Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.

This instrument delivers changes for a reformed and more accountable Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board that will play an important role in supporting farmers through a time of significant transition. While it marks an end to the AHDB’s levy work in horticulture and potatoes, it also marks an important new beginning for how the AHDB engages with and delivers for other sectors, including cereals, oilseeds, beef, sheep, pork and dairy. It respects the outcome of the ballots in the horticulture and potato sectors to end the AHDB statutory levy in their sectors; it is clear from the ballots and industry feedback that the statutory levy mechanism does not meet the very diverse needs of horticulture and potato businesses and that a different approach is needed going forward.

However, we must recognise that, while the overall result of the horticulture ballot supports an end to the statutory levy—with 61% voting against it continuing—there are a diverse range of views, with some subsectors such as soft fruit, tree fruit and mushrooms voting to keep a levy. I recognise the concerns of those subsectors at losing levy investment in important research and crop protection activities that the AHDB has traditionally funded and delivered. Therefore, while this instrument respects the ballot by repealing the statutory levy provisions, it also ensures that the horticulture and potato sectors can remain in scope of the AHDB order. This means that any parts of the industry that want to continue to work with the AHDB can do so on a voluntary levy or commercial basis in future. This will also enable the AHDB to continue to deliver legacy research and plant protection services to these sectors during a transition period.

I can also assure noble Lords that the Government continue to engage proactively with the horticulture industry to develop alternative industry-led funding models, such as syndicate funding for specific crop research and voluntary levies, that will better suit the diverse needs of the sector going forward.

I also highlight that this instrument marks the beginning of a new direction for the AHDB—an AHDB that is more accountable to levy payers in other sectors, including beef, sheep, pork, dairy, cereals and oilseeds. It delivers a new duty on the AHDB giving levy payers a regular vote on sector priorities. This will ensure that levy payers have more influence over the AHDB’s sector programmes, how much levy will be raised and what it is spent on in future.

The AHDB has been working hard to deliver this already through its “Shape the Future” campaign, where levy payers have recently voted on the priorities they want to see the AHDB deliver over the coming months and years. This could be such things as the work the AHDB does to open new export markets, its consumer marketing campaigns to promote UK produce and defend the industry’s reputation, or the market intelligence it delivers to inform farmers’ decisions. This is a momentous step forward for the organisation and marks a turning point in putting levy payers right at the heart of everything it does.

I also draw your Lordships’ attention to a technical drafting point. As a consequence of removing the horticulture levy provisions, this instrument will broaden the definition of the horticulture industry in the AHDB order. The definition will now include the growing of a wider range of horticulture products by way of business. This will deliver more flexibility in future, as it will enable more businesses in the horticulture sector to work with the AHDB on a voluntary levy or commercial basis if they wish to.

To support this flexibility, this instrument also includes provisions to clarify that the AHDB can charge to cover the costs of any services it may deliver in future to any agriculture or horticulture business in scope of the AHDB order. It also ensures that, where a sector is paying a levy, any additional charges can only be made for the cost of services not already covered by the levy.

In conclusion, these legislative changes sit alongside significant governance and cultural changes which the AHDB has already put in place to deliver a more inclusive, democratic organisation that is in a stronger position to meet the needs of farmers. I hope I have assured noble Lords on the need for this instrument, which establishes a reformed AHDB that will help farmers improve their productivity, reduce carbon emissions, engage in environmental land management and access new markets at home and internationally. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time—and that of his officials—in providing a briefing for this afternoon’s statutory instruments. It is important that those engaged in both the horticulture and potato industries know when the levy that they pay is to be removed, in order that they can plan. I assume that the consultation carried out has provided some indication of timetables.

The levy was first implemented in 2008 under powers in the NERC Act. In January and February, the potato growers triggered a call for a ballot. Only 5% of the membership is required to call a ballot, which seems a very low threshold. In the horticultural sector, there was a 69% turnout and, as the Minister has said, of those who voted, 61% voted to abandon the levy. In the potato sector, there was a 64% turnout, with 66% voting no to continuing with the levy—overwhelming figures. As a result, the Government have abandoned the levy for future years.

