they will focus during the next two years. The links between archaeology and development are significant, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out. Indeed, the majority of field archaeology in the UK is now funded by developers.

So what is the timetable for the revision of PPGs 15 and 16? And what procedures will be put in place for consulting the key organisations in the sector? I believe in particular it is essential that local government is actively involved at an early stage of the review. It is the key stakeholder in PPGs and it has the specialist archaeological and conservation staff responsible for their implementation.

When the Government launched A Force for Our Future—the inelegantly named AFOF the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is to respond to today's debate, stated in a press release that the planning Green Paper would strengthen the Government's commitment to maintaining our historical environment and conservation in general. Those are laudable objectives and I welcome them. But how exactly will the Government achieve them via the reforms outlined in the Green Paper? How, for example, will the Government develop the sites and monuments records system into a coherent national strategy?

The briefing from the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers raises concerns about the Government's plans to abolish the county structure plans. It asks how a suitable local policy framework for the protection of the historic environment will be maintained. County historic environment services currently successfully provide strategic planning advice to all the county structure plans and all the rural districts' local plans within the counties.

Its experience of dealing with historic environment issues shows that it is vitally important to have a statutory sub-regional/county level input into land use planning and spatial planning. It is therefore concerned at the proposal to remove the country strategic plan-making function in the absence of any clear justification and without any clear evidence of need.

Finally, I should like to refer to a matter raised by the Council for British Archaeology. It believes that the Green Paper does not adequately explain what is proposed in relation to associated or parallel consent regimes. Does the Minister now accept, having seen the responses to the Green Paper, that the current arrangement for the national amenity societies to act as statutory consultees for listed building demolitions and alterations provides important benefits which should not be lost?

The Government now have an opportunity to make some worthwhile reforms to the planning system and I hope that they take full account of the thousands of responses to the consultation system before rushing ahead with much-needed legislation.

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Crawley on initiating this important debate in such an effective manner. My past experience includes that as chairman of planning of Leeds City Council. In recent years I have been adviser to a number of property and development investment companies, for one of which I am currently a non-executive director.

I share with my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer the view that our planning system is often too slow, lacks predictability and is too complex, inefficient and bureaucratic. It often fails truly to engage the wider community in planning issues in a proactive and inclusive way. Therefore I welcome the Government's aim to increase the speed and effectiveness of performance in planning. I welcome the recognition that the existing UDP and structure planning processes often take far too long, sometimes becoming an obstacle rather than an aid to investment and development.

When consultation papers turn from an analysis of the problems and a statement of the broad principles, a number of specific proposals need to be developed in order to find suitable practical solutions. I have reservations about some of the proposals. The fact that detailed prescriptive solutions are not put forward is welcome. That provides the opportunity to reflect with care as we seek to resolve some difficult issues.

The UDP process has certainly not always worked well. In my own city of Leeds it took 10 years from first beginning work on a development to its final acceptance by the Secretary of State. That is madness. Nationally over 90 per cent of councils fail to meet the target that 80 per cent of planning applications should on average be decided within eight weeks. Planning departments are often under-staffed and under-resourced. The quality of planning staff is sometimes not up to the job in hand, requiring as it does multiple skills and clear and effective decision taking as well as strong professional skills.

I agree that planning application fees should be reviewed as well as being generally increased. They should be better related to the scale of resources required to deal properly with the issues involved. The maximum planning application fee is around £9,000 or £10,000, which is grossly inadequate for larger planning proposals, some of which can take millions of pounds of professional fees to prepare. Often the planning departments do not have a chance to deal properly and effectively with such matters in a timely way.

It is important that increased fees fund improvements in the number and quality of planning staff. I welcome the Government's intention to ensure clear accountability for fees and how much is spent on the planning service at local level. However, it is at the more strategic level of development plans that the greatest care and reflection are needed. There is and always has been a tension between more speed and more consultation. Improvements can be made in both, but the tension, even conflict, between those objectives will remain.

The Government must to a degree decide what they really want to do. There is a risk that they could fall between two stools in trying to please everyone. Developers and investors want speed certainly, but they also want certainty. The thoroughness and detailed map-based outcome of the urban development plans provided a framework that could work well. The Town and Country Planning Association believes that the present system of plan-making at local level can be transformed more quickly by reform rather than by wholesale replacement.

The new approach of local development frameworks, statements of core policies, action plans and statements of community involvement may well introduce more flexibility and more responsiveness into the planning and development process. The enterprising and innovative will welcome much of that, be they developers, councils or community representatives. But the whole process may also involve more uncertainty, more and longer consultation processes and ultimately more costs for everyone.

Finally, I turn to the document on planning obligations, which proposes a more comprehensive system to levy a tariff on new development to be used for the wider community good. I recall my experience as chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee of the then Association of Metropolitan Authorities in the 1970s, when I was often called upon to explain and defend what was then called the "proposed development land tax"—some noble Lords may remember it. Indeed, I was once flown to Houston, Texas, to explain to a somewhat disbelieving and restless breakfast meeting of the American League of Mayors the benefits of a development land tax.

The Town and Country Planning Association would like to have a "betterment" tax and suggest that the new tariff be renamed a "community benefit contribution". When people start to discuss how best to present a new tax by a different name to soften its reception, in my experience Ministers and governments should start to worry. The then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, had a community charge that could never throw off its widespread description of being a "poll tax", and we know where that tax and ultimately the Prime Minister finished up.

There are many arguments for and against a development tax, whether at a local, regional or national level. The arguments are already being rehearsed. I simply observe today that this is not a core issue for the Government in their desire to modernise our planning system. They have enough to occupy themselves in achieving those other important reforms in the form of detailed legislation without engaging in the quagmire of another tax.

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for securing this debate. Though this is somewhat remote, I should declare an interest in that I have clients involved in planning applications. However, my real experience in planning matters stems from 30 years in local government, which I fear may be viewed as a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

The Government's objectives in Chapter 1 are unremarkable. I have some sympathy with their desire to see an improved situation regarding the approval of important public infrastructure projects. I recall having been involved with the Croydon Tramlink when the idea was first conceived. In the time it took for it to be developed, legislated for and started, the city of Strasbourg had both had the idea and completed it. Indeed, I have sympathy also with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, in his reference to the time taken over the preparation of the development plan.

Having said all that, questions arise on the details of this paper and I have a number for the noble and learned Lord. The Government claim that they will simplify the process and reduce the four tiers of plans. How is that simplification to come about if we replace the present system with a plethora of plans and policies, regional spatial strategies, maybe sub-regional strategies, local development frameworks, master plans and action area plans, which themselves have four sub-texts and in some instances business development plans? They are certainly different but I fail to see how they are simpler; I fail to see how they are more accountable; and I fail to see how they are more transparent. Indeed, we underestimate the public. Having borne the scars of the preparation of one UDP and one district plan, local government and their electors are well versed in consultation and preparation of these matters.

I am particularly concerned about the suggestions relating to regional planning. That in itself raises a number of questions. The regional planning bodies to be charged with a strategy must meet certain criteria. In paragraph 4.46 it is clearly stated that they will not meet those criteria if they consist of a group of local authorities. I ask the noble and learned Lord: why not? The Government have said that if elected regional assemblies come about, they will perform the role. Presumably they will consist of elected members. Therefore, what is wrong with the existing local authorities—the county councils—doing the job, perhaps with an enhanced mechanism for cooperation between them?

I fear that at the heart of all this is the abolition of the county councils' role in these matters. One is bound to ask whether this is the precursor to the abolition of the counties themselves. It has been made clear that, if regional assemblies came about, they would do so only within a regime of single-tier local government. That in itself raises another question. I should have thought that it would obviously fall to a devolved assembly rather than a national government to fix the form of local government in a region. However, that is perhaps another issue.

I am also afraid that it is a way of introducing through the back-door greater planning influence for regional development agencies. The noble and learned Lord will remember that, when the regional development agencies came into being, those proposals were dropped in another place before they even came to your Lordships' House because it would have been too controversial for them to have a planning role.

I fear that the general thrust of this Green Paper is that the system has survived for 50 years despite local government rather than because of it. There are some nice words about training local government members. Everyone needs help and experience, but since when have politicians at any level required a professional qualification to exercise a particular office? It would be a presumption to ask what qualifications the Secretary of State has for any of the functions carried out by his department.

When it comes to local development plans, I fear that there is an enormous burden in the constant requirement to review and a considerable financial requirement. Is it really necessary to tell local authorities how to run planning meetings and how to deal with the access to papers? This is reducing local government to local administration.

Perhaps I may ask some further questions. There is reference to enforcement. Has the noble and learned Lord given any consideration to ensuring that, when a planning permission is obtained, for example by a supermarket for a building of a certain size and a certain number of car parking spaces, it cannot, once it is built, then seek to increase the size of the building and, indeed, reduce the number of parking spaces? This is a very real problem.

With regard to statutory consultees, I cannot find anything in the Green Paper that deals with highway authorities, where very often, in effect, two tiers of planning authorities are involved, and that leads to inevitable delays. We got rid of that system in London and then reintroduced it as a great advance.

Lastly, with regard to masterplanning in paragraph 5.43, what will its benefit be compared with obtaining an outline planning permission? What presumptions will flow from the certificate? What objections will be pre-empted by obtaining that? If there is none, what is the benefit? I look forward to hearing the response of the noble and learned Lord in reply.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity provided by this debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. In so doing, I declare an interest as an Oxfordshire county councillor.

If an army marches on its stomach, so any planning system is dependent on the people who work within it. I shall confine my remarks this evening to discussing the effects on the present staff and the implications for them of the changes proposed by the Government. I shall also address the issue of the potential sources of qualified planning staff and of the prospects of those people becoming available. That is an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, referred just now.

At present, most staff who deal with higher level planning, not development control, are based in county councils and some are in the regional offices of government. The 34 county councils together employ approximately 500 staff in policy planning. Under these proposals, that responsibility would be delegated to 238 district councils, plus, of course, major and higher paid roles at regional level.

The cost of those people, if they are available, would be very difficult to forecast. However, I forecast that the salary drift alone—not the extra people; simply the salary drift—would cost at least £6 million. If the Government believe that we are exaggerating, perhaps they will look at the huge growth in administrative costs which have occurred, for example, in Berkshire as a result of local government reorganisation. Even there, the districts have chosen to come together to deal with their wider spatial planning needs at a current annual cost of between £600,000 and £700,000. A recently completed study has indicated that local government reorganisation cost at least twice as much as was estimated at the time.

At district level, although the loss of local plans would free up some resources, we estimate that the need for wider consultation would require more staff and the new strategic planning approach at local level would require more and better quality staff. For example, a district council with 100,000 people may currently expect to have a planning staff of about 10. We believe that that number would increase to at least 14. The cost of that is around £45 million, plus the accommodation required, and, of course, the cost of regional staff and the accommodation for those people.

All that presupposes that such properly trained and qualified staff are available. Of course, before we consider that point, we must take into account that many of the mature and experienced people who currently work in county councils would leave, giving rise to a loss of experience. There would also be severance costs associated with their departure.

The pressure on district council staff will be intense, particularly in districts which are close to large conurbations, where the planning demands are most intensive. This will be made worse by any lack of professionalism which becomes evident. It will not be improved by the employment of agency staff because of the need for continuity in planning. A recent report by Arup and Bayley to the DETR laid out those very facts in considerable detail.

On average, it takes between three and five years for the academic training of a planner, plus two years' practical experience to achieve a professional qualification. Producing trained professional planning staff who are able to give a good service, and making allowances for the wastage to which I have already referred, is not deliverable in anything like the timescales envisaged by the Government under these proposals. At present, it probably requires 15 years' experience to become a chief planning officer, 10 years for a senior planning officer, and fewer years, of course, as one goes down the scale.

The only postgraduate course in planning which I can now identify is offered at the University of Strathclyde Business School. It accommodates 10 or 15 places a year. To increase the quantity of professional planners in both the private and public sectors will require at least two years in establishing new courses for training. It will not be easy to bring qualified planners into what is not a very attractive profession. It is highly unlikely that they can be recruited within the timescale that the Government have in mind. Simply wishing that the problem did not exist is not a response that will give anyone any satisfaction. District councils are already weak in their planning and development control functions, and only 13 per cent of the 262 local plans, including the unitaries, have been put in place.

We have to say that the image of a career in planning is poor, especially for undergraduate courses. The funding available for postgraduate courses is very limited as county councils have reduced funds available for discretionary grants. Staff salaries are low, and the private sector, which offers more attractive career possibilities, is not a substitute for proper local government.

Therefore, I urge the Government to leave the county structure planning responsibilities in place until they have at least put in place democratically elected regional government, have determined what its responsibilities will be and simplified the development control functions of district councils. They must also address the attractiveness of planning as a career option and substantially increase the training capability within our universities.

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, on initiating this debate. My only regret is that there is so little time to deal with some of the big issues involved. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Slough Estates and a non-interest in that I am not a practitioner. I view this subject more from my experience as a Minister and as an MP for 27 years.

I have been concerned about the delays—the Heathrow fifth terminal is the most obvious example—and the huge cost. There are many examples in the roads programme. When I was Secretary of State I was told that from a project entering the national roads programme to its completion took 13.5 years on average: 12 of those years being spent on the planning process and one and a half on the building. That is fairly typical.

I remember cases in my own constituency. One was a bypass that was much required and desired by the local community, but it was held up for many months—in fact, for more than a year—because of the need to consult on a detailed change that involved only about a yard or two on a roundabout. I recognise the need for reform and I agree with the objectives, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that the Minister faces in reconciling often conflicting objectives.

I shall make two preliminary points before turning to my main point. The first is the danger of a stand-still in decision making while the Government make up their mind. Detailed changes to simplify planning zones could be made, for example, and they could be put on hold while local authorities wait to see what happens to business planning zones. More seriously, local development plans could be put on the back-burner while they see what happens to the local development framework proposals.

My second point is that so often one hears that the real issues are in the detail rather than in the general principles that are supported. There is a need for the Government to move fast on the details if they are not to hold up planning decisions in the way that I have described.

The fundamental problem, recognised by other noble Lords, is the tension between the desire for a simpler, more cost-effective and above all speedier overall structure and decision-making process and the desire to have the widest possible consultation, possibly even wider than now. When I inquired of the department why there were long delays—12 years for the planning process for a road—I was told that layer upon layer of new decision hearings had been introduced to meet further requirements for consultation or to meet previous objections to the system. That is the problem.

We cannot achieve both objectives of the ultimate ideal at once. There will always be winners and losers and the losers will always want further opportunities for their case to be heard. My fear is that the present proposals will not solve that and may lead to further delays. Paragraph 5.57 of the Green Paper refers to technical and other aid to pressure groups, which could increase their capacity and ability further to delay the process. I sympathise with the Minister. He will have to take robust and tough decisions.

I specifically agree with those who are opposed to the removal of the county structure plans. That is my biggest concern. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I take the eastern region's view. I do not see the new proposals as an advance—quite the reverse. I believe that the regions should stick to overall guidance, but in the Green Paper there are a number of indications that the regional spatial strategies will become more focused, detailed and statutory. Therefore, they are likely to become the regional structure plans.

The difficulties are as follows. First, there are constant references in the Green Paper to the need to have subregional structure plans. What are county structure plans but subregional plans? Secondly, the region is far too big for a structure plan of that kind. People in Norfolk do not consider that people in Bedford will understand their requirements. Thirdly, the democratic aspect will be lost because I do not believe that regional, directly elected assemblies will come about in our region, so there will be huge criticism added to the remoteness. My view is that the county structure plans should remain.

On local development plans and local development frameworks, I agree that the current system is an unwieldy beast. It is far too bureaucratic and needs reform. I do not have time to go into detail, but while I welcome the flexibility of not having to cover the whole area, not needing to be so comprehensive and having regular reviews, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, my concern is that the remedy may prose worse than the disease. We need to know more of the details. I suggest a trial period so that the system is introduced in one area before it goes national.

On reforming planning obligations, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, who was concerned that the tariff system will, effectively, become a further stealth tax through a community levy. I have a number of reasons for that concern, but I do not have time to elaborate them. Many points in the Green Paper suggest that it will go wider and well beyond the planning gains that are involved in developments. I hope that it will be reconsidered.

On major projects, I return to the fifth terminal at Heathrow. The parliamentary procedure proposal is worth considering. I saw it work in regard to the Channel Tunnel high speed link. It is worth investigating, but it must not take place on the basis of a one-hour debate in both Houses and with government Whipping. It must also be carefully worked through so that it does not add yet another layer and even more weight and delays to the process. For major projects, of which there are a few, that may be worth considering.

I could make many other points and there are many in chapter five on development control which can be taken forward under the present system and which will not require the new structure. I regret that there is not more time in which to contribute further to the debate. I return to the point that the county structure plans concern me most.

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Crawley knocked a number of nails on the head. One may say that this is a brave Green Paper. Not all noble Lords like all of it, but that is what a Green Paper is all about. It has focussed our minds on where we go from here.

I remind the House that 1947 was a great moment in the history of town and country planning. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 has stood us in good stead, as it still does. I do not believe that one will find too many areas of national life where that can be said, despite the fact that pressures on development are growing all the time.

Society is now more wealthy. I remind noble Lords that often those who object to development plans are people who have a good income, use more energy, have bigger houses and use more transport than the rest of the community. There is a delicate balance. I refer to Rio de Janeiro 1992. We have sustainable development—not no development at all.

There are a number of separate concepts to planning, of which I can give four examples. I believe we generalise too much about what to do in relation to planning. First, there is the county structure plan; secondly, a T5 or a Channel tunnel project, which is totally different; thirdly, an out-of-town supermarket, which is also totally different; and fourthly, I want to erect a second garage in my garden. The issues of public participation will also be different according to those different kinds of development.

There is a case for change for which I can give a couple of examples. I have given evidence at structure plan inquiries and at local plan inquiries arising from a couple of hats that I have worn and there is something unbalanced about the structure plan inquiry and the local plan inquiry procedure at the moment. The procedure is all to do with objectors. One may say that that is obvious, but in a local newspaper one never reads that Lancashire County Council or Surrey County Council have done anything half good in their structure plans; one reads only what Friends of the Earth or someone else says. That gives the public a distorted view that people are up in arms against a particular structure plan, which has been arrived at democratically. Often many people are not up in arms about it, but it is unrepresentative, single-issue pressure groups who are up in arms. If that is the drift of the Green Paper on such a matter, I am totally with it.

The example of T5 is different. The moral to draw from T5 may be that we need a cull of lawyers and a contiguous cull in adjoining counties as well‡

Paragraph 4.37 of the Green Paper states that,

"the county no longer remains the most appropriate level at which to consider many of the key strategic planning issues … We propose to abolish structure plans".

I think that the Government are resiling somewhat from that. There have been statements by my noble friend on that. They are shedding "tiers"—I have spelt it wrongly in my notes, but perhaps I spelt it correctly—to a single level of plan.

