Pesticides

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to prohibit the use of pesticides.

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

My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my farming interests as in the register. Our approach to pesticides regulation is underpinned by the precautionary principle. That is why, for example, we supported a ban on the use of certain neonicotinoids to treat crops in 2018. We are also committed to supporting alternative methods to pesticides, having analysed responses to our revised National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides consultation. This proposed plan supports the development of low-toxicity methods, integrated pest management and improved support for users.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. I gave prior notice that this Question was inspired by a study published this month in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science, which was a meta-analysis of nearly 400 studies looking at the impact of pesticides on soil fauna, including earth- worms, beetles and springtails with fungicide impacts being particularly marked. It is obvious that testing regimes have not adequately accounted for these impacts. The Minister referred to the precautionary principle but, given that the Government often acknowledge how important soils are, surely this principle would demand that they set a target of zero pesticide use to protect our soils as a matter of urgency.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I share the noble Baroness’s concern for soils; it is absolutely fundamental to our 25-year environment plan and other policies that we are introducing. I refer her to concerns raised since France attempted a 50% reduction on pesticides in 2008; by 2018, there was actually a 12% increase. We are always wary of targets, but we are looking at implementing them. The most important thing is to look at our proposals for integrated pest management, which sit very comfortably with the need to produce food but to do so safely.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions and Simplifications) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with whom I share an interest in horticultural production—particularly in the interests of public health—which I think needs to be done through agroecological approaches, addressing his concerns about fertiliser use. I do not think he needs to apologise for not being in the House. After all, day after day we hear from the Woolsack that speakers will be treated equally wherever they are, even if that is not 100% accurate.

Again, I welcome the Government’s at least partial delivery of a long-term Green Party policy. In the days of the common agricultural policy, the Green Party called for the CAP to be capped in terms of payments to the largest landowners. For a number of years, our call was for the maximum payment to be £100,000. Once again, the Greens lead and others follow. I hope that this reflects government understanding about the damage done by the extreme concentration of land ownership in England, and the need to democratise it to deliver land reform.

The fact that payments for the largest farms are being reduced by 25% for payments over £150,000 but by only 5% for the smallest farms is a small step in the right direction, at least. However, it is not nearly enough. I want to see payments directed strongly towards the smallest farms, including those that were regarded as “too small” under the previous CAP rules but which are often hugely productive in terms of healthy food, provide good employment and maintain excellent environmental conditions—care for their soil being a particularly obvious imperative for them.

That is not to say that there are not grave concerns about the progress—or lack of it—of government plans for payments to farmers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said earlier at a meeting of the APPG on Agroecology, there is a grave concern that payments under environmental land management schemes may be adequate only to maintain what is being done now, more or less, while there is real concern about the slow pace of the development of these immensely complex schemes.

Since this House last discussed these issues, we have heard initial announcements about the sustainable farming incentive, but I note the words of a Tenant Farmers Association policy adviser to Farmers Weekly that this is

“just the start of a long journey moving away from area-based payments.”

She said:

“There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure SFI becomes a robust and tangible scheme that can be practically implemented for any farming system.”


As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, this is uncharted territory.

We are talking about eight standards to allow farmers to build their own farm agreements for greener landscapes, cleaner air and water, and to guard against the climate emergency and flooding—at three different levels. The complexity of this and the potential difficulty of monitoring delivery look daunting; also, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, farms are often homes too, so there are privacy implications. Indeed, the Minister outlined this in his explanation of the inspection access rules in his introduction to the debate. I appreciate that he may not have time today to talk in detail about the plans for delivery, but we—farmers and communities —need to see the rapid delivery of clarity and hear assurance that this will deliver real progress for our horrendously nature-depleted land, with its poisoned waters and trashed soils.

