HL Deb 01 July 1998 vol 591 cc764-6

(" . The Assembly may enter such concordats as may be required with a Minister of the Crown or with the officials of such a Minister to ensure that those persons in Wales entitled to receive payments under European Community and national agricultural and environmental schemes are treated no less equitably than persons entitled to receive such payments in England.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows the problems expressed in the previous two amendments, but it itemises a special but very real practical problem. In Committee. I raised the question of what happens when a concordat does not perform satisfactorily. I have tabled this amendment to try to persuade the Government of the need for a better system than has obtained over the past few years in relation to the payment of grants to Welsh farmers. Those farmers have received their subsidies, be it the beef special premium or IACS payments, months later than their English counterparts. Naturally, that has caused resentment, to put it mildly. I do not really care who makes the payments. However, it concerns me that as the problem appears to be the outdated computer in Cardiff, time and money could well be spent on it whereas it might be cheaper and quicker to make use of a computer system that is in use, say, by MAFF. Having said that, I would not wish the regional Welsh agricultural department offices to be closed as they provide a very useful and valued service.

The amendment would oblige the assembly to tackle this long-running problem in any way it thought best. It would impose on the assembly a discipline: to be at least as quick in making payments to Welsh farmers as in making them to English farmers, which has not happened in the past. It would not allow the usual excuse that the Welsh computer was out of date, or whatever.

In short, the amendment would add a little more openness, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It would also add competition which I understand the Government are keen on. I expect the noble Lord will say that this problem is not relevant to the Bill. However, I assure him that it is very relevant to the average Welsh farmer. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord in his concluding sentence. There is a sense of grievance, which I know well, in relation to delays in payments attributable to out-of-date computer systems. However truthful that may be as an explanation, the reason why you are not receiving your cheque on time pales into insignificance compared with the blunt fact that it is not arriving on time. I therefore understand the noble Lord's concern and do not overlook it for a moment. I know from personal conversation that this has been a source of great worry and anxiety to the Secretary of State. One is inheriting a computer system which many would say is simply not up to the work.

The amendment goes much wider than the question of the computer. I had understood the width of his amendment to be that there ought to be a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom even after the devolved assembly takes power.

As the noble Lord said earlier this evening, I wrote to him on 24th June about various issues and put a copy of my letter in the Library. I cannot say that there will not be changes to support arrangements in the future. There are presently allowed variations in the level of support or variable rates for different areas of the United Kingdom. I accept, having heard the refined way in which the noble Lord puts his amendment, that he is focused particularly on a single issue. If that is the purpose behind the amendment, I have dealt with it so far as I can.

I do not believe that this amendment is the way to deal with late payments on a computer system. If the noble Lord wishes me to develop a broader reply, I am happy to do so. Perhaps he will indicate whether he wishes me to develop my sermon or whether I have dealt with the point he made, albeit not satisfactorily to him.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, the noble Lord did not deal satisfactorily with either point. I would rather he dealt with the wider points I raised before supper when the amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell came up.

In relation to the specific concordat point, I am not asking for it to be written in stone, as the Minister suggested. All I am saying is that I hope there will be some openness when things go wrong—they have certainly gone wrong in the past—and it is made clear that it is the assembly's fault, if I may put it that way. Alternatively, I hope that the assembly will be able to do something about putting right these long-running problems that we have in Wales. As I understand it, that would be where the concordat comes in, because there will be a concordat probably between the Welsh assembly and whoever is doing the nitty-gritty work of paying the grants.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I do not believe that a concordat will solve that problem. The noble Lord identified the problem as one of out-of-date computer technology. It seems to me that no concordat will be able to deal with that.

Where the assembly could be influential, however, is in raising the questions put forward by the noble Lord, applying political pressure to the first secretary and, if necessary, instigating a vote of censure or no confidence, subject to the usual standing order arrangements, in the assembly itself. That is the way to deal with late payments. I do not believe that something as specific as late payments—I do not overlook it for one moment—should be the subject of a concordat. I hope I have dealt at least clearly, though I know not entirely to the noble Lord's satisfaction, with this point.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I do not suppose the noble Lord will ever entirely satisfy me. However, the point he made is relevant.

I wanted to establish that, whereas in the past we seemed to be hitting our head against a brick wall and could not get anywhere, he made it clear to me and your Lordships that there will be a case for the assembly when things go wrong to "chase" the first secretary or whoever it is, to make sure that the matter is put right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 43:

After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—