The key new demand is for subregional plans. No region is the same as another. It may be true that no one in Norfolk talks to anyone in Bedford, but certainly people in Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire have to talk to each other because any so-called local strategic road—whether ostensibly covered by a transport supplementary grant or whatever it is called these days—which is not a trunk road has to be financed. Let us not forget in the debate that it is 100 per cent national finance. But we have to ensure that all these counties work together.

That has already started to produce a new type of democratic decision making. We should build on that. That is my next major point. We need to build on what we have rather than be tempted by the idea that we should pull everything up by the roots. That may not be what the Green Paper intends but sometimes it reads a little like that.

It raises the question of what I call "jurisprudence". If one takes another field of economic life—for example, mergers and takeovers—it takes years to get people used to the jurisprudence: if one does that one is likely to have some certainty that that will happen. Indeed, in local structure plans if one's bypass is number five in the queue and one has waited eight years to get there, one does not want to suddenly find that that structure plan is redundant. There are many vested interests which need to be looked at; but there are some legitimate interests that the jurisprudence in a broader sense of that term is adhered to. We have some confidence in that system.

On balance, I support the development tax instead of the present arrangements for planning gain. I used to have some sympathy with Henry George and the land value tax. The Liberal Democrat Party also used to support that. I do not know where they stand now. But I think that there is a good deal of mileage in the development taxation principle.

Finally, I make one point about the organisation of staff in this field. There will not be a common pattern of regional government across the country. Civil Service workers have a different trade union structure. I make this not as a parochial point, but I can assure your Lordships that one has to know what one is doing in respect of this tricky interface between civil servants who are nationally accountable and local government unions—UNISON and so on—in order to arrive at the right solution to the relationship between regional and subregional government.

My Lords, the Green Paper means well. One has only to scan the opening pages to detect its good intentions.

"We need good planning to deliver development that is sustainable ….A proper planning system is vital to our quality of life … planning applications will be dealt with efficiently".

One is bathed in a rosy glow of approbation and happy anticipation for the future. Until, that is, one reads right through to the very end—all 67 pages—and realises that there is not one mention, not even a hint about one of the most crucial areas of planning: the need to ensure that all new building is protected from the terrible danger of being engulfed by floods.

We would not build new houses over an old mine. We are fairly careful about building in areas prone to coast erosion. Why are we failing to recognise that building on ground which is liable to be flooded is almost criminally negligent?

It is not as though we have not had serious flooding problems in recent years, from which we should have learned. I could cite many examples of just how disastrous it has been for the poor people who have suffered. Time constraints forbid that.

Recently, we have heard from insurance companies that they will not insure properties built on flood plains. That means that people who have bought such houses will never be able to sell them because one cannot get a mortgage if the house is uninsurable. Apart from that, who is going to bail out the poor wretched people whose homes have been flooded? Who will pay for the replacement carpets and furniture or the hotel or boarding house accommodation needed while the houses are uninhabitable? Where will the money come from for structural repairs?

The Water Resources Act 1991 lays a responsibility on planning authorities to guard against the business of putting homes in areas likely to flood. But, from all I hear, that responsibility is frequently totally ignored. Looking at the Green Paper certainly seems to confirm the charge. It is not as though Ministers have not been told about the dangers.

In 1998, Mr Elliott Morley received a detailed submission from the Nene Flood Prevention Alliance—I have since become the honorary president of that body—warning him of the dangers of building there. He was concerned enough to commission a report. The committee was chaired by a Mr Peter Bye. Members of the Environment Agency sat on that committee. Bye reported serious deficiencies in flood maps, flood defences and recorded flood levels, to name but a few. But, having commissioned the report, Mr Morley really cannot be said to have acted enormously energetically to set matters right. He did allocate some money to improve flood defences, but it was nowhere near enough. Norwich Union, for instance, said that it was,

"barely half what was needed".

The Minister made no mention of funding for flood storage, reservoirs or drainage to make good the damage done by the Government's house-building policies.

The present system, whereby central Government impose house-building quotas on areas where river drainage capacity has already gone into massive shortfall, simply increases the risk of flooding. Local authorities are so busy doing the Government's bidding to "build, build, build" that they ignore the dangers. Only a week or so ago a firm of building contractors in Northampton were building houses on land which was not only contaminated but on a flood plain. Planning permission had obviously been obtained. But because the ground was contaminated, the builders had to cover it with clay in order to cap the soil. They did that—very convenient for them—by simply pinching 35 metres of the clay flood defences from the banks of the Nene River. Only the recent God-given sunny weather saved the area; that, and the sharp eyes of local residents who quite rightly raised Cain.

The Environment Agency was called in. The contractors were forced to replace what they had torn up. But should they not have been told as a condition of planning permission about the need to keep the flood defence wall? Should not this Green Paper have a section, a paragraph or at least one teeny-weeny mention of the importance of avoiding submersion dangers in the vast building site that much of Britain is becoming?

I was doubtful that I would have the time to pay my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I just about have; and I do.

My Lords, I too am glad that we have had an opportunity to discuss this important document. Its general trend makes me feel distinctly uneasy. However, I shall confine my remarks to three salient points where I see difficulty.

First, I take issue with the first sentence of chapter 1. That states that the Green Paper is about delivering a fundamental change to the planning system. I believe that to be wrong. I see no reason to change our fundamental system. It is a nation-wide, plan-led system, executed in the main by councillors who are elected members of public authorities. There are provisions for public inquiries on points which are contentious and on these the Secretary of State is the ultimate referee. These are admirable features. Although the long Terminal 5 inquiry illustrated a particular significant defect in the system, we should not alter its main structure.

Having spent much of my life living abroad and having seen the effects of other nations' planning systems, I think we come out pretty well from the comparison. In particular, I remember two awful examples of what can go wrong: the total destruction of the littoral of the Attica peninsula in Greece; and the desecration on the Adriatic shore of the eastern side of the Italian peninsula between Ravenna and Rimini. We have avoided those horrors, thanks to our system. I have little doubt that our arrangements are better, more open, more honest and subject to better democratic control than those in most other European countries.

So I seriously doubt the starting point of the Green Paper. Let us by all means adjust our arrangements by learning from experience: they have been in place for a long time; perhaps we can improve on them. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water, as does the Green Paper.

I accept the need for important changes to the handling of large infrastructure projects, but I doubt that the Government have found the right balance. Can it be right to give the Secretary of State such broad discretion to decide which major projects should be referred to Parliament? The document contains a list of examples, but we may also need guidelines to assist the Secretary of State—for example, relating to representations made to him by responsible bodies. Total discretion in the hands of the Minister appears excessive.

What can we do to ensure that Parliament's decision is based on a careful analysis of the facts? Should there be a free vote in Parliament? Will there be prior discussion in Committee before a vote? Perhaps a Joint Committee of the two Houses could produce independent analysis for Parliament to consider. Above all, can it be right to endow the Secretary of State with, as the paper states, the final say at the end of the process? The powers conferred on the executive in that model appear too extensive.

My second principal concern is about the rearrangement of responsibilities at local level. The county structure plan is to be abolished and local plans replaced by a local development framework. I believe that to be mistaken, given the local knowledge, understanding and experience available at county level. To whom will the new framework be entrusted? It must have one or more parents.

As the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord MacGregor, pointed out, the Government's line of thought appears to anticipate the creation of elected assemblies in the regions. We all have views about that, but they do not yet exist, and we must work with the existing structures. Downgrading or eliminating the planning function of county councils would place a heavy burden on district and parish councils, which do not have the resources—human or financial—to undertake the task. Their discussion with a government department would not be a dialogue of equal partners. It would surely be a mistake to terminate the role of county councillors, who have a significant contribution to make to planning matters.

Parish councils are of variable quality, and it is often difficult to persuade those who are best qualified to serve to take on the job. The new code of conduct requiring disclosure of their personal finances is widely regarded as unduly intrusive. The comments of the County Councils Network on this part of the Green Paper are carefully thought through. It concludes that the Government's proposals are,

"fundamentally flawed and … not workable in practice".

The network's counter-proposal for subregional integrated development networks, making best use of existing bodies, is worthy of serious consideration. I hope that the Government will consider it, as it appears to be a preferable solution to that proposed in the Green Paper. I hope that when the White Paper is published—at the end of last debate on local government a month ago, we were told that that would be before the summer Recess—that will have happened, and that we shall have an opportunity to debate the White Paper in due course.

My Lords, planning figures often on parish council minutes and is a major issue for both district and county councils. My main experience has been in a rural context, where, on occasion, I have been made acutely aware of applications turned down by the parish council, recommended for refusal by the planning department and voted against by the planning committee, but passed on appeal by the Secretary of State. Many noble Lords have referred to delay, and I shall emphasise that as well.

I should like to touch on four matters: rural housing, third parties, local county councils and services and landfill. I find myself in some sympathy with the recommendations in the report of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Third Party Rights of Appeal in Planning, although with two major exceptions. First, certainly in rural areas, appeals should be open only to a third party who has already raised an objection and whose case is supported by one or more of the parish council, the district or borough planning committee and the planning officer. They should be prepared to bear the cost should the case fail. There is a need for third party appeals, but I appreciate that they often cause delay.

Secondly, grounds for appeal should be widened to include an automatic right wherever a set of plans, having been turned down by the parish council and the planning officer, is approved by the planning committee on the casting vote of the chairman. The public, especially in a small community, would be less suspicious of the planning process were such a right available.

I have also received papers from the National Trust, which expresses its concern. It states:

"The Green Paper contains no measures explicitly to enhance the role of Parish Councils in policy formulation and decision making".

With my agricultural hat on, but speaking as an individual, farmers are frustrated by being constantly told to diversify but finding great difficulty in getting planning permission so to do. That takes time and thwarts their business progress.

To some extent, I also agree with the CPRE's recommendation that planning authorities should, if and when asked, have to supply reasons for granting consent, especially where objections have been raised. While it is desirable that planning meetings should be held in open session to the public, access is not easy enough—especially for people from villages—and to deny the public the facility to obtain reasons for decisions taken at those meetings is perhaps something that the Minister should consider.

I, too, am concerned about the responsibility for planning moving away from the counties and more decisions being pushed to regional level. Local people are the ones who know what is going on locally. I fear that as decisions move from county to region, they will be made by people who do not know the local area as well and are often, if I may say so, urban-based and not necessarily as au fail with the rural needs under consideration.

A departmental consultation paper closed for consultation four weeks ago. When will we receive the Government's response to it? How soon thereafter will we he able to debate it in this House? Will the department also carry out a review of the fee regime mentioned in the paper? If so, how quickly? When will it publish its consultation on major changes to the compulsory purchase and compensation systems and how quickly will it respond?

I, too, would like to touch on the point made by my noble friend Lady Knight. There has been much building in flood plains and on green belt, and I urge the Government to continue to develop on brownfield sites wherever possible, to relieve that pressure. In Leicester, we had a good example of a big project that received government money, which made a huge difference to the centre of Leicester and relieved the pressure on outlying areas.

I turn briefly to responsibility for landfill recycling. I know that the Green Paper is about planning, but it should cover that issue too, because it is hugely important. The more houses we build, the more waste there is, which must be dealt with. Who bears the cost of landfill, recycling and dumping—we know only too well of the mountains of fridges, electrical goods and cars? At present, it is the local authorities. Will the Government be putting money their way to help them? I am concerned about those four matters, because I believe them to be hugely important.

I conclude on the need for affordable housing—a subject upon which I have spoken many times previously in this House. The availability of rural affordable housing is crucial. However, it is one area where the Government's record is slipping. Local plans very often relate to plans to provide more three and four-bedroom houses, but we need affordable housing. Local authorities sometimes need to respond to builders who submit such plans by saying "No, what we need are more smaller units of affordable housing and/or retirement homes". I see from the Clock that I have overrun my time, but I should just like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for initiating the debate.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I am expressing my thanks at the beginning of my remarks in case I run out of time.

There is no question that planning procedures can be improved, but the Minister will know from representations made to his department that concerns have been raised about aspects of the process. Indeed, like myself, I am sure that all noble Lords who have taken part in this evening's debate have received many representations from various organisations. One local representation to me came from the North Yorkshire County Council, where I live, which wrote in a most alarmed way about the proposal in the Green Paper to cut out county councils from the new processes—a point much mentioned in this debate.

I should like to talk about one specific recommendation in the Green Paper that was actually touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. However, before I do so, I should declare an interest as president of the Georgian Group and past president of the Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies. At present, the amenity societies such as the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society, and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings are statutory consultees. This means that since 1972 local planning authorities have been required to notify them about applications that provide for the demolition or significant alteration of listed buildings. For example, at the Georgian Group we currently receive 6,000 notifications a year from planning authorities in England and Wales, to which we respond substantively to around one quarter.

As we all know, the quality of planning applications varies enormously. Many are poorly conceived and presented, being drawn up without the benefit of an architect's expertise. The planning system exists in part to protect the public interest against the crude and damaging interventions into our built environment that would result if such applications were allowed. It is surely right that local authorities should have to consult the organisations with the expertise to be of help to them. The Green Paper queries that and suggests in paragraph 5.33 that the number of statutory consultees should be reduced. It is silent on which consultees might lose their status, but it is possible that one or two of the amenity societies might be among that number.

In my view, there are three main arguments why the latter should not happen. First, the formal involvement of amenity societies in the planning process as statutory consultees gives significant additional protection to Grade II listed buildings. I should remind the House that Grade II buildings form 94 per cent of the total. English Heritage concentrates heavily on Grade I and Grade II* buildings, and will involve itself only exceptionally in alterations to Grade II buildings. The amenity societies are the only formal external consultees on such applications.

Secondly, the involvement of amenity societies gives planning authorities a source of expertise that would otherwise not be available. One-third of planning authorities do not employ a conservation officer and many of the remainder employ them at a junior level. Without amenity societies, those authorities would have no informed advice on which to base decisions. I believe that it is rather too optimistic to suppose that such authorities would consult the amenity societies unless they were actually required to do so.

Finally, consultations with amenity societies are not, as the Green Paper implies, a significant source of delay. They are normally given 21 or 28 days, but just 14 days by some authorities, to comment. Occasionally they will ask for more time to investigate the matter, but that is rare; and it is open to the planning authority to refuse that extension of time. The consultation period generally runs parallel to the period during which members of the public can respond, so there is really no delay. It is perhaps worth adding that the statement made in paragraph 5.30 of the Green Paper that,

"most planning authorities will not take a decision in the absence of advice from a statutory consultee".

does not normally apply to the national amenity societies.

For these reasons, I take the view that retention of the statutory consultee status for the national amenity societies is essential if the Government's aspirations for the built heritage, which were clearly and well expressed in The Historic Environment: A Force for our Future, are to be realised. The present arrangements, which bring into the formal planning process the voluntary expertise of the leading authorities in the fields of building conservation, are much admired in other countries. Indeed, a delegation from Denmark which came to visit me, among other people, just last week asked me how the whole process worked.

Can the Minister give me an assurance that his department will consult with the amenity societies before the proposals in the Green Paper are taken any further? The Green Paper envisages a system under which the bodies that remain statutory consultees would charge for their responses and be statutorily required to respond within 21 days. I cannot deal with these proposals in detail at this point, but suffice to say that a fee system replacing the current casework grant from English Heritage could result in a considerably increased administrative workload. Moreover, there will be cases where a standard 21-day response will be simply unrealistic.

There is a danger of attaching too great a virtue to speed that in the end is counterproductive because it may compromise the quality of the outcome, which will not be as good as it should be. Again, that will diminish public confidence in the planning process. I know that the Government are very keen to address the feeling that at present there is not much confidence in the system. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

My Lords, I, too, welcome this opportunity to debate the Green Paper. Although it is technically past the closing date for consultation, we are indebted to my noble friend Lady Crawley for having enabled, if you like, a live consultation to take place this evening. While sitting in the Chamber listening to the debate with the majority of Members, including myself, having to declare an interest, I noted the diverse views expressed. If I were the Minister sitting on the Front Bench, one of the lines that I would be taking from the debate is the fact that everyone wants change but that there is no consensus about the kind of change required.

Several speakers mentioned the 1947 Act, stressing how good it has been and adding that we just need to amend it. I rather suspect that one of the reasons for having a piece of legislation that is over 50 years old is that it would have taken a very brave Minister to begin scrutinising it and making changes. I declare an interest as the chairman of the Housing Corporation. When seeing through these proposals—albeit with necessary changes—I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will keep the courage that he has shown in producing this Green Paper.

I should like to draw on my experience as chairman of the Housing Corporation and speak about affordable housing. The corporation is the single biggest investor in England. Having had our expenditure doubled by the Government for this coming financial year, we shall have something like £1.2 billion, which, with matching private sector funding, will mean that we shall spend over £2 billion on affordable housing throughout the country. Our experience has shown that the quality as regards the way in which planning is dealt with in this country is variable—some parishes are good, while others are bad; and some counties are good, but others are bad. There is no doubting the fact that the planning process is variable.

The quality of such planning has a profound effect upon how the corporation is able to deliver its investment programme. An efficient and effective planning system is absolutely essential to deliver the affordable housing that is required, but the current system is failing people throughout the country. It means that people are not receiving the housing that they need at the time when it is needed.

We welcome the introduction of the Green Paper. The current system is complex and remote. If one asks a local group of tenants, they look at you as if you have come from space. By and large, they do not know much about it and they have little involvement in it. The system should be more open than it is, and we welcome that reference in the Green Paper. We also welcome the reduction of the period for planning consents from five years to three. That will help create an urgency that is not currently obvious in many areas.

It takes longer for rural housing to move from the conception to the final building and occupation by tenants than it does for urban housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford—I nearly said, "My noble friend", because she happens to be a friend—was not quite correct in her reference to our build of rural housing. At the requirement of the Government, it has been doubled in the past few years. We get frustrated because there is money to invest but all too often the planning process takes too long to give local people the housing that they need.

As my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall said, in the little villages—villages with fewer than 3,000 inhabitants—it is often people with a second home there who put forward the most articulate and sophisticated objection to the provision of affordable housing. There are people who do not want to see the location into which they have moved change, even if that change is to the benefit of the children of the villagers who have lived there for so long. We would like to see the system improved.

From our experience, the proposal in the Green Paper for the development of a local framework sounds good. However, it must be absolutely clear. We do not want to see a local framework that involved the people who wished to be involved deal only with the geography of the place. Surely, the framework must include people from the local ethnic communities, who often do not participate, and people from local areas of deprivation. There must be a requirement for their views to he taken into account and included in the framework plan.

Reference was made to the counties and the regions. We have found that, out of sheer necessity, the planning for our investment programme has had to move to sub-regional development. The requirement for sub-regional investment plans has moved from local authority areas not to counties—it might be three counties, as in the North West—but to towns within those counties. We welcome that development.

The Green Paper says that business does not necessarily require planning. That must be clear. Increasingly, over-business accommodation is used as a way to relieve local housing pressures, particularly in urban areas and particularly in the South East. In today's Budget, the VAT payable on residential conversions has been reduced to 5 per cent and there is a 100 per cent tax allowance for the first year for converting vacant spaces above shops into flats. That will be of major assistance.