Another key issue that has been very much at the forefront today is the non-progress of the Environment Bill. I understand the need to hold it in the other place for Prorogation—whether that is really the most efficient way for a constitution to operate is a question for another day—but I heard a concerning comment this morning from a Member of the Government’s party in the other place suggesting that the need to get the Environment Bill in place by COP to avoid international embarrassment meant that your Lordships’ House would have to rush it through and not try to do too much to it. Given the close links between these payment regulations and the operation of the Bill, I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance today that the Government intend that this House, with its large number of expert voices with a strong interest in the issues in the Environment Bill, has proper time to scrutinise it. The Domestic Abuse Bill has demonstrated how much Bills can be improved through such scrutiny. The Environment Bill is even larger in scope and equally crucial in impact.

Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of this SI. I have three brief sets of points to make. Given that the SI is about the management of fertilisers and ammonium nitrate material, an intensely environmental issue, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take a minute to reflect on this morning’s news about the delay of many months to the Environment Bill. My inbox is full of expressions of fury and disbelief. When we are the chair of COP 26, this can be described only as very depressing and embarrassing. There is a huge legislative lacuna, a gaping gap in UK law, and it sends a message about the importance with which the Government regard environmental issues in this hugely nature-depleted, polluted and contaminated land. Work on the Bill began in July 2018. We will potentially go into the biodiversity COP in October without that law, and it may even be a scrape to get it in before COP 26 itself starts.

I have two questions for the Minister, although I understand that he may not be able to answer them now. What will happen with the Office for Environmental Protection and what will happen about giving farmers certainty about applying the fertilisers we are talking about now, in terms of environmental land management schemes? My second question concerns the fact that we are now discussing artificial fertilisers. The Committee may remember my interest in soil science, so I hope Members will give me for venturing a little into that.

There was an old Italian proverb in the 1930s that said that artificial fertiliser was “good for the father and bad for the son”. That was about the environmental damage—the level of soil damage—done by artificial fertilisers. Having just come out of the Oxford Real Farming Conference and heard lots of excellent things about soil, and having seen reports from its companion, the Oxford Farming Conference, there is increasing understanding of the impact of nitrogen fertilisers, not just on the climate emergency—nitrous oxide has 298 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide and stays in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years—but also on soil structure. In healthy soils, with low levels of nitrogen, one sees that microbes do not metabolise carbon compounds but instead excrete them as polymers that act as a glue holding the soil together. Of course, we are seeing, with the floods around the UK now, some of the huge damage that the loss of soils can do, when we do not have that soil structure.

I come to a specific point about this SI, and I follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who, with her customary depth and grasp of detail, asked some detailed and important questions. I particularly pick up the point she raised about paragraph 7.3 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“Manufacturers who currently market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland will need to be established in the EU to continue to market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Northern Ireland”.


This seems to be a pattern we often see, so what advice are the Government giving potential or current manufacturers? Are people being told to take their business out of the UK and to set up in the EU? Have the Government made any assessment of the economic and job impacts in this industry and more broadly?

I want to raise a related point with the Minister; I would be happy to share the source with him later. There is a report from the Belfast News Letter which reflects some of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. It is about peat and it quotes Robin Mercer from the Hillmount Garden Centre, who said that it is

“now illegal to import a plant which contains on its roots any soil or bark-based peat-free compost”,

but legal to import, albeit with lots of paperwork, plants that are contained within peat. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the issues around peat and the need to move away from peat-based compost. Will he look into this and see whether there is any way to ensure that we are not encouraging, through this and other statutory instruments relating to the end of the Brexit transition period, environmental damage through agricultural practices?

Rural Landlords and Land Letting: Reform

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Whips for organising my participation after an administrative snafu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for calling this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. We share many concerns, although on this occasion my perspective is different.

I begin with the observation from Defra’s consultation feedback analysis report that tenancies reform is not adequate to tackle the many ills of our current system. It is treating the symptoms of a disease, not the disease itself, which is our acute concentration of land ownership. A lightning recap: half of the land is owned by 1% of the people; much land ownership is not recorded or publicly available; and the vast majority of people cannot get access to land to grow food. A handful of NGOs, including the Kindling Trust and the Biodynamic Land Trust, go to great lengths to get land for a small percentage of the huge numbers of people who would like to start businesses on it.