However, there is still the issue of how the money accumulated in the past and in future will be spent. A five-yearly vote on how the money is spent seems a long gap between decisions on spending priorities. Are the results of the vote on spending plans monitored against sector planned priorities? Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that levy payers have a say in how the levy is spent. Can the Minister say whether this happens in practice?

With the abolition of the levy, there is a fear that the research and development work of the AHDB will be restricted. However, as the Minister has said, there is an opportunity for the AHDB to charge for services provided. I could not find any reference in the EM or in the statutory instrument itself to the scale of the charges. Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The impact on the public sector is the loss of levy funding for AHDB horticulture and potato services.”


Does this mean that the AHDB will be financially unviable for these sectors, or will the charges they can impose cover the loss of the levy?

There are 10 other sectors covered by this SI within the overarching definition of the horticulture industry—from protected vegetables grown in glasshouses and indoors to trees and saplings in tree and forest nurseries. It is important that research and development continue to provide protection for all categories, especially as many diseases are airborne and difficult to control.

The current levy produces an income of £5.6 million from the potato industry and £5.7 million from horticulture. This is a large sum to be replaced by charges, which appear to be ad hoc but I hope have some rational basis. All other sectors, including pork, beef, dairy and sheep, produce an income of £70 million. At this time of uncertainty in both the EU and other trading markets, it is vital that R&D capacity is not weakened across any sector. There is ongoing consultation with sheep producers on the levy. I look forward to the results of this consultation.

I am encouraged that the Government are listening to industry growers in abolishing the levy for potatoes and horticulture, but I am concerned about the effect on R&D. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance but generally welcome this SI as a step forward.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing beforehand. I should declare an interest through my involvement at the Rothamsted agricultural institute. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we will not oppose this SI. The issue seems to be straightforward, particularly given the democratic ballots that have taken place in the horticulture and potato sectors. However, the fact that these changes have been felt to be necessary raises some wider questions, which I hope the Minister will feel able to address.

First, can the Minister explain when Defra and the AHDB became aware that there was such disillusionment among those sectors under the previous levy regime, and why was no action taken to change the levy system at that time? It seems rather extreme, if I may say so, that the two sectors had to organise themselves to demand a ballot when, had there been ongoing consultations, there might have been a bit more sensitivity to their disillusionment. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about what happened in the run-up to the two groups organising a ballot.

Can the Minister also say something more about the underlying concerns that the sectors had about the levy? Was it just about the cost, or did they feel that they were not getting value for money in a broader sense from the payments that were being made? For example, was there a problem with the quality of the research and advice that they were getting for their money? If so, are we confident that that is now being addressed? And, if that is the case, why were those concerns not addressed at the time that we first became aware of them?

Secondly, as the Minister has explained, arrangements are now being made for the other sectors covered by the levy to have regular ballots, which is to be welcomed. Is he confident that those new consultations will prevent the other sectors from triggering unilateral ballots, now that they have seen the success of the potato and horticultural action? Is he confident that those arrangements are now settled and that people are now happy with the new proposals?

In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the devolved nations also considered a

“proposal to extend the scope of the Order to other agricultural industries on a UK-wide basis”.

Can the Minister explain what is happening with the devolved nations? Are they all doing the same thing at the same time now—in other words, will the AHDB equivalents in the devolved nations all have these regular ballots? Is that what the proposal is? And how does that fit with the proposals before us today?

Thirdly, and most importantly—this echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—what will be the impact of the loss of the levy on the work of the AHDB? Is there a danger that vital research capacity will be lost, which might have a wider impact on future disease control and climate mitigation techniques, for example, as well as investment in better techniques for cultivation in the future? Are there wider implications that the Government should have a concern about rather than just greater productivity? Are we sure that that ongoing research will still be addressed when the levy is no longer here?