Planning is crucial not just for housing but for our environment. I hope that we do not miss the opportunity. There may be parts of the Green Paper that people do not like, but I hope that we can carry it through. The Minister has had the courage to bring it forward; we must have the courage and the vision to support those essential changes.

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing this important subject. I thank the Minister for putting a picture of my former constituency on page 26 of the Green Paper; it is rather charming. I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, and I declare an interest as a former chairman and now president of the English Rural Housing Association, which receives funds from the Housing Corporation for those villages of fewer than 3,000 people. I know exactly what the noble Baroness is talking about in that regard.

In the previous Parliament, I was joint chairman of the All-Party Group on Housing, Planning and Lind that included Members of both Houses. It came into being as a reaction to the shock to the political and public weal caused by the announcement of the proposal to build another 4.4 million houses and of the top-down policy of allocation. In that case, there were to be half a million more houses in the South West—my area—over the next 15 years.

I am interested to see the increased interest in planning because, in an earlier incarnation, I had the privilege of being the Minister in the Department of the Environment responsible for planning and Secretary of State for the Environment. I lived through inquiries such as those into the Vale of Belvoir, the second terminal at Gatwick and the Green Giant in London, which some may remember. Eccentrically, I even had to give planning permission for the airport at Mount Pleasant in the Falklands. I also had responsibility for nuclear waste, and even the drilling test programme required planning permission. Given the amount of public interest that that stirred up, I am well aware of the acute interest in planning issues that can suddenly arise and of the problems of accommodating the necessity for democracy in the planning system.

I make the general comment that, when I was a Minister and a Secretary of State, there was a more deferential approach to planning. People used to receive letters saying, "The Secretary of State has decided…", and they believed that he had actually taken the decision, rather than delegating it to an inspector who was using his name. People were more ignorant of the whole structure. I remember meetings in my constituency that had been called to allow people to complain about a proposed development, only to be told that they were three years too late, that it had already been decided under the structural plan and that it had gone forward under the relevant planning procedure. People were frustrated because they did not understand the basis of the planning system.

I recognise the need for improvement in the planning system. There is a need for continuous improvement in the system, as problems arise. I pay tribute to some of the good points in the Green Paper. The proposed changes relating to twin-tracking, repeated application and time-limited consents are sensible. I endorse the proposal for more planning training for councillors. I was on the Nolan Committee, and that was one of the recommendations that we made. I am glad to see that echoed in the Green Paper.

I also agree with the point about the need for more resources for planning, including more planning officers. As the Minister knows, I should also declare an interest as non-executive chairman of ExCeL, the new national exhibition centre in London. That development is associated with several other major developments and is bringing considerable development to one of the most deprived boroughs in London but is posing major planning resource problems for the borough concerned. Perhaps, a deprived borough is used to not having too many planning applications and does not have the resources to cope with the challenge.

I referred to my experience of major inquiries. There is a problem, and I shall echo what my noble friend Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market said. The test of the Government's proposals is in what they mean by new parliamentary procedures. It would be an outrage, given the Government's overwhelming majority, if the proposals were to be carried through by a parliamentary vote under the present whipping system. The noble Lord, Lord Best— perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—referred to the possibility of having a free vote. The parliamentary procedure for this must be thorough and proper. There are precedents for that.

I have had full experience of the democratic deficit. When I left government, I became more involved in planning issues. I referred to the great public interest in the proposal for 4.4 million houses. I made it my business to attend the county structure plan hearing and give evidence and to attend the regional planning guidance hearing and give evidence. I say to the Minister that the department made every possible effort to prevent me from appearing. I was not a statutory consultee, and the fact that I might have been Secretary of State for the Environment was neither here nor there, now that I was out of office. It instances the fact of the impossibility of public involvement in such things if even the Member of Parliament for a constituency in that region and that county—an MP with some previous ministerial responsibility—was not allowed to appear to give evidence at the inquiry.

I achieved my request at the third time of asking. A truth was brought home to me by that matter. I do not think that anyone should hold ministerial office in the environment department unless they have appeared at one of these undertakings. I recommended very strongly that they should do so. Given his legal background, I suspect that the Minister may have been concerned with one or two, but I doubt whether the Secretary of State has ever taken one. I wish that I had done so before I became the Minister responsible for the planning system.

First, I have to say that I am in favour of continual improvement. However, the regions, to which the Government referred, are not all the same. Trying to force the South West to become one region is not wise. The counties are all different. I would urge most strongly that the Government should look at introducing different arrangements for different parts of the country. They should invite different counties to look at how they might want to work together rather than try to impose on them the wartime structure which formed the regions.

Secondly, I do not believe that we should get rid of county structure plans, and certainly not for all those places which still have counties. If they have converted to unitary authorities, then that is another matter. However, at the moment the structure of local government varies in different parts of the country. It would be a great mistake to do away with those plans.

I should like to make one very violent complaint, one which reflects what I object to about some parts of this Government. I refer the House to page 58 of the Green Paper. It states that delegation to officers should be encouraged as far as possible. That is a good idea. However, the second sentence, states:

"To encourage this process we have set for 2002/03 a new target of delegation of 90‥ of decisions to officers, which will be monitored through Best Value".

To nanny local government like that is an outrage and not the way to achieve any improvement.

I should like to make a final point which has been made by other noble Lords. I refer to a mistake that our government made and that the present Government have made. Any form of change is expensive, disruptive and interruptive of the system that is presently operating. Before one makes changes, one has to be jolly certain that they will be worth all the pain and disruption that such changes will bring. Personally, I believe that some of these changes need to be approached in a far more evolutionary way.

My Lords, I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, had won both slots for this debate. The Green Paper properly refers to the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation. One of the criteria in that is the question of feedback. Normally one sees a Green Paper followed by a White Paper, but rumours have been circulating, which I hope that the Minister can scotch, that the Government intend to go straight to legislation on this. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, remarked rather delicately, we need more time to reflect.

Who is planning for? I think that it is for everyone: for the applicant, for those immediately affected and for the whole community, because it is a public service. I was most taken by the analysis put forward by the Council for the Protection of Rural England which points out that we can describe it as "balancing" only if by that we mean integrating the needs and reconciling the differences of all those who have an interest; that is, the whole community and its component parts with their different demands. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made the same point. It is certainly not a matter, for instance, of setting the environment against the economy.

Quality of place matters. I should declare an interest as president of the Town and Country Planning Association. In that role, I chaired some work which looked at the planning system. We called that work, "Your Place And Mine". Each of those four words is significant. Planning takes, or should take, a very positive and proactive role in achieving quality. I think that the Minister shares that view.

However, the system is not delivering perfectly. When I first stood for election 24 years ago, a point made to me on the doorstep was, "I'm OK, but where will my daughter live?". Now those daughters and sons are asking that question for themselves, especially in London and the South East. It is particularly true if they are teachers or work in the health service, if they drive buses or if they do any of the jobs that make our society and our economy function or, indeed, simply if they have a middle income. We have a housing and a labour crisis.

Planning alone will not provide housing that is affordable in any sense of the term but, to be frank, it has not done much to redirect those developers still producing large, executive-style housing rather than more modest homes. I fear that these reforms will not help that process either. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, cited examples of the development difficulties faced by farmers when they need to diversify; that reflects the same issue.

The answer to the question, "Does the Green Paper propose practical frameworks and processes which are necessary to achieve sustainable development?"—I may be wrong, but I believe that I am the first speaker to use that phrase in the course of our debate—is, "I think not". A great deal in it worries me. I believe that many of the current problems could be addressed without the need for wholesale reform, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and other noble Lords. The perception is that reform is being led by the demands of business, but it is notable that that has not been a feature of this debate. The problems of business turn mainly on development control, as is the case in the housing field, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.

We have been told of the financial constraints on local authorities which have led to a loss of planners. The Government's proposed solutions all seem to concern quantity rather than quality, but one of the quantities not referred to is, frankly, the quantity of dosh. I noted the comment made by the County Councils Network estimating that there is a deficit of over 2,000 years'-worth of professional experience and that the proposals contained in the Green Paper will cost £60 million a year. That may or may not be correct, but I am sure that the organisation is right to point to the issue.

Mention has been made of statutory consultees. If they are hit with the costs of response, I think that we should attend to their core funding rather than conferring on them "favoured nation status" as compared, for example, with residents.

Like other noble Lords, I am profoundly unhappy about the proposed levels of delegation. Local authorities should be able to set their own performance indicators, and in their capacity as local planning authorities, they should be able to set their targets in this area as well.

The issue of resources does not affect only the application stage. Yesterday I attended a meeting concerning Heathrow airport. The planning condition on the permission for T5 was mentioned—some 480,000 flights a year. That is a planning condition that would have to be enforced by the local planning authority. Does it have the means to carry out that kind of enforcement?

Remaining on cash issues, I am supportive of moves to ensure pre-application advice, but because I think that the Minister may have misunderstood me when we last debated this issue, I wish to put on the record that that is not to buy fast-track decisions. It is something which should be encouraged but, as I have said, it is not something to be bought.

Appeals and inquiry processes are also sources of frustration. The route to follow must be to build on EIPs in order to improve the procedure. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that what we have at the moment favours deep pockets. When I chaired a development control committee in Richmond-upon-Thames, the most effective speakers were the individuals, not the members of the Bar who used up all their time with unnecessarily flowery language.

That point takes me neatly, although probably not that logically, to major infrastructure proposals. I agree with the analysis that problems would be rather fewer if the policy frameworks were in place. We have seen how inquiries can transform into a policy forum. But I am unhappy with the proposed solution. What applications would be affected? I, too, find the annex to the Green Paper difficult. As I read it, in some cases it addresses itself more to issues of health and safety than what is currently focused on in planning.

However, the overwhelming point to make is that unless and until Parliament becomes more effective in scrutinising the executive, I do not see how this could be adequate. Reference has been made to the issue of whipping, while the daughter paper discusses either a statutory instrument procedure or a power of designation. In practice, speaking as someone who on occasion has to debate statutory instruments, I do rot feel very different. Just how offensive would the detail following a parliamentary decision have to be in order for that decision to be overturned?

I believe that we need a debate on the spot on the big issues as well as the small. It must be accessible to the local community and to the local press, which forms an important part of the process and which locally has an important information role to play.

I have referred to "local"; but that is not to say that there should not be regional procedures—but not until we have elected regional government. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, had to say about this, with the possible exception of his conclusion about where we should go with regard to regional government.

Much has been said about the position of the counties. The integration of land use, transport and resources is one of our goals, but will not removing the counties' structure planning powers but not their role in transport, waste and minerals hinder integration?

While I am referring to one authority which seems to be in danger of being sidelined, perhaps I should comment that another kind of planning authority—the national parks—seems to have been overlooked in much of the Green Paper.

As to community, I have said many times in this Chamber, as have many of your Lordships, that civic engagement, partnership, integration, and local diversity to fit local circumstances are our agenda. So "yes" to what involves community, including through the parishes, although I do not underestimate the difficulty of involving the community in achieving a truly plan-led process.

There are concerns about local development frameworks which are not map-based; they have to be spatial. To answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, different groups in the community will be involved in the proposed relationship between the framework and community statements, which we welcome.

But "no" to business planning zones. The proposals are crude; they do not allow the assessment of needs or merits and, crucially, they exclude the local community.

I plead with the Government to reconsider their opposition to all third party rights of appeal. I acknowledge that there could be difficulties if it were open to anyone to appeal on anything, but the Green Paper identifies limited circumstances in which people might apply, and then dismisses them. I believe that that is because of the difficulties of implementation rather than principle.

I have referred to the perception that this process is being driven by business. To discount all third party rights of appeal would simply confirm that those concerned with the quality of our areas and with the wider environment have a lower status in the Government's eyes. I am sure that that is not really the case.

The Mayor of London has been criticised by the Assembly which I chair for taking planning decisions in private. He explains that, in part, this is because he can get advice which he could not get publicly on how much benefit, for instance, affordable housing—it is not all bad—he can get, although that is not the verb he uses, out of a particular developer. Even he now agrees that there are some circumstances when a local authority determines its own applications which should be subject to third party rights of appeal.

To conclude my speech—but not the debate, which I am sure will continue—town and country planning has its roots in the progressive social movement. The aim now is to harness it to achieve sustainable development, a goal which I fear many of these proposals will not achieve.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a local authority and as a member of its planning committee, on which I sit on a regular basis. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. She has been lucky to draw the ticket for this debate. It has been excellent and has raised a number of important issue. It has demonstrated once again the amount of expertise in your Lordships' House which must at some stage be of benefit to the Minister in his considerations.

From the discussions we have had it is clear that no aspect of planning, its impact, law or regulation can be considered trivial or of no interest or significance to the public, particularly those who are affected by development. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, there are good systems already available. They may need some adjustment but we must be careful that we do not throw out babies with bathwaters. There should not be too great a modernisation. Some areas of the planning laws which have survived since 1947 work well. They may need some minor tiller touching but not major change.

The proposals in the Green Paper will have varying impacts depending on whether they affect major national, commercial or large or small residential developments. There are mixed views about some of the proposed changes—for example, charging for initial planning advice; stopping twin tracking, of which I am much in favour; tightening up the timescales for appeals; the introduction of a planning check list—although, as with other aspects of the proposals, if that were to be introduced I would hope that it is the Government's intention for their model to be advisory and not mandatory, as each local authority area will have its own views on the important aspects that should be included on it.

I was fascinated by the proposal to ensure that local authorities open their planning meetings to the public. I thought that local authority planning committees had been open for at least the past 10 years. If that is not so, what have I been doing masquerading with the public around me for all that time? It is a proper aspiration. If it is not illegal at the moment to have closed meetings, as I thought it was, it is clear that planning committees should be open in the greater part in order that people can hear the discussions and observe what decisions are taken.

The intention to make planning a more attractive career is absolutely essential. Decisions will not be made against a proper background and a proper timescale if we do not recruit and train more planning officers. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, said that the shortage of suitably trained planning officers is one of the major reasons for delays in planning considerations.

That is a bad reason for delays in planning applications, but there are occasionally good ones. I note that it is proposed in the Green Paper to introduce varying timescales for the consideration of planning applications, with perhaps residential applications being shorter and business applications taking longer. It is right that some applications should take a longer time and some a shorter time, but sometimes not to rush a decision and allow consultation, and thereby breach the target time for consideration, can be a very good thing. In such cases, one ends up with a better development than if the application is rushed through in a very restricted time-scale.

One of the great areas of concern about which we have heard from a number of noble Lords—not only today but during the debate on local government some weeks ago—is the exclusion of county councils from involvement in structure plans. My noble friends Lord McGregor and Lord Bowness and a number of Liberal Democrat Peers have expressed their concerns about this. The Green Paper barely gives recognition to the importance of the counties. It merely comments that views would be welcome as to whether counties should have a role in assisting other tiers of local government to prepare their local development framework. That is fairly childish. The county councils have played a major role in planning for many years. If the proposals in the Green Paper go through, all they will be left with is a role in the waste and mineral disposal policies.

The real reason behind this was touched on in the Green Paper—that is, the Government's obsession with introducing regional government. It may be that by the time the Green Paper goes further the Government will have produced their proposals on the subject. But this can only come about as the result of a successful referendum—a matter on which the Government do not have a glorious record of achievement—for a regional assembly. So, even if it were to come about, it is not imminent.

A number of noble Lords have raised this question. There is a great reliance in the Green Paper on regional structures, but democratic regional structures are not there. It must be of concern that the upper layer of regional structures—which at the moment are county councils—might be removed from the system of structural planning and involvement in the local development frameworks in anticipation of legislation which has not yet come about. Does the Minister agree that if the referendum in a region were lost the counties would remain in order that there is some security of structure?

My noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out the importance of the responsibilities of county councils— not only in terms of their present controls over roads, schools and social services, which are important in relation to structure plans, but also in terms of their role in heritage strategies and archaeological matters.

It is inconceivable that regions stretching from Buckinghamshire to the Isle of Wight and from Kent to Hampshire will be able to decide issues for more than the most strategic part of planning and development control. They are far too remote and will be unable to get down to the nitty-gritty. It is clear that all those aspects would be better handled at a more local level.

I now turn to the subject of major developments, which has been discussed at some length. The proposals would seem to return us to the position that pertained in 1992; namely, the public Bills system, which was then abandoned. The proposals are something of a resurrection of what has gone before. There is a general acceptance and understanding that we cannot continue with a situation in which the Terminal 5 inquiry has taken eight years. But that was probably exceptional. In most cases, major developments do not take as long as that.

Real concerns are being expressed, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere, about the involvement of Parliament in such matters. It raises the "what?", "where?" and "why?" questions. What proposals would need to come before Parliament? How would they be decided by Parliament? How could we ensure that Members of Parliament knew the areas with which they were dealing? Where would decisions be taken for Wales and Scotland? Would they be taken in this Parliament or in Wales and Scotland?

Will the Minister explain at what stage consultation would take place? Would it take place after a decision had been taken by government that a development would be undertaken? How, for example, would a decision be taken as to where a power station was sited? Would there be consultation? Would there be a discussion on the criteria required for the development? At what stage would an initial decision to proceed be taken by Parliament? How would the views of the general public be made known to Members who would take those decisions? Would there be a whipping system? Would there he a free vote? How would the Government ensure that those involved in making the decision had the knowledge of and connection with the part of the country concerned? And how long would local communities and local authorities have to assemble and put forward a coherent and well-argued case both before the public inquiry and subsequently—which would be examining only the plans decided upon by Parliament?

All these questions need to be examined. This may be too early a stage, but there will be questions that we shall have to ask, and ask again. Indeed, we shall wait to know at some stage how the EU environmental assessment directive will be taken into account and the time-scales for that.

The voice of local people is an aspect on which the Green Paper waxes lyrical. It is extremely important that local people have a proper right to make their views known on so many issues. There is a great deal in the Green Paper to which I hope we shall return. I ask the Minister to answer the question that has been raised: is the next stage a White Paper—in which case shall we have a chance to comment in this Chamber—or, as has been rumoured, will the Government move directly to legislation?

My Lords, I join with noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing this debate, which she obtained after winning the ballot. It has been extremely constructive. It indicates how important the topic is. The striking point has been the sense that there has not been enough time to debate all the issues.

Perhaps I may deal with a number of preliminary points. First, the Government have indicated their intention to make a policy statement before the Summer Recess about their response to the consultation. That policy statement will come before any legislation.

Secondly, perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, that, in making any change to the system, it is vital that there is clarity about the interim position, in effect to avoid the process of change freezing the making of decisions. We emphatically agree with that point. It is incumbent on the Government to be clear at each stage as to both the interim position and the proposals from that stage onwards, so that local authorities and developers know exactly where they stand. We shall take that point into account.

The noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, raised with great eloquence and passion the matter of flooding. I entirely agree with her about the importance of flooding. She is right to identify the fact that the planning Green Paper does not refer to it. The reason is that the purpose of a Green Paper is not to deal with substantive policies in relation to planning but with how to make the system work better. Plainly, one of the things that the system should do is to deliver substantive policies more effectively, including policies in relation to planning. The noble Baroness will know that last year, in the light of the experience of recent years, the Government issued a guidance note about planning. I hope that she will agree that we have acted on the experience of previous years and have sought to reflect the importance of flooding as a proper and vital consideration in planning.

Perhaps I may make the same point to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in relation to leisure and sport. They are very important in relation to planning, and I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about their importance in regard to regeneration, enterprise and the economy generally. In regard to PPG 17 a draft proposal for change has already been published. In relation to PPG 15 and PPG 16, the planning Green Paper refers to proposals in relation to change. The noble Baroness's points in that respect were much more about substance than about the system, which is what the planning Green Paper is about.

The noble Lord, Lord Lea, made the important point that the planning system is dealing with different sorts of problems. On the one hand, there is the planning application which the local authority will deal with under the normal system; secondly, there is the major infrastructure project—of which there are very few—which we propose should be dealt with in a different way. I shall begin my remarks with reference to the first, more normal sort of application, and then deal separately with major infrastructure projects.

With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I detected broad agreement that change was required. There were disagreements about whether it should be fundamental change or radical change. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the change was not radical enough. Some said that it was too radical. But there was widespread agreement on the need for change, as there was on the basic analysis of the problem in relation to the planning system.

Perhaps I should briefly describe the current planning system. There is national planning guidance, of which there are currently 852 pages. There is regional planning guidance, which is produced by a variety of different bodies throughout the regions. In some places, the process of public consultation works well. We have the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord King, that in others the process does not engage the public. If the MP cannot get in after three attempts, that does not suggest a system that is necessarily engaging the public effectively. Below regional planning guidance there are 74 unitary authorities; and there is a drop from the regional planning guidance straight to the unitary planning guidance. There are 39 structure plan places, 13 of which are produced by counties alone and 26 of which are produced by counties in combination either with a national park authority or with a unitary authority. Below the structure plan level, there should be local plans, which are produced by district. It is a complicated structure, with variable geometry, dependent entirely on the history of local government.

The system was set up in the early 1990s, 10 years after the current plan-led system was put in place. Some 45 local authorities—that is 13 per cent—are still to adopt their first plan and 214 current plans are becoming out of date, with little sign of early review. Under the present system, reviews of regional planning guidance, structure plans and local plans cannot be achieved in less than about 10 years and authorities estimate that one third of all applications are incomplete and 90 per cent of local authorities fail to achieve the target for deciding applications for planning permission.

That is the basic system. It works well in some places, but do not tell me that it is working well everywhere. One interesting aspect of the comments made to me before the planning Green Paper was that everyone, from business to community groups, residents and local authorities, was very keen for change.

Beside that there is the system of planning gain. Clear statements were made that the problem with the current system is the total lack of certainty and clarity. Some local authorities do a first-class job, pitching the planning gain that they should be asking for entirely correctly and getting benefit for their communities, but frequently a local authority does not ask for enough, in which case the community suffers by not getting adequate planning gain, or asks for too much, in which case the development does not go ahead and everybody suffers as a result. It was said that that was a result of the lack of certainty in the planning gain system.

The third strand is major infrastructure projects. Terminal 5 took from the early 1990s until not very long ago to get planning permission. I do not know whether any noble Lords had an opportunity to go to the Terminal 5 inquiry—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did. To say that it was a process of community engagement stretches credulity. There was a period when the residents had an adequate opportunity to put their point of view, but the other seven-and-a-half years or three-and-a-half years, or however long, was taken up with the big deep pockets funding very eloquent QCs to talk to each other about issues of commerce. The current system produces a totally rules-drive process. There are 852 pages of national planning guidance and QCs coming out of your ears in major planning inquiries and public inquiries on local issues or development plans. That system does not empower the local community and promote sustainable development. Instead, the moment a planning application of any significance is made, everybody reaches for the law books and the lawyers.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Hamwee, want to make the situation worse by introducing a third party right of appeal. That would result in an even more legally driven process. We have considered that important issue in detail. Those who support that proposal should consider the experience of Queensland in Australia, which introduced a third party right of appeal to empower third parties. Some years later, in 1997. another Act of Parliament had to be introduced to free local authorities from the consequences of a precedent-driven system, which meant that instead of being allowed to decide what was in the best interests of the communities, local authorities or local communities had to spend all their time perusing the decisions that had been made in the greatly expanded jurisprudence in relation to it.

There is a choice to be made. Do we want a more lawyer-driven process on planning or do we broadly want to simplify the system and free it from the constraints and the rules so that the community can engage more easily? In the planning Green Paper, we have gone for the route of simplification and trying to release the system from the current rules process. We do that by saying first that national planning guidance should be shorter, simpler and more focused. Secondly, the county structure plan tier, which causes room for confusion, should be removed. There should be regional planning and district planning. The district plan will deal with most local development control decisions because it is the one closest to the people who will be most affected. They should make most of the decisions.

In some cases it is plain that the leap from region to district is much too large. Those who have suggested that it is too large in the South West and the South East are plainly right. However, we have to ask whether the county is the right administrative district in which to intermediate between region and district. In some places, it might well be. The obvious example is Cornwall, which is a clear grouping that, for a variety of reasons, stands as a sub-region on its own. However, in the vast majority of cases the county will not be the correct administrative sub-region.

I have had a number of constructive conversations with the LGA and the County Councils Network. When we talk about the benefits of structure planning, the most common examples are based not on individual counties but on sub-regions that cross over county boundaries. For example, Cambridge raises many acute planning issues. The surrounding area is not restricted to Cambridgeshire but includes neighbouring counties. Gatwick Airport is another example that gives rise to a lot of structural and strategic planning issues. Plainly, responsibility for those strategic issues should spread beyond the county boundaries and should not be dealt with by just West Sussex.

The County Councils Network and the LGA have reservations about the proposal but they broadly accept that the time of the structure plan has gone. They propose that the counties should have a very important role in supporting regional and sub-regional planning and in helping to draw up the local development framework. They sensibly take the view that the structure plan is frequently not the best way forward. I do not necessarily agree with all their proposals, but I think that they are sensible to accept that the time for the structure plan has gone and that we now have to look at ways that give effect to the importance of regions in planning, the importance of identifying the sub-region and the importance of capturing the expertise that counties have in contributing to the new planning system.

My Lords, I get the sense that the Minister is continually trying to come back to driving the system into a uniform framework for the whole country. Is there not an argument for diversity and for much greater involvement of local decision-making in seeing what is most appropriate to the area concerned? In passing, I note that it sounded as though we were recreating Avon and Humberside.

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I thought that I was doing precisely what he would wish. I thoroughly support the idea of diverse decision-making. The discussions on the planning Green Paper gave the strong message that different considerations should apply in different regions. Different structures and different policies might well apply. The most obvious example can be seen in relation to housing. The problem in many parts of the North East and North West is low demand and abandonment of housing. The problem in most parts of the South East and South West is entirely the reverse.

We need a regional framework in terms of both policy and the relationship between regional bodies and the bodies below them. We are therefore seeking to deliver that which the noble Lord, Lord King, seeks—the necessary diversity and structures to reflect the problems facing different parts of the country. We are trying to deliver that which he thinks is appropriate.

I move from the basic structure to the planning gain point. The difficulty with a planning gain policy which is applied differentially across the country and leads to uncertainty about outcome is that there will be either delay, lack of gain or a complete choking-off of development. However, I do not accept that the merit system is a tax. Although planning gain itself involves the developer's payment of money or a particular benefit to the community, no one calls that a tax. The merit system is simply a method of seeking to identify what should be paid in a much more certain way.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned a number of developments in the tariff proposal. I do not disagree with any of the reservations he mentioned and I do not think that any of them are inconsistent with anything said in the planning Green Paper. Although it is an important issue which has created considerable controversy, it has made it possible for the community to gain appropriate benefits from sustainable development.

The noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord King, said that there is a critical need to develop proper parliamentary procedure in the consideration of major infrastructure projects. There is no point in my rehearsing the problems with the type of inquiry used in relation to Terminal 5 and Sizewell B. However, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, rightly said, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, among other projects, provides a different precedent.

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was a major planning issue and was supported by the then Conservative government. As I understand it, however, votes on the issue were not whipped and the proposal was approved with considerable majorities. Although it is a matter for Parliament, I do not think that it would be appropriate for parliamentary procedure in relation to such important matters to be whipped. I also agree that it would be wholly inappropriate for such matters to be dealt with in a one-hour debate in each House before they are approved. We need to develop a procedure that allows proper consideration of the issues.

However, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link case seems to establish perfectly satisfactorily that Parliament is both willing and able to deal with the issues involved in such major infrastructure projects. Although those projects are very few and far between, surely it must be better for Parliament to be involved in deciding them than to continue with the current procedure. The current procedure operates as follows. In the case of Terminal 5, for example, an application for planning permission was made to the London borough of Hillingdon, as per usual. Understandably, the application was called in by the Secretary of State. There was then a planning inquiry of the type we have discussed. Thereafter, not only did the Secretary of State not refer the matter to Parliament but, because he had a quasi-judicial role, he had to operate at arm's length when making the decision.

If we can develop a parliamentary procedure that allows both proper consideration of the issues and the community involved to express its view, then the nation's superior democratic body should be able to decide the very few cases—national issues —such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Terminals 4 and 5 and Sizewell B. Our proposals contain such a framework.

There is not, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, agreement on all the details, but we are utterly determined to make the planning system work so that it delivers sustainable development and earns the confidence of the community. We shall certainly listen to what has been said today. I hope that I have explained our basic thought on the issues. I suspect that the devil will be in the detail, but we shall listen carefully to what is being said.

My Lords, may I quickly ask—

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, we really do not have time for interventions.

My Lords—

My Lords, this is a timed debate, and time is up.

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for replying so comprehensively, and in his own inimitable and well-respected fashion, to our debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and expert contributions. I, too, look forward to our continuing discussions on planning. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.

This Bill is intended to test Scottish opinion as to whether the Scottish Parliament is achieving its aims and whether its people believe that Scotland would be better governed from Westminster. I must declare an interest. I am a great supporter of the Union. I am also a resident of Scotland and have been for half of my life, albeit that I was born and brought up in England. All three of my children were born in Scotland.

I love my adopted country, its countryside and its people, but I know that there is a growing consensus that the Scottish Parliament is not fulfilling the role that it was intended to do. Indeed, I have yet to meet anyone from any walk of life who approves of how the Scottish Parliament is conducting its affairs. The large postbag that I have received in support of the Bill's objectives supports this view. Neither must it be forgotten that, since the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, neither House has had any opportunity to look at the success or otherwise of the Scottish Parliament. With that in mind, I believe it appropriate to test Scottish opinion.

I deeply regret that Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is no longer with us as I feel certain that he would feel even more strongly about this Bill. I also regret that the original First Minister, Donald Dewar, is no longer with us either; I believe that he would be horrified at what is going on at the moment. He so eloquently set out the aims of the Scottish Parliament in his opening Address on 13th May 1999:

"We will make mistakes … but we will never lose sight of what brought us here; striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal".

I accept that it is early days, but I believe that none of that vision has been achieved; hence the reason for this Bill.

Few people voted in the referendum or to elect the first Members of the Scottish Parliament. The turnout was under 60 per cent and in some areas as little as 40 per cent. Less than 45 per cent of these said "Yes" to a Scottish Parliament. I believe that voter apathy is one of the most troubling and worrying aspects of modern political life. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I were running a public company with shareholders, we would require at least a 75 per cent majority to approve a change to our constitution. The figures that I have just quoted show that they fall a very long way short.

I am aware that there are many who question what right I may have, as an elected hereditary Peer at Westminster, to introduce such a Bill and at so early a stage in the existence of the Scottish Parliament. I do so because I believe that the Scottish Parliament is like a runaway train without a guard and because I believe that Scotland, once a great nation, would be better governed with greater value for its people, and at a fraction of the cost, than it currently is from Edinburgh. To those who support the continued existence of the Parliament, despite its flagrant defects, I say, "If you are true democrats, you will not deny the Scottish electorate the right to express its wishes".

I would like to point out just some of the costs that are currently faced by the Scottish people. First, the Scottish Parliament building. Several years ago a turnkey project offered the Scottish Parliament a new building at the Port of Leith completed and delivered for £32 million. Coincidentally, my great great grandfather was once the elected Member for Leith. This was to be next door to the Scottish Office on land donated by Forth Ports—I must declare another interest as a very small shareholder in Forth Ports—as a gift to the nation and the building, based on a European regional model, to include press buildings.

The plan was rejected as it was not considered prestigious enough. Many people have asked why the Old Royal Infirmary building could not have been adapted, and at a fraction of the cost of the new building. But the Scottish Executive wanted new premises originally estimated at £40 million. After realising, however, long after the project got under way, what they had ordered was not big enough, this rose to a staggering £280 million. Now, according to the Edinburgh press, MSPs are already quibbling about the quality of the furniture. I am reliably informed that the final bill will end up nearer £500 million; I repeat, £500 million.

On 21st March this year, ignoring massive public opposition, when one poll revealed 99 per cent of voters believed their politicians should not receive any more money, the Scottish Parliament awarded themselves a 13.5 per cent pay rise. One national newspaper ran a headline, "Obscene". Expenses for each Member are now running at around £50,000 a year. Yet only a few months ago, nurses were forced by these same Members to accept a pay rise of just 3.5 per cent. Indeed, the increase in salary that the Scottish Members awarded themselves equates to the annual pay for many public sector workers. My socialist instincts find this offensive in the extreme.

People were dismayed that the last First Minister resigned his office after 10 months in the job with a mammoth pension for life. What message does that send out to the people of Scotland, especially the young?

There are currently 38 NDPBs—"non-departmental public bodies"—to quote a politically correct definition. Most of us know them as "quangos" or "task forces". They lurk, unelected and unaccountable, behind the Scottish Executive. The cost to the people of Scotland?—8,478 people are so employed spending over £2 billion funded by the Scottish taxpayer.

The number of civil servants has also climbed—from 12,873 in 1997 to more than 13,700 today. Staff costs have increased by £18 million. There are now 50 press officers, nearly double the 1997 figure and five times the number of spin doctors than there were two years ago. Publishing glossy books has increased 75 per cent in the last three years to £2.5 million.

During the past year the Scottish Executive managed to spend its way through £236,000 on taxi fares and £586,000 on 22 ministerial cars; another source of great indignation for the people of Scotland. When one considers that the total running costs for the Scottish Parliament for the year ending 31st March was £35.1 million, this represents a very hefty bill for what the comedian Billy Connolly referred to as "a wee pretendy parliament".

Yet only recently The Fraser of Allander Institute issued the warning that Scotland's economy is set to grow at less than half the rate of the United Kingdom in the next year. Is this really what the people of Scotland want? I do not believe that it is. If one of the aims of the Scottish Parliament was to take on some of the responsibilities of local government, surely it would be reasonable to expect a moderation in costs? It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand why, following an 18-month inquiry, council tax band changes have been proposed which will land some house owners with increases of up to 61 per cent.

All kinds of strategies, packages and initiatives have poured forth. Along with legislation that almost beggars belief. For example, the ban on hunting, which was forced through by 83 individuals, some of them not directly elected, most of them completely ignorant of the argument. The worrying reality is that 65 Members can impose any legal measure they want upon the Scottish electorate. This instils a real sense of fear into many people, particularly as there is no revising chamber to carry out any of the necessary checks and balances on the Executive. Where, given this situation, is democracy?

It must not be forgotten that when we were debating the Scotland Act many of us were concerned about the lack of a second chamber and we were assured that the Scottish Executive's committee framework would act as a safeguard. The Rural Affairs Committee recommended that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, was unworkable, yet it has now received Royal Assent. I believe it is appalling that the Executive can so blatantly disregard the recommendations of its committees.

I turn now to the Bill to ban fur farming. What a scandalous waste of time and taxpayers' money to ban an activity that does not even exist in Scotland, and has not, for at least 10 years. Yet the export of live animals for slaughter overseas continues unabated from Scotland, with all the misery and suffering this inflicts on these hapless creatures. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, labelled by many as the "Land Theft Bill", is another vastly unpopular measure, with potentially devastating results on the people and countryside of Scotland. Do we really want to follow in Mr Mugabe's footsteps? I think not.

More than 1 million people voted in a national referendum to keep Section 28—more people than voted for the governing party in the Scottish Parliament. Yet those million people were branded as "bigots" and the Executive arbitrarily went ahead and repealed Section 28, regardless of such strong public feeling.

Many of your Lordships might reasonably ask, "But surely the Parliament must have done something right"? If one were looking for redeeming policies, two possible candidates could be the introduction of free universal care for the elderly and the abolition of tuition fees for students. Unlike the Parliament's other legislation, at least the intention in both measures was good. Alas, the implementation is an empty sham. Care for the elderly will cost at least £125 million a year; after the first two years, the Scottish Executive has no idea where the money will come from. It will be forced to pillage other public services, robbing Peter to pay Paul. As for the so-called abolition of student fees, for the majority of students they have simply been replaced by graduate endowments requiring them to repay £2,000 after graduation when their income reaches the modest threshold of £10,000. Most Scottish students no more enjoy free tuition than people with a mortgage acquire a free house.

So where should the focus and the money be better spent? Surely not on making criminals of parents who smack their children, but on providing police officers, nurses, doctors and teachers. That is what I believe the late Donald Dewar meant when he said,

"striving to do right by the people of Scotland, respecting their priorities".

The problem that all this poses to England is that our Government are committed to introducing more regional assemblies. In fact, eight further regional chambers in each of the English regions are due to be introduced over the next three years. The Government have allocated a budget of £15 million. Given the Scottish experience, I feel confident that noble Lords will agree that this is a very modest sum. Every time that we have an extra layer of government, it is obviously going to cost. Is it right to impose on the people such a form of government that is to be expensively housed, along with all of the added costs of civil servants, taxis, cars, telephones and so on? The idea of £500 million buildings springing up in Newcastle, York and all points south would be appalling and would further alienate the electorate.

This is a very expensive way to finance the "political third eleven" to strut and to preen themselves. That disillusionment is now being expressed by those who are best placed to judge the effects of devolution on Scotland's prosperity—the crucial wealth creators. A survey in the current issue of Scottish Business Insider magazine, conducted among the chief executives and financial directors of 500 of the leading companies in Scotland, shows that almost half believe that the Parliament should be abolished—an increase of 15 per cent in just three months. In the words of a very famous cook and a much-loved Scottish personality, "If it was a recipe, I would throw it out and start again".

When people throw up their arms in despair, asking the question, "What can I do?", the answer is, I believe, contained in the Bill. I know that it will be welcomed by all those who voted "No" for a Scottish Parliament but it will also be much welcomed by many who voted "Yes" as well as by many who did not bother to vote at all.

I also ask those who insist that the Parliament is successful, representative and popular to have the courage of their convictions and empower the people of Scotland to prove that this is the case. If the Parliament is really wanted, then they should welcome a referendum, which would presumably result in a landslide endorsement of devolution. I have made it clear how I would vote; if the majority of Scots feel differently, let them have the opportunity to say so. All that I am attempting to do is to give the Scottish people a voice. I believe that the Bill is a democratic way of doing so.