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum also makes mention of delivering

“legacy research and plant protection services”

on a transitional basis. That is great, but what will happen when that research comes to an end? Presumably, it was felt to be necessary in the past, so what will be the future of that research and plant protection services? Are we confident that it will still be covered? Otherwise, given the UK’s ambitions for the agriculture sector, we might find that we are losing out if we do not have the research base in the future.

Fourthly and lastly, the EM makes it clear that, as the Minister said, sectors can continue to work with the AHDB on a voluntary or a commercial basis if they wish to. Can the Minister say something more about how that cost basis will be different to the old levy structure? Is there a danger that only the larger producers will pay the levy in the future? In other words, are we in danger of having a two-tier system where the big producers have the money to invest with the AHDB but the smaller producers do not and therefore fall further behind, when we would want to make sure that smaller producers have the research capacity as well? I am just a bit worried about how that cost basis will work.

Food Security: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

It is precisely those people who will be the greatest victims of climate change. In the short term we are working with the World Bank to lever the largest ever financial commitment, $170 billion, to support countries faced with economic hardship, both in the short term as a result of insecurity and the war in Ukraine and in the long term, working with international bodies to address these very problems for the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we are a trading nation and always have been. It is essential to ensure that harmful practices are not offshored, as environmentally degrading practices are making the biodiversity crisis we face worse. In turn, this makes growing crops on much of the planet harder. Can the Minister assure the House that the new trade Bill will not allow the import of goods produced to lower standards than ours? In the long run it would be utterly pointless and self-defeating for us and our allies to do so.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have to make sure that we are not, through our environmental policies, just pushing carbon emissions and biodiversity practices that we do not allow here to other countries. We are part of a global community. Our food supply chains are very complex and we want to manage them with our international relations and make sure that we are protecting our environment at home, continuing to produce good food and playing our part abroad as well.

Ukraine War: UK Food Security

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

No, it will not be for the Government to cap prices. Price-capping policy has been disastrous in the past, but there are other ways to support people on low incomes. The Government are spending many billions of pounds addressing the rise in household costs, and we will continue to do that.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, food security is at risk, and the Government have no target to bolster food security and food chain resilience. They have targets to secure biodiversity and tree planting. In 1984, the UK’s overall food self-sufficiency was 78%, but in 2021, it was down to 60%. Why are there no ambitious statutory targets for self-sufficiency in the UK food sector that would take us back to a more sustainable level?

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse thoroughly the remarks of my noble friends Lord Herbert and Lord Moylan. I congratulate the Minister on entering this whole discussion with great good humour and with a certain amount of patience as well, because we have certainly asked him many questions and put him under quite a lot of pressure, but I hope that at all times we have been courteous to him, too.

My starting point was exactly the same as that of my noble friend. This Bill really was not necessary. If one looks at the raft of legislation in this country that protects and stands up for animals, one sees that it is one of the most effective legal frameworks anywhere in the world. Some of those laws date back to the start of the last century. Flowing from those different Acts of Parliament have been numerous regulations, such as the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations, which are pretty comprehensive.

So the Bill was not necessary, but in the context of realpolitik, I understand why the Government decided that they had to move down this route. The Bill has certainly been improved by the Commons amendments, which I welcome. I once again thank the Minister for what he has done to help improve the Bill substantially from where it was when it started out.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Commons amendments to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. This was a very small Bill which was trailed in the Conservative Party’s manifesto. I am not usually an advocate of following another party’s manifesto, but, on this occasion, it was necessary to bring forward the Bill in this parliamentary Session. I would have wished the Bill to have had more detail in it and perhaps to have had more support from the Government Benches, but to have amended it further would have delayed it, and it could possibly have been lost in the welter of other legislation we are dealing with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to the shortcomings in the Bill, as have others. It is nevertheless long overdue that animal sentience should be recognised in law and on the face of legislation. This Bill fulfils that need.

The Bill, although short, received minor amendments in the other place. The first, to Clause 2, inserts the provision around religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage. It seems sensible that those who have strongly held religious beliefs should be able to have those rites and cultural traditions respected; this is the correct way to proceed. However, insertion of the provision is not necessary, as the Bill already gives the ASC the right to consider non-welfare factors, but we are content to let it stand.