I hope that your Lordships' House will give the Bill a safe passage.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Palmer.)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made a powerful speech. However, as the evening wears on, he may discover that the Scottish Parliament has some supporters and that the picture is not quite as black as he has portrayed. However, his initiative has two great merits. First, it affords us the opportunity to say something about Scotland, which, in these post-devolution days, is a little difficult to do in the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, it allows us to explore the constitutional value and consequences of holding referendums.

As to the purposes of the Bill, I can say only that if it gets into Committee I will bring forward two amendments. The first will provide for a referendum after five years following enactment, not six months, as the noble Lord proposed. The second will meet the recommendations that are set out in the sixteenth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That will provide for an order to be made under Clause 2(2) to be a statutory instrument—the Bill currently does not contain such a provision. That is a matter for Committee but I give notice now that I shall take those steps if the Bill reaches Committee.

I am in favour of referendums on proposed constitutional changes of importance. It was right to hold a referendum confirming our membership of Europe and on devolution in Scotland and Wales in 1979 and it was right to re-run those referendums in 1997. It will be right to hold a referendum on whether or not we adopt the euro. The Government were right to insist on a referendum in Scotland following the general election in 1997. The Scotland Act was a massive change to the constitution. Billy Connolly said that it was a small parliament; he is clearly something of a comedian but he does not know much about the constitution. How the people are governed and the arrangements for government should, in a mature democracy, be a matter for the people.

I do not believe that we should put non-constitutional issues to a referendum. So far, central government have always confined referendums to constitutional matters. The trigger for referendums is in the hands of governments, and therein lies a weakness. They choose the issues, the questions, the timing and who will he consulted in the referendum. When the five conditions on the euro are deemed to be met, the sixth unwritten condition will kick into place. That sixth condition is, "Can we win?". All governments take that approach, as we know. I am now 64 years of age and I am sure that noble Lords will consider such cynicism very distressing in one so young. Referendums can become "neverendums", as has been the experience in Canada with the Quebec secessionist issues.

Those are our worries about referendums. In an ideal democracy, it would be possible for the people to trigger a constitutional referendum. That could perhaps be founded on a parliamentary petition that was properly constituted and signed by a fixed percentage of electors. However, that is as unlikely as a referendum on an Act of Parliament setting up an elected Upper House. However, that is another matter; I should return to the noble Lord's Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, wants to hold his referendum six months after his Bill is enacted. That is too soon. Likewise, it is too early—and, I believe, inappropriate—for the Constitution Committee of this House to be looking at devolution. Constitutional changes of such a profound nature take time to bed down and there have been many early problems that have taken time to resolve. I believe that five years would be about right, if we were to do that at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is right to make a referendum a statutory requirement and at a fixed time. That has the merit of removing it, to some degree, from the machinations of government.

The Parliament in Scotland has not, I regret to say, proved to be the settled will of the Scottish people. The late and much missed John Smith said that devolution was the settled will of the Scottish people. I believe that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people—he was absolutely right. However, the Parliament that we, in this Parliament, constructed is not the settled will and has settled nothing. For a start, the official opposition—the Scottish National Party does not accept the settlement. It persists in demands for separation. I deplore that, but it is a fact.

Now it happens that the SNP is currently badly led. Mr John Swinney has none of Alec Salmond's political skills. He lacks presence on the political landscape and his judgment is poor. His recent return to a fundamentalist position on separation makes it very unlikely that he will head up the next Scottish Administration. The SNP never wins elections—I suppose that that is the good news—because the Scots are not separatists. However, prudent politicians—"prudent" is today's buzzword—must assume that the official opposition will some day win an election. We must remember that there is no precedent in this country for an official opposition failing to win in perpetuity. An SNP victory in the Scottish elections next year would trigger a referendum on separation and the end of the partnership with Westminster. It would destabilise the whole devolution package.

The new Scottish Parliament has done many good things and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, did not list them. However, some of the things it has done have been unpopular and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned Section 28. I support the reform of Section 28 but I accept what the noble Lord says about the reaction of opinion in Scotland.

We have been faced with much criticism about the huge and escalating cost of the new parliament building. But most worrying of all is the perceived central belt bias in policy making which has contributed to disappointment. The Parliament must learn that there is not one Scotland: there is Highland Scotland, Lowland Scotland, industrial Scotland, Scotland of the Gaels, Scotland of the Northern Isles and Scotland of the new Scots who have settled there. It is a very diverse place and there is much more to it than just the conurbations at either end of the M8 corridor.

We have had problems but I believe that Jack McConnell is the best First Minister we have. Much more than that, he appears to me to have what it takes. He shows firmness in decision-making; his appointments to ministerial office have been well received; and he has a sound grasp of the job, its parameters and its constraints. He is a tough, effective politician whom I supported when as a young man he was appointed General Secretary of the Scottish Labour Party—not an easy job. He proved his worth then and nothing since has caused me to change or revise my judgment.

I do not know where the Bill will go but I do not believe that we will ever see a referendum. However, I believe that if there were to be a referendum the Scottish people would reaffirm their commitment to devolution. At this moment in our national life it has to be given the benefit of the doubt. If we must revisit the issue, it should be some years hence because my argument is that all of this is much too soon.

My Lords, we all owe the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, a huge debt of gratitude in that we can discuss Scotland today. It is odd that here we are in the United Kingdom Parliament, but week in and week out it is impossible to discuss issues relating to Scotland. That is to the detriment of the standing of Parliament. We should have some method of doing so. At least another place has Scottish Questions but I do not know what one can table in this House. Perhaps I could ask the Ministry of Defence why it has removed the military guard from Edinburgh Castle, but I suppose that that might be said to be related to tourism and thus be devolved. That is a pity and I hope that the Minister will believe that there should be a way in which occasionally we can have a Scottish debate in this House. That is why the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is so satisfactory. It has given us an opportunity to speak about Scotland.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, who cut such a fine figure and who was such a successful Lord High Commissioner, that this occasion may be too soon. On the other hand, if we can point the Scottish Parliament in a more productive direction, the sooner we do so, the better. I hope that from tomorrow onwards, the comprehensive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will be prescribed reading for every Member of the Scottish Parliament.

Originally, I was opposed to the Scottish Parliament. I believed in administrative devolution, as was carried out significantly by the Scottish Office for many years, but I felt that it was too soon for a Parliament. However, the referendum having called for a Parliament and the Bill having been passed by both Houses of Parliament, I am in favour of retaining it but making it work more efficiently.

We have had 1,000 days of the Scottish Parliament and I believe that most Scots will say that it has been a sorry disappointment. Therefore, today's debate will be a valuable wake-up call, ensuring that the Members in Edinburgh realise that occasionally other people have a view different from theirs. Indeed, last week the Scotsman published a survey of the top businesses in Scotland. Forty-eight per cent voted to scrap the Scottish Parliament. They believed that it had become another layer of bureaucracy, expensive and lacking leadership. Yesterday's Scotsman contained an interesting article by the Meat and Livestock Commission and farming agencies in general stating that in Scotland it was difficult to run devolved policies relating to agriculture which were different from those in Wales, England and Northern Ireland. It stated that there was not the required degree of co-operation for it to be successful.

We are approaching decisions by Westminster on the composition of the Westminster and Edinburgh Parliaments. The number of Scotland's Westminster Members of Parliament will fall from 72 to 59, as recommended by the Boundary Commission. Each constituency will then have approximately 69,000 people as opposed to the present 54,000. Under the 1998 Act, which was agreed in both Houses, when that happens, the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament will automatically fall from 129 to 106. Our eyes were open and we knew what would happen. If Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish were still with us, he would now be having a field day.

Do not let us automatically believe that the MSPs can retain their 129 Members, which is what they seem to be setting out to do. And do not fool me into thinking that either group—Members of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament—will be overworked. The pre-devolution Westminster MP could manage his work, plus all the difficulties of travelling to and from Scotland. If 72 Members of Parliament could look after Scotland, surely 106 can do so in future.

As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hogg, the pre-legislative consultative committee system set up by the Scottish Parliament has proved disappointing. It has recommended major changes to legislation and opposed the hunting Bill and many changes to land reform legislation, but those sailed through the Scottish Parliament as though the committees did not exist. I believe that the votes were cast as a result of prejudice and not on the merits of the cases. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, I am concerned that we are becoming a central-belt Parliament and not one that represents the whole of Scotland, particularly the rural areas.

In addition, and as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, surely it is not right to increase salaries by 13.5 per cent, even if recommended by an independent body. Politics have to come into Parliament from time to time and politically it was not an astute move to increase to £48,228 Members' salaries when inflation was low—credit to the Government for that. When I came to Parliament many years ago, Members were paid £1,750 and received nothing for secretaries. Now salaries are approaching £100,000 with secretarial allowances. That really is going far too far.

I cannot understand—this is an important point which is discussed at length in Scotland all the time—why, with a Parliament of 129 Members, we need 21 Ministers plus four in London. That is 25 Ministers to run Scotland when pre-devolution and pre-Parliament both the Labour and Conservative parties were running on seven Ministers with no problems at all, plus the travelling difficulties from Scotland to London. It is a tremendous expense involving extra private offices, staff, accommodation, motorcars and so forth. No wonder the people of Scotland blink and say, "How on earth can we in this comparatively small country with a small population afford to have a top-heavy Parliament such as that foisted on us at the present time?".

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, rightly mentioned the cost of the new building—in round figures, people speak of £300 million—for 106 Members and their secretaries. Who was responsible for that? Who oversaw it? Was it Members of the Scottish Parliament? Was it the civil servants? Who in the early days agreed to go down the road of acquiring the most complicated and expensive building imaginable for a small number of Scottish Members of Parliament? Of course we want a prestigious building, and it is in a good part of Edinburgh. But the complicated design and the quality and standard that seems to be required of the furnishings has got totally out of hand. I am astonished and gloomy that the cost eventually has to come out of the block grant at the expense of far more important matters such as health, education and roads.

Of course there are disappointments. I have mentioned roads, and I refer now to the A75 from Stranraer to Carlisle. From the point of view of Northern Ireland we desperately need that road to be of the highest standard for the freightliners that continually run along it. Yet nothing has been done to that road since 1997 that was not in the pipeline at that date. We have got nowhere when it comes to joining up the gap between the M6 at Carlisle and the M6 in Scotland. The gap is around five to seven miles where it is still dual carriageway. Nothing has been done in that regard.

Section 28 was mentioned. That has now gone through Parliament. There has been misuse of the good causes of the Lottery Fund for land purchase. That money was allocated differently before the 1997 election. Chaos in examination results is another issue. But even more serious is the year-by-year increase in local council taxes. They go up far above inflation and the councils say, "We are forced to make such increases by the Scottish Parliament. It makes us do things which we feel are unnecessary". But taxes continue to go up and it is a real strain on those living in Scotland.

I look to my right, rather sadly, at the Liberal Democrats. They went into partnership with the Labour Government when the MSPs won the election for the Scottish Parliament. Yet they have three Ministers who seem to have no influence whatever. Socialist legislation continues to be introduced year after year. We had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would try to reduce socialist legislation and make some impact on Scotland. I do not know what Gladstone or Haldane or some of the other great Liberals would think of the things going on in the Scottish Parliament. What would they have thought of compulsory land purchase in Scotland? What would they think of many of the aspects of the hunting Bill? I know it was a free vote and many Liberal Democrats did not vote for the Bill—indeed they voted against it—but if that party had real influence, that Bill might never have reached the Floor of the House, considering what happened in the pre-legislative committee.

So the Liberal Democrats have a great deal to answer for in not using their influence in the Scottish Parliament. Why do they not stand up to the First Minister and say, "If you will not listen to us, we will vote against you"? The Scottish Parliament would then lose important legislation. They seem to flow like sheep through the Parliament, supporting the socialists year in and year out. I shall be interested to hear from their Front-Bench spokesman as to when they are going to perk up and put a bit of spunk in the Scottish Parliament. When are they going to do some opposing?

The sad part is that the Parliament is going ahead on essential belt-and-braces legislation all the time, and we Scots in the peripheral areas are feeling great dissatisfaction in what is being provided at such enormous cost. If we do not get a referendum—I appreciate the problems of taking a Private Member's Bill through both Houses at this time of year—the best thing the Scottish people can do at the next general election in Scotland is to show how much they disapprove of what they have had so far.

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord finished his speech with an appeal to democracy. Up till then he was rather ignoring it. However, I listened to his criticism of the Liberal Democrats with interest; I did not feel it was entirely unbiased.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is correct when lie says that we had no discussion in this House. But if he wanted discussion surely the way to do that was to table a Question. Perhaps that should have been done earlier. But it is a mistake to put forward immediately a Bill for a referendum.

However, I listened to his impassioned speech. It was a good speech, though I felt it missed out certain factors—many good factors in fact. Certainly there have been snags. But it is astonishing how well this entirely new body has done. It is a great pity that nearly all the senior politicians in all parties chose to stay in Westminster. We could have done with more of them in the Scottish Parliament.

One of the great issues for discussion and criticism is the building. But the fact is that that was arranged by the Westminster Parliament. It was organised by that great body, the Scottish Office, before the Scottish Parliament was elected. That was quite wrong. If it had waited and let the Scottish Parliament decide, we might not have had such a prestigious building, but we would have seen a lot of common sense. They were hung with the thing. Whether they handled it well or badly, the fact is that the project originated with the Secretary of State—the late lamented and much respected Donald Dewar and his department. That has been one of the major focuses of criticism, and rightly so.

The noble Lord, Lord Monro, mentioned the pay rise. That is always a subject of criticism, but when it is recommended by an independent body it is a strong factor, and even the noble Lord admitted that. We cannot criticise it. There had to be an increase in the staff, which can always be criticised. But I do not believe it has been all that bad. The fact is that the Scottish Parliament has worked within its budget. It has not sold us up the river with enormous extravagance. I could continue.

The hunting Bill was mentioned. But let us wait and see what this Parliament makes of that issue in England and Wales. I believe that there will also be great trouble when it comes to putting it into practice. I hope that we can put that right, but it is a fact that many people feel passionately about hunting. I do not feel one way or the other about it. I believe that people should be allowed to hunt if they want to so long as they are not cruel. But many people do not use reason in relation to that subject, and that would apply in our British Parliament as well. Therefore, a whole series of matters can be raised.

Land reform is being discussed much more sensibly. It is true that access to much of the land in Scotland has been removed for many Scottish people, and not by Scots. Therefore, a genuine concern arises in relation to that matter. I, along with the noble Lord next to me, am a countryman and I do not altogether like the urban influence. However, we must admit that Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen contain the majority of the people in Scotland. We must accept that.

I agree that there have been snags, but I also believe that many good things have come about. I hope that noble Lords who have already spoken have been in the Scottish Parliament and have listened to the debates. I attended once or twice and was rather taken with the atmosphere. I considered it to be rather good.

In relation to what the people of Scotland think, of course polls go up and down. The results depend very much on the question that is put to the people. That is especially the case with regard to polls run by the Scotsman, which I would not say was one of the great or valuable newspapers.

But what do people say? I have assembled some of the comments. The National Union of Students of Scotland say:

"In its short existence, the Scottish Parliament has made significant improvements to the well-being of students and has the potential to do even more".

Then there is a very good quotation from Friends of the Earth. As I do not always agree with that organisation, I shall not quote it. The Ramblers' Association speaks rather well of the Scottish Parliament.

Then we go on to more practical bodies. The National Farmers Union says:

"The vital role of Scotland's farmers has been recognised today in the strategy for Scottish agriculture published by the Scottish Executive".

It also says:

"The Scottish Executive through the strategy, is committing itself to a route to a better future for agriculture".

Again, the NFU says:

"For the first time, Government has recognised the vital role of Scottish farmers as being key to a whole range of other businesses and sectors which make up the rural economy".

The Scottish Landowners' Federation says:

"The Executive's agricultural strategy is a welcome review of the priorities and direction of agriculture in post devolution Scotland".

The Scottish Fishermen's Federation—I shall continue for some time yet—says:

"Both Mr Morrison and Mr Smith"—

officials of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—

"declared themselves content with what had been achieved in Brussels, with the chief executive paying tribute to Mr Finnie's 'gritty determination'".

The National Trust,

"welcomed the basic principles of the [Land Reform] Bill. The Chief Executive … said: 'The trust is pleased to see that the access proposals in the bill reflect the recommendations of the Access Forum. The proposed right of responsible access to land and water acknowledges Scotland's long tradition of access to the countryside'".

Turning to newspapers—I once worked for the Scotsman but now do not approve of it so much—the Glasgow Herald said:

"Police numbers are at a historic high, the Drug Enforcement Agency is up and running, and efforts are now in hand to make courts more consumer friendly for witnesses and jurors".

It also said:

"The Scottish Executive's land reform bill … is a radical document".

Then, again for the benefit of my noble neighbour, it said:

"The Lib Dems have played a significant part in producing Scottish solutions for Scottish problems, most notably with the graduate endowment package replacing tuition fees, and free personal and nursing care for the elderly".

The Guardian said:

"The Land Reform Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be drawn up [in Scotland]".

Here, it will please noble Lords, the Daily Telegraph said of land reform:

"A Charter for the most extensive redistribution of land ownership in generations was published yesterday".

I do not know whether the newspaper was signifying approval when it said that.

Then we go to the Sunday Mail and an article by Selina Scott:

"I didn't hear anybody complaining when the Scottish Parliament agreed to pay for free care for Scotland's elderly, despite the fact senior citizens south of the border didn't receive similar payments. Nor has there been an outcry because Holy rood has decided more money should be spent on health in Scotland than the rest of the UK. There hasn't been a squeak about the way Scotland funds student loans which, unlike England, don't have to be repaid until the students have jobs.

These are genuine benefits of the new Parliament and have come about as a direct result of devolution".

There is much more, but I want to quote one specific thing; that is, the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in Scotland. Ross Finnie, the Minister responsible, received great credit for his handling of it. Certainly it was infinitely more competent than the handling of the outbreak in England. It was more competent because Scotland is a good unit. When one looks at Europe and sees the regional governments in Bavaria and elsewhere in Germany all playing a part, the question of a unit which is cohesive is very important. The Scottish Parliament has worked to a large extent. There have been snags, but I consider that this Bill is wholly inappropriate and harmful to a body which is developing reasonably hopefully. That is enough for me because I believe in its purpose.

My Lords, we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing this Bill and for giving us all a chance to air our views, even though they may, as my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld says, go no further. My views have always remained the same, and I am no convert, as my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish claimed to be. Since the union of the Crowns in 1603, with King James VI of Scotland succeeding his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. through his grandmother, Princess Margaret Tudor, who was Elizabeth I's aunt and Henry VIII's eldest sister, we have enjoyed the same monarchy. However, even with a Scottish King in London, things did not go well for Scotland with the separate Parliaments of Edinburgh and Westminster. It may have been fine for England, but it was not so for Scotland, with the South Sea Bubble and economic disasters all round us.

My great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a Member of the Edinburgh Parliament at that time. He spoke of the venality of the Scottish Members of Parliament and of the lack of money to spend on Scotland. He felt very strongly that the only way for Scotland to survive was to have a united Parliament with England. Alas, he died three years before that happened, but his son and grandson went on to become Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. And for nearly 300 years everything worked rather well.

On 17th June 1998 on the Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament Bill, I said:

"The main problems are, of course, financial, because a new parliament, with the appropriate buildings, infrastructure and salaries of the members as well as their supporters, will all cost money".—[Official Report, 17/6/98; col. 1653.]

Many other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Saltoun and Lord Belhaven and Stenton said the same thing.

We have heard from noble Lords about the venality of the Scottish Parliament today, of which my great great great great great grandfather complained 300 years ago. What many noble Lords foretold in the Second Reading debate four years ago—of the expense to Scotland of the whole enterprise—has now come true. Are we any better off for it? A correspondent in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser noted this week that with a closed list representation it was no longer even democratic. He pointed out its failings and thought that the only course might be to throw rotten eggs. That seems to me rather extreme.

The trouble really is the expense, which the rest of us have to support. It is all chiefs and no Indians and tar too many layers of government, each one more expensive than the last. There are the councils, the Scottish Parliament, the Westminster Parliament, and the European Union.

I was delighted last year to visit the Scottish Parliament, and to see it in action. I was most impressed, as I would expect to be, with my noble friend Lord Steel. Otherwise, I found it an interesting and informative experience. The Chamber was hardly more than half full. If it was not a full session, where were all the other members? If it was, do we need another hugely expensive new building, the Scottish Dome.

Although I dislike the word, I fear must admit to being a pragmatist. What I mean is, that in any situation you must start from where you actually arc, and go on from there. What anyway was the point of a Scottish Parliament? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said,

"We are also about building a more decentralised plural society in which real power is dispersed and the political process becomes more accessible to all citizens".

The point of the exercise was therefore to have more devolved local government, getting government back to the people.

Well then, perhaps we should be a bit more devolved still. Perhaps we should cut Scotland in half, north of the Forth and Clyde, leaving the Scottish Parliament where it is. The new £4 billion pound building, with its £400,000 rose gardens and landscaping, would make a splendid new hospital of which we have great need in Scotland.

The rest of Scotland which goes on for quite a long way, could then become Caledonia and the Isles. My late noble friend Lord Thurso and my noble friend Lord Burton and I fought a notable battle to split the enormous unitary local council authority which goes from Inverness to Wick into two more manageable bodies. We pointed out that the whole area was the size of Belgium, and that the roads were not good. We lost, but not I think before I had quoted a story of a fisherman at Kinlochbervie where my husband some years ago had a small netting station. He said that he was thinking of going south for his holidays that year. My husband, knowing how far north Kinlochbervie was, said, "Perhaps you might be thinking of Inverness". "Oh no", he replied shocked, "Not so far south as that".

Caledonia and the Isles could have a small parliament, sitting perhaps in Perth, or Abernethy, or even Dunkeld, all ancient capitals of the kingdom. Members would only be paid expenses, not a salary, which would fall if there was more legislation, and rise when legislation was repealed. Because of this, sessions could be infrequent, and much could be devolved back to the local councils.

We would be supported by a large national lottery, tickets being sold abroad, by all the Scotsmen who live around the world, with our share of the block grant, and revenues from North Sea oil, whisky and tourism. We would also make tax advantages to encourage wealthy people to come and live there, bringing their money with them. We would have the airports of Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee as well as the smaller ones, and a direct continental ferry from Rosyth. It would truly be devolved government with the political process being accessible to all citizens. And it would be much cheaper and possibly more fun.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, quite rightly, spoke of some of the successes of the Scottish Parliament, but I do not believe that even he would deny that it is self-evident that there is considerable disappointment across Scotland at the present time at the way that the eagerly-awaited Parliament has performed so far. However, the remedy proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in this Bill does not appear to me to be a good idea at all. I am one of those who have always believed in devolution but I voted "no" in the original referendum.

Anyone who has been involved in local government at a time of reorganisation knows that, even at that level, it takes a while for a changed system to bed down. Elected members and officials have to learn to operate new roles and, above all, the local public have to find out how to use the new system, individually and collectively, to their advantage. All that takes time and hard work by everyone involved.

The creation in Scotland of an entirely new Parliament, new people elected on a new electoral system and new ways of arriving at the laws within which we live, is a far greater change than any local government reorganisation. Few of the elected MSPs had ever legislated before. The committee system and the relationship of the Executive to Back-Benchers was new and hitherto untried in the United Kingdom. The civil servants were unused to their much more visible and exposed roles. The public and countless nongovernmental groups in Scotland had a totally unfamiliar system to which to relate.

Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that it is still early days for the Scottish Parliament, and that he should be a little more patient. Having said that, damaging and avoidable mistakes are being made. It seems to me that the biggest has been the headlong rush into huge commitments and complex legislation so early in the life of the Parliament.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that it may have been sensible to have delayed the commissioning of the new parliament building until MSPs could assess what site would suit their purpose best, precisely what accommodation was needed and until there was a system of cost control in place. A year or two more in temporary accommodation would have done no harm. The reputation-damaging tenfold rise in the cost would have been avoided.

In beginning to legislate, a gentle start on simple but much needed Bills would have been wise. The Scottish Law Commission had some ready and some were indeed successfully taken in hand. But the huge, complex, and extremely controversial, land reform Bill is a very different matter. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, said that the Liberal Democrats have no influence. The Bill is being taken through by Mr Jim Wallace as lead Minister, the Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister. It contains—I am not speaking about the access provisions—almost Soviet-style compulsory purchase measures. The crofters apart, virtually everyone who works in the rural Highlands is astonished and somewhat horrified—notably of course the ghillies, the gamekeepers, the foresters and the stalkers who see their jobs disappearing, and, to top it, lottery funding is being used to chase them out.

Investment in the development of the rural Highlands is already much reduced. As the compulsory purchase proposals for lowland areas become more fully appreciated, the damage and the anger will increase, particularly, I suspect, in the Borders.

This must be a mistake. A vociferous few may still wail about the Highland clearances of the 17th and the 18th centuries, but modern Scots have plenty of good sense. They know a modern Scotland needs rural as well as urban prosperity and that inward investment matters everywhere.

Instead of rushing into this most damaging and illiberal measure, would Mr Wallace not have done well to wait a while, so that all the implications could be properly considered and a better and less old-fashioned way forward emerge?

I understand that one of the problems of legislating, which may have been a problem in the case of this Bill, is that the Parliament's committees—committees even more important in the Scots system than in the Westminster system—are not working in the consensual way that is required. It seems that the Scottish National Party members find it necessary, for whatever reason, to carry on their opposition role even where it is not appropriate in the Parliament's particular system.

Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, says, we do still live in a democracy. At the end of the day, the people who will cure these ills and bring success to the Parliament are of course the electorate of Scotland. They must resist the fashion of cynicism; they must participate in every way that they can; they must express their wishes; above all, they must watch closely what the political parties and individual MSPs are up to; and at election they must vote accordingly. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, far from promoting this Bill, should encourage that. I suggest that, without delay, he should withdraw the Bill.

My Lords, I should like to say a few words under the auspices of the Bill about some constitutional issues which concern me.

I noticed the first matter when we passed legislation in Westminster that affected devolved matters in Scotland. The way that it was done was rather cunning. We amended the part of a pre-devolution Act that affected Scotland. It was the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. Section 1(3) amends Section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. That is a rather odd thing to do. It is a back-door way of legislating for Scotland. It should not happen. One does not know where one stands. If we arc to have devolution, it should be done properly.

The second matter that worries me is that we should remember that we are still the sovereign Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Parliament ought more properly to be called an assembly, because it has only devolved powers. It can produce primary legislation, but only in certain areas devolved to it, and those powers may be taken hack at any time. It is not a separate, sovereign Parliament. I am concerned when it does things that would not be passed by this sovereign Parliament, because philosophically they are contrary to how we behave in a basically capitalist economy.

I am of course thinking of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, to which several noble Lords have already referred, which is passing through the Scottish Parliament, and the community right to buy, which has just been mentioned, provided in Section 43. Someone told me that that was ridiculous because it was unclear. Section 43(1) states that the community right to buy,

"may be exercised when the owner of the land … is deemed to have given … notice … that a transfer is proposed".

As that is couched in only the vaguest of terms, it could include when someone dies and a transfer of land happens.

Are we in this sovereign Parliament happy that a subsidiary body is passing legislation that will allow communities to expropriate land from the children of perfectly legitimate landowners? Do we really want to go that far? Such matters should be debated at this level rather than there. Tinkering with land tenure is one thing, but compulsory purchase in a new and socialist form is entirely another.

There is then the question of who will pay for all that. Perhaps the lottery will fund some of the initial purchase, but who will continue to run things? Most Scottish estates—the power is bound to be exercised for them in the initial days—run at a huge loss, so there will be a running cost to the Exchequer. At present, the Barnett formula gives about a 20 per cent per capita advantage to Scotland for money raised by taxation. I should imagine that that formula will be quickly revised, because I do not envisage people in England and Wales being happy to fund wonderfully grandiose and expensive schemes in Scotland.

The next thing that worries me is that the procedures are being ignored. A lot of assurances were made about how the unicameral Chamber would operate. Legislation was first to be published in draft for public consultation; there would be pre-legislative committees to scrutinise it; only then would Parliament act like a second Chamber. In other words, it would be more like this House—with less political motivation and more effort to ensure that Bills were correct.

That is not happening at all. It is a highly politicised Chamber that is overruling the findings of pre-legislative scrutiny committees, such as the Rural Affairs Committee in the case of the Watson Bill. That also occurred in relation to some of the provisions of the Land Reform Bill. A good example is that the crofters' right to buy fishing rights contiguous to crofting land was inserted only when it reached the Parliament—it never went out for public consultation. That has environmental consequences because attempts to keep up the river environment and the riparian environment along the rivers are funded by private money. Although Scottish fisheries boards can raise a levy, it does not cover all the work that needs to be done. So there are problems with regard to future funding. Such things have not been properly considered, which worries me.

The trouble is that there are no checks and balances in the Scottish Parliament. As is the case with this Parliament, there is no constitutional court to which to take an issue; nor is there a second Chamber. That is extremely dangerous. We ought to remember that a democratic parliament is not there to force the will of the majority on a minority; it is there to protect the rights of all citizens equally. The majority does not have the right to interfere with a minority just because it is the majority. In fact, very few governments are ever elected by a majority of the electorate. They may have a majority among people who turned out to vote, but not of the total electorate.

I am coming to an end, but I turn briefly to another matter that has been raised. I suspect that the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament will change. At present, there is no home for the centre and centre-right vote, which I am sure will emerge as the true Opposition in the Scottish Parliament, rather than there being two socialist parties fighting it out. That vote exists; but until that happens the position is difficult.

This referendum Bill should not matter, because if the devolution experiment—sorry, devolution—has been so successful, there should be no fear about the result of such a referendum. It should endorse what is happening. I cannot see what is the danger therein. On the other hand, some people may consider such a referendum to be their last chance to hang on to some stability and to retain some of their assets. I suspect that the result of such a referendum might well shock a few people.

My Lords, as we have heard tonight, it is customary to congratulate the noble Lord on securing the debate. However, when I saw the matter listed in the Minutes of Proceedings I did not know whether to laugh or cry. I thought: "Here we go again". However, on reflection I decided that the noble Lord was performing a service because it would give us an opportunity to air some home truths. Indeed, on reading the report in the Herald last Friday, I was amused by his comment:

"My worst nightmare has been that no one will turn up"—

that is, turn up for this debate—

"Then people would say, 'Yes, he really is barking'".

Having since met the noble Lord, I can vouch for the fact that he appears to be quite sane. However, I should warn him that he is straying into dangerous territory. It is certainly not helping those who want to keep the United Kingdom together. The noble Lord says that he has not met anyone who is in favour of the Scottish Parliament. I wonder who he has been talking to—simply, I presume, those who never wanted it in the first place.

Before I continue, perhaps I may answer one or two of the points made earlier. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Monro, complained about the fact that he could not ask any questions about Scotland in this Chamber. That is not true. There are massive reserve powers to this place. The noble Lord could table Questions on the constitution, on defence, on foreign affairs, on electricity, coal, oil, gas, or on nuclear energy, on employment, on financial and economic affairs, and on social security. Indeed, there is a huge gamut of subjects upon which he could ask questions.

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, mentioned the fact that the Chamber in the Scottish Parliament was half full when she paid it a visit. How many times has the Chamber in the other place been less than half full? During my 14 years in the House of Commons there were very few Members of Parliament in the Chamber on many occasions.

The noble Baroness seems also to object to the rose gardens being created around the new building and the cost involved. But how much did the fig trees in Portcullis House cost? I wonder whether anyone complained about them? I give way to the noble Earl.

My Lords, I am most grateful. I wanted to complain about that and table a Question, but I was told that I could not do so because that would be poaching on House of Commons territory.

My Lords, I live and learn. It seems that we are not allowed to poach on House of Commons territory.

The noble Lord, Lord Monro, talked about Liberal Democrats and what little influence they have in the Scottish Parliament. That is absolute nonsense. If we were not engaged in a partnership government, there would be no stability in the Scottish Parliament. What would everyone be saying then? Perhaps, "This is dreadful: the Labour Government trying to rule as a minority party, with things going wrong from day to day and from week to week". We have had an enormous influence on that Parliament. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie pointed out the particular influences that we have had on, for example, student fees, on care for the elderly, on freedom of information, and so on. I give way.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is most kind. However, I disagree with her on the question of whether the Liberal Democrats have the influence that I would have expected of them when they are in such a position of power. The present Labour Government in Scotland could not manage without the support of the Liberal Democrats. I should have thought that they would use their influence to reduce the flow of some of the socialist legislation that we all find so unattractive.

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have done so. Indeed, there could have been much more socialist legislation passing through the Scottish Parliament. However, that is unlikely with a minority government.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, talked about a low turnout in referendums. I should remind him that the House of Commons government is always elected on a minority vote. The people of this country accept that, although it is not particularly democratic.

I think that the noble Lord also complained about the design and the cost of the new building for the Parliament. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie pointed out that that decision was made at Westminster, not by Members of the Scottish Parliament. People go on about how much it costs and say that it is disgraceful that it has cost £300 million—or whatever it is. That building will last for many years and will house Scottish democracy. It will not be a cheap building. Did we ever hear about the overrun in costs for Portcullis House, the British Library or the Dome? Why did we not hear about that?

We did.

We did hear about the Dome? Good.

The salaries of MSPs have been described as obscene. MSPs have a large workload. There is all the constituency work and all the business relating to education, housing, transport and so on. The salaries were decided by an independent pay review body, which recommended that that was what the Members should be paid. I hope that we will remember that it is considerably less than what Westminster MPs are paid. I remember how there were always rows in the other place when we had to vote on salaries recommended by an independent review body.

I looked up the noble Lord's biographical details. I discovered that he had listed hunting, shooting and gardening as his recreations. I wondered whether the Bill had been triggered by his annoyance at the fact that the Scottish Parliament had had the temerity to legislate to ban fox hunting. Will the noble Lord's next logical move be to introduce a Bill for a referendum to abolish the House of Commons when it votes to ban fox hunting later this year, as I am sure that it will? Some would say that that would not be a bad idea.

I am sorry that the noble Lord seems to have joined those in this House and in the other place who, together with parts of the press and media, never wanted the Scottish Parliament in the first place. They routinely denigrate and insult the institution and its Members. They have an anti-devolution and anti-Scottish agenda. Fair criticism is justified, but it should not he offensive, as it has been in the press, in particular.

We do not want to hear gratuitous abuse. We are dubbed, by the London press in particular, "subsidy junkies" and "whingeing Jocks". It all culminated recently in the shameful reporting in the London press of the Scottish women's curling team's success at the Winter Olympics. Incidentally, your Lordships may not have noticed that we have since gone on to win the world championships and the gold medal in North Dakota. None of that has really been reported, but that is understandable: Beckham's metatarsal—his toe—is much more important to this part of the country.

The denigration that has gone on in the press—including the Scottish press—is neither sensible nor helpful. It is extremely damaging. I am not sure what the noble Lord is suggesting—that the Scottish Parliament should be abolished and we return to Westminster, to the old ways? Heaven forbid. If the noble Lord had ever attended Scottish Questions in the other place, he would know that we were allowed only one hour a month to question Scottish Office Ministers on serious matters such as our own health service, our own education service and our own legal system. Those Questions were always a fortnight out of date. It was almost impossible to put distinctive Scottish legislation on to the statute book in any one year.

The noble Lord has also suggested that, according to press reports, things are running out of control. I do not understand what he means by that. Has he visited the Scottish Parliament? On the contrary, at last we have been able to address the real issues. Many Bills have been introduced, of which 30 are now on the statute hook. Noble Lords may not agree with them all, but that is democracy.

The Scottish Parliament has brought legislation close to the people, based on openness, accessibility and the sharing of power. That has been strengthened by the ability of the public to petition the Parliament. Over 300 petitions have been dealt with by the Petitions Committee, instead of disappearing into a bag at the back of the Speaker's Chair, never to be heard of again, as was the case during my time in the other place. If the noble Lord mustered sufficient signatures, he could petition the Scottish Parliament to abolish itself. That would certainly save the cost of holding a referendum.

Perhaps I may briefly remind the noble Lord of what happened in the beginning. The Treaty of Union in 1707 was supposed to be a union of the two Parliaments, but in fact it was a grafting on, an incorporation of the Scottish Parliament into the English one. Scots were to send 16 Peers and 45 Commoners to join the 190 Peers and 513 Commoners already there. The introduction of the Alien Act 1700 and the threat to the cattle and linen trades were the methods used to tighten the screw. Those, together with bribery and corruption both north and south of the Border, ended the Scottish Parliament. As Robert Burns put it in the oft-quoted lines:

"We're bought and sold for English gold, sic a parcel o' rogues in a nation".

Those rogues were in the Scottish nation. A sorry tale indeed.

There was deep anger and opposition to that foolish move, as demonstrated by the arguments in the Scottish Parliament and the riots that took place in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dumfries. If a referendum had been held at the time, the Parliament would not have been lost. From then on it was downhill all the way, at least for a section of the Scottish population, with the deliberate and systematic destruction of an entire people, their culture and language in the Highlands of Scotland gone, never to return.

From that time on, the campaign began for the restoration of the parliament. It became firm Liberal policy. We won the 1979 referendum, subsequently' dismissed by the Thatcher government. Some 25,000 of us marched in Edinburgh in the early 1990s, and at last there was a resounding "Yes, Yes" vote in 1997.