The other amendment made in the other place was to Clause 6. A clause inserted in the Lords prevented any charge being placed on the people—on public funds—but it was removed in the other place. We do not oppose the removal of that amendment and hope that others similarly do not oppose its removal.

Water Companies: Duties and Accountability

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Like any development, it has its opponents locally, and who can do anything but feel sorry for those whose lives are disrupted by it? However, a water reservoir such as that provides not only the benefit of water resources but a massive benefit in terms of well-being, leisure and the environment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, in 2021, the leading water and sewerage utility companies had very high revenues, with Thames Water recording £2.1 billion. Over the last 10 years, water companies have paid out £13.4 billion in dividends and directors’ pay. Given the number of illegal sewage discharges into our streams, waterways and seas, is it not time that the Government insisted that water companies clean up their act immediately and not in the future?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, we are about to embark on the largest investment in water infrastructure that any Government have ever overseen. This is at a cost, but we can delay the impact of that cost on the customer until 2025. After that, the cost, on average, will be about £12.50 on each bill. If people want more to be spent, however, they must understand that this will be reflected in the cost to customers. We have to be absolutely honest with customers: we are going to spend more now and in the coming years, and rightly so, to eliminate the grotesque image that we have all seen of sewage going into our rivers.

Glue Traps (Offences) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her excellent introduction to this Bill. The noble Baroness has a strong reputation on animal welfare and has been a formidable advocate on animal welfare issues for a great many years. She is a force to be reckoned with.

Glue traps are extremely effective at catching small animals and are designed to deal with rodents, such as mice and rats. However, they are an indiscriminate tool and catch everything that is unfortunate enough to pass over their surface, including birds, snakes, hedgehogs, kittens and even, in one case, a parrot. The animals so caught struggle to get free but cannot and suffer a long and painful experience, before death eventually releases them from their agony. While it is desirable to get rid of rodents, this is an inhumane way of doing it.

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to set a glue trap where wild birds may be captured. The RSPCA found, in a survey undertaken in 2015, that 73% of the animals caught in glue traps were species other than rodents. I have not personally had experience of a glue trap. However, glue traps are readily available and members of the public can buy one and set it to catch a rat or a mouse, with no knowledge of what will happen or how to deal with the animals caught in their trap. They are unaware of what will happen to the animal and how to dispatch it humanely or quickly end its misery. Glue traps are not an appropriate mechanism for dealing with either a minor rodent problem or an extensive infestation of rats.

I support the need for a properly trained pest control officer to be able to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State to deal with a specific infestation in a particular location, where another means of pest control would be inappropriate or impossible. This safeguard in exceptional circumstances is essential. The example given in the briefing of a rat in the cockpit of an aeroplane is one such circumstance.

Clause 5(5) lists, in paragraphs (a) to (h), a range of purposes when an inspector may enter premises to make an inspection. These provisions are very wide. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and perhaps the Minister, say why it is necessary to have such a wide range of detailed restrictions for action to be taken? Clause 5(7) says:

“The inspector must, on request, provide a record of anything that is seized under subsection (5)(h) to any person who … has possession or control of the thing seized immediately before its seizure.”


This seems a bit obscure. Can the noble Baroness or the Minister please give a little more detail on what it actually means?

Clause 7 refers to “Offences by bodies corporate” and its subsection (1) to an offence under the Act being

“committed by a body corporate”.

Can the noble Baroness give some indication of what kind of body corporate she is referring to?

Clause 9 refers to several interpretations of what is meant in the Bill. Under “premises”, paragraph (b) refers to

“any tent or movable structure”.

I imagine this might refer to a marquee which has been erected for a fete or a wedding. Can the Minister confirm this, please?

In 2015, a YouGov poll indicated that 68% of the British public agreed that glue traps should be banned in the UK, with only 9% opposed. Since 2015 was seven years ago, is there any more up-to-date information on what the public think about glue traps? Given the general tenor of public opinion on animal welfare, I imagine that this figure may have increased, not decreased.