I pay tribute to the Labour Party for having served with us and many other groups for well nigh on seven years in the Constitutional Convention, which resulted in the White Paper and the Scotland Act 1998, brought to Parliament by the late lamented Donald Dewar. I would remind this House that the Tories refused to take part, as did the SNP. To be fair, one or two individual Conservatives and one or two individual SNP members served on the convention, but officially they would not take part and they would not discuss the future of Scotland.

What of the future? I say to the Labour Government, lighten up a little; do not be so timid; allow Scotland to become truly entrepreneurial and the Parliament to be really responsible and accountable. That means having access to all of Scotland's resources. The aim should be to develop the economy to the stage where it does not have to come to London every year for its block grant and we do not have to go through what happens on a yearly basis where everyone complains about what Scotland gets in the block grant.

It means fiscal autonomy. Why, I say to the Labour Government, be so afraid of it? It is nonsense to suggest that it would mean Scotland walking away and becoming independent. It would simply mean economic freedom to use all of our own considerable resources and to remit to London what is due for agreed common UK services. You can look to Spain for examples of that.

I say to the Government think big; think exciting. Go for regional devolution in England. Free up the regions so that they have a real stake in the economic development in each area. Move towards a federal United Kingdom government, even if it means taking on Liberal Democrat policy.

Central government in London is so restrictive, so suffocating, so overpowering. I believe that Pierre Trudeau in relation to Canada and America and Ludovic Kennedy in relation to Scotland and England likened their respective countries to "being in bed with an elephant".

I believe that the rekindling of political interest in the country depends on the decentralisation of power. Indeed, the proper delivery of public services also may well depend on it. The Government have the opportunity and the majority, but do they have the political will to build a new national interest based on honesty, humility and freedom?

I say one final thing: we will never, ever again give up our Scottish Parliament.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing the Bill because, whatever the Bill's fate or the pros and cons of holding a referendum on the continued existence of the Scottish Parliament, he has given the House the opportunity of discussing it, which some of us have been longing to do for some time.

I shall first say a word or two about the Parliament building. When the Scotland Bill was passing through this House, there was a lot of discussion in Scotland as to where the proposed Scottish Parliament building should be. Many people in Scotland were in favour of adapting the old high school—which had been prepared for the Parliament which never materialised in 1979—a very fine traditional building with a fine debating chamber which harmonised with its surroundings. Extra office space and other facilities would have been required, but these would not have presented an insurmountable obstacle. However, the late Donald Dewar, the Secretary of State for Scotland, had other ideas. The reason he gave for not using the old high school was that at the cost of an estimated £40 million to revamp it, it would be too expensive. Other reasonably priced possibilities were also rejected.

So the world was trawled for architects who would compete for the contract to build a new Parliament, as if there were not excellent home-grown architects in Scotland and as if it could ever conceivably have been feasible to buy a site, prepare it, and then build a Parliament for less than £40 million.

The usual public sector "quest for safety" in the choice of design went out of the window in a politically correct rejection of traditional style in favour of the avant-garde design of a Spanish architect—first estimated cost £108 million. As many of your Lordships are aware, the cost had risen to £266 million in March, and that is only what official channels are prepared to admit to. Recent press reports have suggested that £280 million would be nearer the mark, and Mr David Black, an architectural correspondent who has written extensively on the project, has suggested that the final cost may well be around £340 million. Our Parliament does not penny-pinch when it comes to spending on itself, although it could not afford to compensate people put out of work by its Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.

To return to the design of the Parliament, the original design, which did have some cohesion, has been enlarged, so that it is now a conglomeration of buildings of questionable aesthetic appeal. Luckily, it is not up on a hill, but down in a hollow, where the visitor to Edinburgh can avoid seeing it; otherwise it might well join that list of buildings, such as the Chateau Frontenac Hotel in Quebec, the Alhambra Palace Hotel in Granada and the Victor Emmanuel Memorial in Rome, which it is best to be either in or on, because that is the only place from which you cannot see them. That, of course, will not present any problem to the MSPs, who will be cosily holed up inside, with imported oak panelling and so forth.

The Scottish Executive consists of the First Minister, 11 other Ministers and 10 junior Ministers—22 in all. The First Minister gets a salary of £69,000 a year; the 11 other Ministers get £36,000, and the 10 junior Ministers get £22,000. These salaries are on top, of course, of their salaries of £48,000 as MSPs. And of course, there is still the Secretary of State for Scotland at Westminster, and the Solicitor General for Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, asked why it is necessary to have 22—no, 23—Ministers to do the job which was done by five Ministers, plus the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General in the days of the previous government. I dare say Secretaries of State, Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries worked harder in those days. The noble Lord was one, so he should know. Some were friends of mine, and I know that they worked very hard indeed. Perhaps it is right that they should not have to work quite as hard as their predecessors did. But still—a fourfold increase! It is a bit much. I cannot help feeling that quite a few people are doing very nicely thank you at the expense of the Scottish people.

I turn to the size of the Scottish Parliament. Now the question has arisen, as we always knew it would, of the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster being reduced, and the number of MSPs being reduced as well. Views have been sought from various bodies in Scotland on the practicality of this. I am sorry to have to say that the only people who seem to have the common sense to support a reduction are those in the Scottish Conservative Party. From all the others, including the Scottish National Party and an amorphous body called UNISON, we get a chorus of bleating to the effect that the parliament will not be able to do its job properly; it will not be able to man the various committees; family friendly working practices will suffer and so will equal opportunities. It really is pathetic. Equal opportunities should mean what it says, not special mollycoddling for women. At this rate, your Lordships will be expecting to be mollycoddled next! Committee members would have to bear an increased burden. And, horror of horrors, certain subjects could be marginalised. If that means what I think it does, so much the better—because what I think it means is that nasty Nanny Executive would not be able to find time for quite so much unwanted, unnecessary, intrusive and unenforceable legislation—such as the Bill to prevent people smacking their children if they are under three (the children, not the people!), and a great many people in Scotland would be a lot happier.

Let us do a little arithmetic. Reducing the number of MSPs, at £48,000, from 129 to 108 would save £1,008,000 a year. Sacking five Ministers would save £180,000 and sacking five junior Ministers, at £22,000 each, would save another £110,000. That makes £1,300,000, taking no account of their expenses, office space and other hidden costs. I accept that that is not an enormous sum in the total budget, but it would all help.

I return to pre-legislative scrutiny, which the noble Earl, Lord Errol, mentioned. When the Scotland Bill was passing through this House, a good deal of concern was expressed that, with no second chamber, ill-thought-out and half scrutinised legislation would result. We were assured by Ministers that that would not be the case, because all Bills would receive pre-legislative scrutiny in committee and the Parliament would incorporate the committee's amendments into the Bill. Those assurances were not worth the breath that they were spoken with, as the rejection of the scrutiny committee's recommendations on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill has proved. I know that that is the only occasion so far on which that has happened, but it is frightening that it can happen and a very dangerous precedent has been set.

To end with, I do not for one moment believe that the people of Scotland want to give up their Parliament or would dream of voting to do so. However, I believe that many would like a leaner, meaner Parliament that would put the real interests of Scotland first, instead of their own interests and political dogma.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving us the opportunity to debate issues relating to the Scottish Parliament this evening. This is a matter about which I have felt very strongly since my first political awakening when, as a youngster, I used to listen to my father advancing arguments in favour of a devolved parliament in Edinburgh dealing with Scottish matters. Like me subsequently, he had no time for the notion or the nonsense of Scotland becoming an independent state. I have been a supporter of devolved government in Edinburgh for the better part of 45 or 50 years, during times when the idea was politically unpopular, even in my own party, which, in the immediate post-war years, forgot its earlier pro-devolution stance.

It was with huge delight that I saw the outcome of the 1997 referendum, when the Scottish people voted by a majority of almost 75 per cent to approve that there should be a Scottish Parliament. That is an overwhelming majority by any standards.

That parliament came into being less than three years ago, on 1st July 1999. As with any constitutional change of that magnitude, there will inevitably be a settling in period. No doubt assisted by the sterling work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the transition from Westminster to Edinburgh has been without any obvious difficulty. I am of the view that it went very smoothly, with the doubters completely confounded, much as I suspect that the same doubters have been confounded by the successful introduction of the euro across most of the EEC. It is noteworthy that political parties that opposed the referendum and the setting up of a Scottish Parliament now accept that it is here to stay.

I am a little puzzled by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that there is a need for a referendum at this stage on the continuation of the Scottish Parliament. Despite the case that he has put tonight, it is likely that a goodly proportion of my fellow Scots will share my bafflement.

Of course it is inevitable with any parliament or any elected body that there will be those who do not approve of all the outcomes. That is a fairly understandable tenet of democracy. However, not liking outcomes or having unreasonably high expectations unmet does not detract from the fact that the existence of a Scottish Parliament remains a matter of great pride for most Scots. Had there been real public dissatisfaction, I have no doubt that the outcome of the 2001 general election would have been much less one-sided. Equally, I am certain that the Scottish public will demonstrate their continuing engagement next May when the Scottish Parliament comes up for re-election.

For those reasons and many more, many of them as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I cannot really see the point of proposing a further referendum, certainly not a referendum so soon after the setting up of the Parliament. As has been said, it is not a part of the political heritage of this country that we seek to govern by continuing referenda.

I believe that government works best and delivers best when decisions are taken as close to the public as possible. I believe that the "one size fits all" policy is not the best way forward for the countries that make up the UK. The existence of a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Executive enable Scottish Ministers to follow the priorities set by the people of Scotland on devolved matters. I would also argue that there is now adequate ministerial and parliamentary scrutiny of the devolved machinery of government in Scotland. I strongly suspect that, prior to 1999, vast chunks of the old Scottish Office never saw a Minister much less a Member of Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has allowed some 30 or 35 Acts to reach Royal Assent, when it is unlikely that four or five distinctly Scottish Bills could possibly have been dealt with at Westminster since 1999, such is the pressure on UK parliamentary time.

One common criticism is the different outcomes in Scotland from the rest of the UK, for example on tuition fees or on care of the elderly. These different outcomes in Scotland are not anything other than a strength and a vindication of the system, and the system as it was intended to be. I say that despite the fact that I personally may not agree with each and every bit of legislation or every policy of the Executive. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld that there is too much concentration on the central belt. I think that much more attention could be paid to Gaelic culture and the Gaelic language, for example. I also do not agree with the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. As has been said, much more attention should have been paid to the pre-legislative scrutiny. I am an unashamed supporter of the regulation of hunting—the so-called middle way—as evidenced by my voting twice in the past 12 months in your Lordships' House for that course of action.

On the other hand, a very long overdue measure is in hand in the Scottish Parliament—the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Coming from crofting stock, I could hardly other than welcome what will be an important contribution to community empowerment in Scotland's rural areas. As far as I am concerned, Part 3 of that Bill correctly alters the balance of power between the crofting community and the landowner. I believe that that Bill properly represents the view of the majority of Scots and certainly the view of the majority of highlanders.

Until the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned Comrade Mugabe I had not intended to join the vociferous few who the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, thought might talk about the Highland clearances. I respectfully tell the noble Lord that I think he was over-egging the pudding in referring to Mugabe in this context. I believe that those who burned out my forebears in the Highlands of Scotland and Sutherland and drove them to the inhospitable shores of Assynt, to eke out a living, or on to the immigrant ships had much more in common with Mugabe than do the proponents of that Bill.

No parliament will ever satisfy everyone. I can disagree with the outcomes, as clearly does the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, but it would not occur to me that we should hold a referendum to abolish the Edinburgh Parliament because I do not like those outcomes. As a nurse, I do not much like the entirely artificial difference made in this Parliament, for financial reasons, between personal care and nursing care, but I do not want a referendum to abolish this House or another place.

What the people do have the absolute right to do if they do not like the policies or legislation that has been passed is to remove the politicians from power at an election—not to abolish or attack the institution itself. Elections are the best and the only referenda now necessary whether for Edinburgh or for Westminster. Meanwhile, the institution of the Scottish Parliament—a young parliament and a parliament on a learning curve—should have the support of all of us.

My Lords, your Lordships may wonder why an Englishman should come bounding into a debate on Scotland. I can only say that I once was the only Englishman among 17 Welshmen taking part in a debate during the passage of the Welsh Language Act. That was a fairly formidable experience. Therefore, I suppose that if one is the only Englishmen among 13 Scotsmen, one can say that one is, as an engineer would say, "case hardened".

However, I am not sure that I am the only Englishman. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, masquerades as a Scotsman by his first name, but the second part of his name would seem to make him indelibly an Englishman. I have always thought of him as an Englishman. Therefore, I shall be interested to see which way he jumps, as it were, tonight.

I can understand anyone who wants their Parliament to be situated close to them. I do not want to get involved in that argument. I happen not to approve of the idea of devolution. Some 25 years ago I spoke from the Front Bench to oppose the then Labour government's Scottish devolution Bill. However, as I say, I can understand anyone who wants their Parliament to be situated close to their home and I do not want to get involved in that argument.

I wish to make only three points. The first concerns the cost of the new building which has been referred to on many occasions. My noble friend Lord Palmer said that it was estimated to cost £40 million. The figure is now £280 million. Some people say that the figure is expected to be £350 million and others say £500 million. My noble friend Lord Monro asked how the total sum has been allowed to escalate. Who is in charge of any contract or architect? Who approves the additional expenditure? No government department could ever exceed its budget to that extent. I wonder how this situation arose. There must be someone, surely, who says, "That is all right; you can spend another £100 million". Will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, be good enough to tell us about that if I can have his attention for half a minute? I should not wish to interrupt his discussion with his noble friend on the Front Bench. As I said, will he be kind enough to tell us who has the responsibility for saying, "You may spend £100 million and more on this building"? One wonders where all the money comes from, who is responsible for it, and who pays. I assumed that the Scottish Parliament paid, but the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that Westminster pays. Presumably, that means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds the money.

I wondered whether any English money went towards the scheme. I presume that a lot does. It is odd that when anything relates in any way to what might loosely be described as democracy or democratic rights, somehow the money appears. There may be a row for a few days but then the coffers open and the money appears, yet governments find it difficult to find money for schools, railways and nurses. The noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, mentioned Portcullis House and the Dome. I quite agree that those two come almost in the same category; certainly, Portcullis House does as it greatly exceeded the expenditure limits set for it.

Secondly, if that is the experience in Scotland, we do not want to see it repeated ill England. I seem to be referring often to the noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, but she made a lot of comments that stimulated one's interest. She asked the Government not to make the Scots apply every year for block grants. I can understand that, but I also understand that the Scots per capita get more money than do the English per capita. Perhaps the Scots will lose out in that regard.

The noble Baroness then suggested giving the English regional government. As a good Scots lady I cannot see why she wants to interfere in the English set-up. I am merely interfering in this debate because it affects England. We are all part of the United Kingdom and what Scotland does affects England. We do not want in England another layer of government and bureaucracy, with all the expense that that would involve. The eight new regional council buildings proposed for the next three years presumably all have some kind of budget, and presumably all of those budgets will be exceeded. We shall also presumably see what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, described as "third eleven" politicians strutting around preening themselves and trying to justify themselves. In his view that was a good description—and I merely repeat his description. We do not want such an increase in bureaucracy here. I hope that the Government will not import into England the experience of the Scottish Parliament, particularly in relation to the building.

My third point involves the position of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is always the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the middle of all of the hunting hoo-hah that took place about 18 months ago, the Prime Minister went on television and gave the assurance that, once the hunting problem was over, so long as he was Prime Minister, there would be no action taken against shooting or fishing. That was supposed to give a certain amount of comfort to a certain number of people, and I believe that it did. However, the Scottish Parliament need take no notice of that whatever. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, when she was a Minister, whether the Scottish Parliament could introduce a Bill despite the fact that the Prime Minister had said that that would not happen. The answer was that the Scottish Parliament can do whatever it likes. Therefore, any comfort or assurance that the Prime Minister can give cannot affect Scotland. That is terrible. He is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and if he gives such an assurance, it should cover all of the United Kingdom. That is one of the results of this great cavalry charge to get devolution under way, and that is sad.

My Lords, before answering some of the many points that have been raised, I pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Michie and Lord Mackie for their defence of the Scottish Parliament in the face of a fierce onslaught.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, discussed voter apathy. It involves a dangerous mix of contentment and disaffection. However, I believe that an enraged electorate will vote. The noble Lord complained about economic growth. However, economic growth is not set by that Parliament. It may have to live with the fact that economic growth is generated elsewhere. Similarly, I believe that it was the Scottish Parliament rather than the executive that chose to overrule the Rural Development Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, asked about Liberal Democrat Members. I say modestly that they have provided justice, education and rural affairs quite adequately. In particular, Ross Finnie did extremely well in relation to rural affairs. Jim Wallace has done remarkably well on the three occasions so far that he has been acting First Minister.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and my noble friend Lord Mackie raised the experience of new MSPs. We are doing rather well to have progressed to the point at which we have a First Minister who has not been a Westminster MP. That is commendable.

The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, talked about the block grant. The Parliament is being built with the block grant and the people of Scotland will suffer it or enjoy it in that context.

I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, that these Benches supported her in her campaign to halve the Highland council area. It was interesting to hear that two amendments before, Clackmannanshire was an appropriate size for a local authority and that, two amendments later, the Highland council, which is only the size of Wales or Belgium, was also an appropriate size for a Scottish local authority.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on the subject of crofters, perhaps I may point out that this Parliament gave the individual crofter the right to buy his croft at a time of his own choosing. I suggest that the legislation in Part 3 of the land reform Act is progressing on that precedence.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. My point was not whether the crofters should or should not have such a right but that the right to buy adjoining fishings was inserted at a later stage. The proposal was not published for pre-legislative consultation; it was inserted only when the Bill arrived in Parliament. Therefore, the measure did not comply with assurances given about how legislation would be conducted through the Scottish Parliament. My objection relates to the abuse of the procedures; not whether it is the right or wrong measure to take.

My Lords, I suspect that the Parliament must be in charge of its own procedures. Therefore, I do not believe that it is for us to complain too bitterly about how it conducts its business. However, I say to the noble Earl that I suspect few people will want to buy the fishings. After all, it is well known that in the Highlands the most usual sight on a Sunday night is that of the laird's car heading south so that he can earn more money in the City, or in a city, or somewhere else in order to pay for the estate, its maintenance and infrastructure. Therefore, I do not believe that that piece of legislation will be too much of a threat.

As regards the reduction of the number of Members to 106, I say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, that we on these Benches believe that to do that will threaten, first, the committee system; secondly, proportionality; and, thirdly, rural representation.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has found a novel way of getting around the usual self-denying ordinance in this House about discussing the performance of the Scottish Parliament. In theory, the Scottish Parliament is a creature of statute; in practice it is a fact of life. The noble Lord seeks to return to the 1706 settlement. That was not freely negotiated. The Scottish negotiating position was barely considered—and the Duke of Marlborough was in the wings waiting to roll the Scots up and add a Scottish location to Blenheim, Romilly, Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

The 1998 Act adjusted the 1706 settlement. Scotland became a semi-detached part of the United Kingdom and in so doing achieved the benefits of United Kingdom membership and control of its own domestic destiny. Scotland is not just the past; it is the present and the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, complains about the actions and costs of the Scottish Parliament. We must all accept that the Scots need to have a 10-year socialist revolution, which was denied them by the British—or more likely middle England. I believe that the Scots will eventually reject this chauvinism and adopt a more liberal approach, even if they do not vote Liberal Democrat. The United Kingdom is increasingly Scotland's finest achievement and the Scots have certainly not been held back by Scotland's membership of the United Kingdom.

My historic Erskine, Mar and Kellie predecessors over the centuries wrestled with the search for permanent peace with England. For them it was a prize well worth fighting for. For us today, while permanent peace with England is assured, it is right to organise the relationship between the two countries to mutual advantage. With tongue in cheek, I hope that the Scottish public will be kind to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who believes in what lies behind the Bill. Part of me believes that he needs to be protected from being lined up with the historic Lords Seafield, Queensberry, Mar, Loudon, Sutherland, Morton, Wemyss, Levin, Stair, Rosebery, Glasgow, Dupplin and Ross and of course Archibald Campbell, the brother of the Duke of Argyll. He is in danger of becoming the 15th of the Parcel of Rogues and perhaps we need what might be called a "Rabbie Burns" amendment to save him from that fate.

On a more serious note, referendums should be used to confirm what has been building for several years. It was appropriate to hold a referendum in 1997 and indeed in 1979. The resurgence of Scottish national identity had been running since the early 19th century.

Does the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, recognise that the concept behind his referendum would have been more appropriate in 1750 when the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was abolished and the notion of North Britain was possibly at its height? The questions then would have been, "The Scottish Parliament should continue to be adjourned" and "The Scottish Parliament should be reconvened".

The House should delay further consideration of this Bill until your Lordships' Constitution Committee has completed its current inquiry into the early workings of devolution. The Select Committee will be taking evidence in Scotland in May and elsewhere throughout the year. Its findings will be published in the autumn of this year. The House imposed this resurrected and impeccably logical device upon the Government only recently. Such a Motion would find favour with the House. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, may or may not have a lot to thank his noble friend Lord Moran for, with his recent parliamentary procedural archaeology.

The Bill is almost admirable in its provisions. It legislates for two questions which are more fair and less prejudicial than those asked in 1997. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out that an amendment will be required to Clause 2(2) to create a statutory instrument, and we approve of there being a sunset clause.

But there are other questions that the people in Scotland would probably prefer to answer before answering a question about return to direct rule. Such issues would include the need for a second Chamber, the size of the Parliament, fiscal devolution or even separation and independence. I would not recommend any referendum on devolution issues until the current settlement has had the opportunity to bed down for, say, 10 years, and even then only if a sustained groundswell of opinion arose which sought to move away from the 1998 Act in any direction.

There is the somewhat perverse statistical evidence that support for Scottish independence has increased recently in England and decreased in Scotland. Could it be that Scotland's elected politicians have been found to enjoy human frailty? The Scottish parliamentary process will settle down in the future. The difference now is that, while 72 Scottish MPs in Westminster are difficult to identify in a House of more than 650, in Edinburgh they are completely exposed to public scrutiny.

There can be little doubt that we on these Benches support the existence and continuance of a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. We do not believe that there is sufficient long-term groundswell of opinion in Scotland which the proposed referendum could confirm or that sufficient time has elapsed for such to evolve. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will decide not to proceed with further consideration of this Bill, or at least that he will wait for the Constitution Committee's findings after its inquiry into devolution.

My Lords, I reiterate the gratitude that has been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for raising this issue and for using the Bill as a possible way of initiating a debate on Scottish affairs. Through the Bill, the noble Lord is adding another episode to a great Scottish tradition. History provides many cases where the Scots have taken some momentous decisions but where some have then hardly taken the time to turn around once before deciding that it was all completely wrong.

The best known example was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, who spoke about the Union of Parliament in 1707. I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness. I always believed that she would be a strong wielder of the cudgels for the Liberal Democrat Party and she certainly did not disappoint me this evening. She referred to the comments of Robert Burns on the outcome of the Union, when he regretted that Scotland.

"had been bought and sold for English gold".

In fact, that was always the rationale of the whole issue. One would like to think that his evaluation of gold would have recognised the "equivalent" which Scotland received at the time of the Union. It amounted to a substantial increase to the Scottish Treasury at that point. The Union also brought in quite a lot of money over the years that it continued.

I even have to admit to an ancestor who signed and fought for the covenanting forces in 1638 and then changed over and fought for the Royalist cause because he questioned the motives of those who were driving the covenant.

The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, drew our attention to the outcome of the referendum which was held on the question of the Scottish Parliament. The fact that 74.3 per cent of those who bothered to vote were in favour of a devolved legislature means that some politicians, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, have come to call this the "settled will" of the Scottish people. I admit that that is fractionally short of the 75 per cent that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, demanded, but it is not that far away.

The greatest weakness of that result was that it was a pre-legislative referendum, with perhaps the most awkward question—the one about which we have heard most this evening—remaining unanswered; that is, how much it would cost. Perhaps from the Government's point of view, not knowing was an extremely wise position to adopt. We have heard enough today about the projected expense of the Parliament so I think that we can say that we still do not know the answer to that question. The most uncharacteristic thing about the whole issue is that the Scots were prepared to sign a blank cheque and are still considering what the outcome will be.

Perhaps I may mention that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is likely by his action in promoting This Bill to incur the wrath of the godfather of the Scottish Parliament. Noble Lords here may well ask me who that godfather is. Who else but Canon Kenyon Wright? In referring to legislation that was brought up earlier in our debates here, he said that, because the Parliament is less than three years old, under Scottish law it would be illegal to smack it.

There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament has enabled detailed consideration to be given to the issues that are of particular Scottish interest in a way that would never be possible at Westminster. In fact, possibly the biggest shock to the accustomed pace of life in Scotland is how, in spite of the seemingly interminable consultation processes thrown up by the pre-legislative scrutiny committees, the Parliament has passed 38 Acts. In addition, it has graciously passed 32 Sewel Motions on legislation that could be devolved, showing how anxious it is to leave us in Westminster to deal with some of the knotty problems that it comes up against.

The Scottish Conservative Party is committed to making a success of the Scottish Parliament. That means that there is much important work to be done. Devolution requires a new relationship between the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and, in particular, between the Westminster Government and the devolved institutions. The Government have been able to brush these questions under the carpet, relying on the fact that they have a large majority in Westminster and are the dominant party in the two coalitions running both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

For the devolution settlement to be successful, it must be capable of working when different parties are in charge of the different institutions. The Conservatives have continued to raise this aspect of how the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom should develop with the aim of strengthening the Union and ensuring that it is a true partnership.

The difficulty now being experienced in Scotland is that the honeymoon period with the Scottish electorate is over. The trust with which it was initially regarded has been lost by some of the actions of MSPs who appear not to be able to put the interests of the public ahead of their own. Some might like to raise the question of whether that is an insurmountable problem, but it is not in itself a reason to discount the actual institution.

My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour outlined in a measured way where the Scottish Parliament has rushed in and produced legislation that may turn out to be full of problems.

Yesterday I heard an MSP addressing a seminar entitled "The New UK—Learning the lessons of devolution". He was obviously upset by the present tone of the Scottish press who have now picked out as the three major points of concern for the Scottish Parliament: Members' remuneration, building costs and hunting. He regarded their attitude as too simplistic and premature for such a young institution. But criticisms have come not only from the press. The hunting issue has raised great objection from those whom I meet in the agricultural and rural areas.

Even within the Parliament itself there are Members who have decided not to stand again. Perhaps their idea of what they were being asked to do was too rosy and ambitious. It is not so long since one young type attacked the debating skills of some of the female MSPs saying that,

"they displayed a total inability to make an informed and relevant contribution",

and described some of the efforts as an affront to democracy. If that type of language were used in your Lordships' House, it might land the Member concerned in trouble with Standing Order No. 32 on asperity of speech.

One of the honourable Members in another place commenting on the Scottish Members' proposal for equal pay said on Radio Clyde,

"If they want to work the same hours as Westminster MPs and be home after midnight, then fair enough. But don't try to compare themselves with Westminster MPs. It's very much an odds and sods parliament. They've all got to put their arms round one another in order to get a decision".

We come to the next knotty problem about which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, knows more than I do: the change to the number of Members required under the Scotland Act due to the revision of Westminster constituencies by the Boundary Commission. That is an old problem which the Government have wished on themselves. Various noble Lords have mentioned our discussions at the time of the Scotland Act, and will remember the long hours spent (both in Committee and on Report) in trying to get the Government to get to grips with the issue before the legislation was in place, rather than waiting until this late stage to resolve the matter.

A number of Peers have spoken of my noble friend the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. On the first day of the Committee stage, at col. 1337 of Hansard, he argued that if a reduction was envisaged it should be introduced at the outset. However, the then Minister for Scotland had just insisted that,

"After thinking long and hard on these matters, the Government have concluded that the balance of advantage lies with maintaining the link between Westminster and the Scottish parliament constituencies. We gave careful consideration to the arguments advanced for breaking the link, but have concluded that the disadvantages outweigh the possible advantages".—[Official Report, 8/7/98: col. 1336.]

We may have a new Secretary of State for Scotland, but we still have the same Government and it seems a bit rich that, having given that unequivocal assurance to the House, they are now considering changing their mind.

I believe that reducing the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament would be a step in the right direction. I have received notice that the Scottish Conservatives have asked for the implementation of the Scotland Act. Coupling that with their proposal for a reduction in the number of Ministers in the Scottish Executive from 20 to 10 should help to fulfil the proper objective of doing less better. It is probably of interest to the Scottish electorate that they reckon that those two measures would result in savings of over £2 million per annum, which would be enough to employ another 100 nurses or another 80 police officers.

In considering this Bill, I am inclined to follow the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, and to say that this has been a useful chance to air the many arguments that at the moment are flying around in Scotland. Although it is too early to pass judgment on the structure that we have created in Edinburgh, it is not too early to have a chance to express our views.

My Lords, at the outset I should make the Government's position clear. We do not seek to impede the progress of this Bill. We never seek to impede the progress of any Private Member's Bill through this House. However, I must say from the outset that, for reasons which I shall set out, we do not support the Bill. I also should explain the appropriate limits that I have in responding to this debate. Of course I am not responding to the debate; it is the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who is.

The first limitation is that if there are questions about the scope and content of the Bill, it is for the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to answer them and not for me. Interestingly enough, there have been virtually no comments on the contents of the Bill.

Secondly, in so far as the debate has covered the devolved actions of the Scottish Parliament, it would not only be ill-advised but utterly inappropriate for me to comment on anything that has been said. Indeed, if this debate had taken place in the House of Commons, nearly all of it would have been ruled out of order by the Speaker. We have no such clear and effective rules in this House. No one has sought to intervene. But I must say that it would not be well-taken by the Scottish Parliament to have the kind of criticism that has been made of its actions in conformity with the responsibilities given to it by the Westminster Parliament.

The noble Lords, Lord Hogg and Lord Monro, said that the debate gave us an opportunity to discuss Scotland, which is not easily available to us. I thought that that point was well answered by the noble Baroness. Lady Michie, who said that all of the reserved aspects of Scottish public life are still properly to be debated in this House, but the devolved aspects should not be debated and especially not by an unelected Chamber such as this one. Therefore, I shall not be responding to a large part of today's debate.

I therefore turn to my response to the Bill. I say immediately that, much as I have respect and affection for the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, we believe that it would be wholly inappropriate to hold a referendum on whether the Scottish Parliament should continue to exist. It is not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, said, too soon, but it is much too soon. It is not much too soon by a matter of five years but by double or treble that figure. After all, it is only four-and-a-half years since the referendum of September 1997 in which the Scottish people overwhelmingly endorsed the Government's detailed plans for the Scottish Parliament, which was set out in the White Paper. They were almost 75 per cent in favour on a turnout which may not have been wonderful—60 per cent—but it was actually higher than the turnout in the United Kingdom for the last general election.

We must remember that this did not come out of the blue on the basis of the Labour Party's 1997 election manifesto. It was based on the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which had built a wide consensus in Scotland. That in turn was based on pressure which had been building up in Scotland over many years for devolved government. The result, it can justly be said—it was John Smith's phrase—was that devolution was the "settled will of the Scottish people". It is, of course, the biggest constitutional change in Scotland for 300 years. Surely, that is not something that should be tinkered with less than three years after the Scottish Parliament assumed its powers.

I have listened to what has been said about the perceived defects of the Scottish Parliament, but there is not any major party or body of opinion in Scotland that wants to bring the issue of devolution into debate once more. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, confirmed that even those who opposed devolution at the time now accept that their task is to make it work.

If I am told that public opinion in Scotland is turning against the Scottish Parliament, as has been suggested in the debate, I must say that, if anything, the effect has been the other way. The most recent Scottish social attitudes survey found that people wanted more powers for the Scottish Parliament, rather than fewer. Of course, there will always be criticism of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. That is politics and public life. But devolution has made government in Scotland more accessible, more responsible and therefore, inevitably, closer to home and easier to criticise. That is part of the point of devolution.

As I said, it is not my job to defend the Scottish Parliament's conduct in its devolved responsibilities, but it is worth saying—as have some noble Lords—that devolution has belied the fears expressed in this House during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. This House, above all, does not need to be reminded of the importance of careful and considered scrutiny of legislation and of the activities of the executive branch of government. It is often said that the Westminster Parliament in total is inadequate in that respect.

The noble Baroness, Lady Michie, reminded us that in the old days there was little time for specifically Scottish Bills—typically for about two a year during the period before devolution. Admittedly, when there were Scottish Bills, they attracted considerable attention, especially in this House. When I first arrived here, almost 20 years ago, in one session we had two Bills, one a salmon Bill and one an enormously important education Bill. Your Lordships' House gave far more time to the salmon Bill than it was prepared to give to the education Bill.

There has clearly been a backlog of important legislation that the Westminster Parliament was unable to pass which has been tackled by the Scottish Parliament. Since 1st July 1999, 36 Acts have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, and a further three still await Royal Assent. I am not saying that the number of Bills is a positive achievement for any Parliament; I am not saying that the more legislation the better. I am saying that the bottleneck that existed for Scotland's interests has been tackled. The legislative programme has reflected the Scottish Parliament's own policies and priorities in education, transport, housing and other key areas.

Without intervening in devolved matters, it is worth mentioning how the Scottish Parliament has approached legislation. I say that only because it has significant implications for how this House should be doing its business. It is a feature of the Scottish Parliament that Member's Bills and Committee Bills can and do make progress and become law, where they can command support in Parliament. In other words, legislation is not simply a matter of the programme of the governing party.

That is one feature that Members of this Parliament ought to look on with admiration and a touch of envy. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred to it. Not everyone likes the result and Parliament does not always do what the scrutiny committee recommends—if it did, there would not be much point in having a Parliament. But there are lessons that we could learn from the Scottish Parliament: the strength of its committee system; its daytime working hours; its electronic voting at specified times; its serious consideration of public petitions by a full committee of the Parliament; and the level of background information attached to its affirmative statutory instruments—I mention that in the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, as I know that that is something for which he has been pressing for a considerable time. As a result, there is better scrutiny of the Scottish Executive than is the case here in Westminster. We ought not to underestimate that fact.

Very few specific points were raised about government policy in relation to devolution to which I ought to refer. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and other speakers, spoke about the Barnett formula. We take the view that that formula is fair: it is easy to understand; and it is consistent in its application. We have committed ourselves to using it until the year 2004, at any rate, and have no current plans to review it.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, quoted the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about the number of Members in the Scottish Parliament. I noticed the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, during the Committee stage of the legislation. He said that, after careful consideration, the Government had decided that the balance was in favour of those provisions, which, in the end, were included in the Scotland Act. As is well known, we have been consulting on the issue. The consultation process has just come to an end, and the results of that consultation and subsequently our views will be made public. However, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

I should tell the noble Duke, and especially the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who holds strong views on this point, that we are not, in any sense, talking about a blank cheque that the Scottish people have signed. The expenditure of the Scottish Parliament is within a budget that is set. That Parliament has tax-raising powers, which were given to it by the second question in the referendum. However, those tax raising powers have not been used. Such matters have continued to be ruled in Scotland by the Edinburgh Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Scotland Act. I give way.

My Lords, I am much obliged. I should tell the Minister that in no way was I suggesting that the Scottish Parliament was acting outside its remit. When someone states that a project will cost a certain amount of money but it turns out to cost twice as much, I was concerned as to who would be responsible for saying, "Yes, go ahead and do that". Presumably that would not be the Scottish Parliament; it would be the responsibility of an individual.

My Lords, I cannot speculate on who would be responsible within the Scottish Parliament. Of course, the Scottish Parliament is ultimately responsible for the acts of its Ministers and of its Members. Similarly, the Scottish Parliament is ultimately answerable to its own electorate. As the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, made clear in his speech, the one certainty is that English taxpayers are not paying for any overruns of expenditure. I give way.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. When I mentioned a "blank cheque" I did not mean a blank cheque against the Treasury and the British Government. The Scottish public has given the Scottish Executive a blank cheque as to how much of the funds that it receives will go towards the Scottish Parliament.

My Lords, the Scottish public elected the Scottish Parliament, which, in turn, chose its Executive. How the Scottish Parliament spends its money within its budget is a matter of democratic accountability. Those concerned will have to account to their electorate in due course. They form a corporate body: they are collectively responsible. That is what democracy is all about. Indeed, that is true whether it is in Edinburgh, in London, or in Timbuktu.

I hope that I have made it clear that we do not think that it would be appropriate for the Bill to be enacted or for there to be referendum. We respect the views expressed and the level of expertise shown in the debate, but we are of the settled view that devolution has improved the governance not only of Scotland but of the whole of the United Kingdom.

It is, of course, a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, but if he were to feel it appropriate not to press his Motion, the Government would not be wholly disappointed.

My Lords, that was typically courteous of the Minister. I thank him sincerely for the full way in which he summed up what has been a fascinating debate.

One of the most interesting things to come out of the debate is the idea that I am about to introduce a Bill to ban the House of Commons, particularly if it decides to do anything about fox hunting. I had not thought of that; perhaps it would be worth thinking about over a drink in the Bishops' Bar later. It is an idea that would be greatly welcomed throughout the United Kingdom!

My greatest sadness tonight is that I have been unable to persuade my very dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, to leave his greenhouse in Kirkcaldy and come down tonight. I am sure that he would have added great colour to the debate. I am grateful to noble Lords from all parts of the House who have taken part tonight. I do so hope that Holyrood will take note of some of what we have discussed tonight.

I will not deny that to pass the Bill would entail deep consideration, coupled with great courage—two great hallmarks of your Lordships' House. The Bill is, above all, an empowering measure, to secure the free expression of the will of the Scottish people. The leaders of Scotland proclaimed in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320:

"We fight not for glory, nor for wealth, nor honours, but for freedom alone which no good man surrenders but with his life".

I do not know exactly what to do, but, in the light of what the Minister said, I thank again all Members who have taken part and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Second Reading.

Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.