Lastly, I come to the date of implementation, referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. Why will the offence of setting a glue trap not come into force for two years? I can see no rationale for this, other than that it might take that long for stocks of existing glue traps to be used up. Surely this is unacceptable. To be condemning small animals and rodents to acute suffering during this period is not humane when it could be stopped sooner. The Welsh and Scottish devolved authorities have indicated that they plan to introduce similar legislation, and I welcome this. Given the time lag, if the UK Government are not careful, Wales and Scotland will have their legislation in place before England. Surely the Government can act sooner to end this abhorrent practice.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on bringing forward this legislation and fully support the aim and thrust of the Bill.

Game Birds (Cage Breeding) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for his excellent introduction. It is important to protect the welfare of breeding game birds and the raising of chicks.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, set out the case for this short Bill extremely well. I agree with him that it is time that lead shot was banned, as discussed during the passage of the Agriculture Act. There will, of course, be those who find it abhorrent that chicks are raised to be shot at for the purposes of enjoyment and later to appear on the dinner table. However, the shooting of game is part of the country way of life. In the village from which I take my name, the pheasant shoot was a regular occurrence in season, with people from all walks of life taking part. There will be those who have paid for a gun down to those who are taking part as beaters. The enjoyment of being outdoors, even in inclement weather, is all part of the experience.

I am a country girl—or woman, to be more precise—and accept that there are those who take part in activities which I do not, but I have no wish to curtail their activities. I am only too happy to eat pheasant, partridge and even pigeon. The meat from game birds is extremely healthy, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to, and the birds have enjoyed a previously carefree life. It is therefore important that those birds kept for breeding should have a decent life and should not be raised under battery conditions, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I regret that I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, but I understand that the use of antibiotics should be avoided wherever possible.

The requirement of this short Bill is clearly explained: that the cage used for rearing should be a minimum size of two metres square per bird, so that the bird can move around. It should have nesting material, a scratch pad and a least one perch so that the cage can produce a modicum of reality closer to that which the bird would experience if laying its eggs in the wild.

The conditions in the Bill are not onerous, but I suspect that there will be those game farmers who will consider this to be an added burden and cost on their business and will attempt to avoid compliance. The penalties for not treating breeding game birds properly could be imprisonment of not more than 51 weeks and a hefty fine. I understand that the game breeding fraternity needs some time to adapt to these changes and has been given a year in which to do this. As the game bird shooting seasons are cyclical, this gives gamekeepers plenty of time in which to make adaptations to their breeding and rearing accommodation. The Government indicate that they will be gathering evidence from the sector to inform policy development and will be calling for evidence later this year, and I welcome this commitment to consult.

The welfare of game birds is covered in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. There is also the statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Gamebirds Reared for Sporting Purposes, which offers additional protection and requires that barren cages should not be used for breeding pheasants or partridges. I support the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in his Bill and welcome the additional measures in it to help protect the welfare of game birds.

Veterinary Personnel

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We should all be very grateful to the noble Lord for his involvement in creating the new courses across a number of different universities. I shall certainly take his suggestion away and make sure that, across government, there is an understanding of the very real need to get more veterinary surgeons in this country trained in our universities and functioning in our veterinary profession.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, numbers have fallen sharply, with the number of registered vets from the EU being less than one-third of the expected figure. A large proportion of public health veterinary work was done by vets from European countries. The real problem is not the number of UK students graduating, but the fact that they want to work not in public health but in private clinical practice. What are the Government going to do to rectify that?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Working in an abattoir or assessing the viability of products of animal origin is not necessarily why everyone goes into the veterinary profession, but they are important professions and part of it. We are working with the royal college to make sure that it is a career people want to go into. We are working with the Food Standards Agency, which is now going to recruit 25% of official veterinarians itself, rather than going through a third body, to make sure that we can career-manage them to stay in the profession and prosper in it.

Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

We know—and I make no aspersions towards those who have spoken in questioning this order—that in some areas of the press, genetic modification gives rise to a totally new barmy army of those who are utterly ignorant of the science but latch on to what seems an easy scare topic. This is a serious matter; it is a helpful and serious measure the noble Lord has put before us, and I wish it well.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his excellent introduction, and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on her introduction to the amendment to the Motion. The use of genetically modified crops and plants is an issue which divides people, both those growing crops and the public at large. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is knowledgeable on this subject, having gained an honours degree in agricultural science.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have looked at this SI and found it wanting, as demonstrated by its report. In its response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Defra has claimed that this SI enables

“the bioscience sector to test the benefits and safety of relevant new products ‘without the burden of unnecessary regulatory processes’”.

I am in favour of reducing bureaucratic burden but would expect this to be an open and transparent process. My noble friend Lady Parminter has covered this aspect in detail. The resulting field trials taking place from this SI are not transparent. No one will know where they are taking place. This could be next to a local authority allotment site in a rural area or next to an organic farm where wind-blown seed transference could have a devastating effect on the organic farmer. Given that we have the lowest uptake of organic farming in Europe, this is extremely worrying. We should be encouraging organics, not jeopardising them with secret GM field trials.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to upcoming wider reform but provides no information on what the government plans are for this wider reform. Nor does it provide any guidance which is alleged to come from ACRE shortly. As we have no idea of what the government interpretation of “shortly” is, can the Minister give any indication of when this guidance will be available?

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has indicated that ACRE is not an independent body. The consultation carried out by Defra indicates that the scientific bodies are not overwhelmingly in favour of gene editing. During the passage of the Environment Act, there was discussion on the importance of adopting the precautionary principle. The path we are about to embark on will throw this out of the window and replace the precautionary principle with an ethos of a proof of harm scenario, which is a very different kettle of fish.

Plants grown as a result of this SI are for non-marketing purposes and cannot be marketed without the consent of the Secretary of State. This does not in any way curtail the ability of a Secretary of State to give his or her permission for marketing without any further debate in Parliament. This is a direct bypass of the democratic process which Parliament should carry out.

Defra has indicated that it will move to a self-declaration system following advice from ACRE. Again, this is a concern to organic farmers. Defra says it will be the responsibility of researchers to abide by the law and gain authorisation for GM plants if this material gets into commercial products. Since the sites of trials and subsequent self-declaration systems are unknown, how will organic farmers be able to protect their crops and produce if they do not know where such field trials are taking place? It could be close to their land.

I turn briefly to the devolved Administrations, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have made it clear that they do not wish to pursue equivalent changes in Scotland or Wales. Is this not going to cause confusion across the country as a whole? Perhaps the Minister can comment.

I could go on but, given the hour, I will draw my remarks to a close. During the consultation, 88% of the individuals and 64% of the businesses responding were opposed to this change in the regulations. Given that there are very conflicting views on the efficacy of the science, I am not able to support this SI.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I state my position as a remainer, but there are two things I welcome in coming out of the Common Market. One is the CAP, and this particular—

National Farmers’ Union

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I should explain to the House that this is not as part of ELMS. In addition to the support we are giving through the environmental land management scheme, which is ring-fencing the £2.4 billion to the end of this Parliament, we are seriously encouraging green finance similar to the points made in the Question earlier. That is a responsibility I have in Defra. We are taking the publishing of the Treasury’s green taxonomy extremely seriously and making sure that we are focusing what Minette Batters talked about in her speech—the trillions of pounds floating around in the ESG markets —on nature’s recovery and benefiting farmers’ incomes by getting them access to that green finance.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

The call to increase wages for seasonal workers is causing concern among fruit and vegetable growers. While it is important to pay a decent wage, this will lead to food inflation. Given the increase in fuel prices already heralded and those likely to arise from the invasion of Ukraine, does the Minister believe that this is the right time to put added strain on the growers and increase the cost of food?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I think there is a bit of confusion, which again was pointed out by Minette Batters in her speech, in relation to the minimum basic payment and the amount of hours a week that seasonal agricultural workers will be working. We are working hard to resolve that with the Home Office and I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness with information on that.