Your Lordships’ House is often accused of being medieval, as it sometimes can be, but the very nature of our proceedings demonstrates how fast a change is possible. We need an even larger-scale reform of land ownership and access to land to get us out of the medieval relic that is our 21st-century reality.

I have one specific question for the Minister and one suggestion. In the past, the Government have sought to use policy to achieve consolidation of land ownership. The clear view has been that the increasing size of farms is inevitable and even desirable. That has been hugely destructive to the environment, productivity and public health, with the focus being on grain and oil production rather than vegetables and fruit. It has also led to the hollowing out and ageing of rural communities. Have the Government abandoned this ideological position? Are they looking to increase the number of growers and farmers in the UK, and to reduce the average size of growing and farm businesses? My suggestion is for the Minister to read, or get one of his officials to read, a quite short book: Miraculous Abundance: One Quarter Acre, Two French Farmers, and Enough Food to Feed the World.

Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who has reflected some of our shared interests as a fellow member of the APPG on horticulture. I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction to these statutory instruments. He made clear the complexity of what we are dealing with. It is clear that we are far from the frictionless trade that we were sometimes implausibly promised by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to some of the difficulties being encountered now on the border.

I would like to begin with this question to the Minister. The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations were made on 21 December and laid on 22 December. Can he make it clear how well they have been communicated to small businesses and to academics—the people who have a real interest in this area? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that people understand what is actually going on, if they do not have time to spend their entire day focusing on the fine details of statutory instruments?

I pay tribute Friends of the Earth, which prepared two excellent briefings on these statutory instruments that I relied on quite heavily. I have a question about the use of the negative statutory instrument process. Regulation 2 of the official controls regulations allows regulations to be made on special import conditions on animal and related products, and Regulation 13 gives the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers special powers to make regulations concerning meat and bivalve production by negative statutory instrument. It appears that similar procedures in the European Commission operate in a much more democratic way, so could the Minister comment on how this squares with the taking back control agenda if Parliament has less oversight than we see in Europe?

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to the European Union Reference Laboratory for Animal Proteins in Feedingstuffs. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that there will be continual ongoing skills and knowledge sharing, and that we have a real sense that we are still right up at and contributing to the cutting edge, co-operation obviously being much more useful than competition.

Finally, I come to the plant health amendment regulations 2020. Again, my question relates to transparency and openness. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, both referred to the question of openness in the reporting of the UK plant health risk group’s proceedings—both minutes and agendas, one would hope. The comparable EU body, the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, does this with commendable regularity and openness. Given that all these meetings are, I am sure, now conducted by teleconferencing, as most of us in your Lordships’ House now operate, I see no reason why they should not be broadcast for anyone with an interest. There is, of course, a great deal of interest in issues around plant diseases, invasive species, diseases like Xylella, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, referred to, antibiotic resistance, and the risk of importing it and antibiotic-tainted meat. Has the Minister considered whether the plant health risk group’s meetings could be fully conducted in public by means of Zoom or similar so that they are available to everyone?

Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his outline of this very complex and rather packed schedule for the hour, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I will do my best not to repeat any of her questions, because I will cover some similar ground.

I will start where she left off, with the Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The Minister in his introduction—and the Government right through this whole process—stressed that this is a straight transfer over. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I have relied heavily on the work of Friends of the Earth, which retains significant concerns, having looked at this in great detail.

One specific question that it has raised concerns Regulation 5 of this SI, which deletes Regulation 18 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015, which set out the EU-authorised methods of analysis. Defra has said that this is covered under article 7 of the EU regulation 2019, but that refers to a different EU regulation, so a significant part of Regulation 18 has been omitted. This suggests that there is a disapplication of the requirements within the context, despite claims to the contrary. I appreciate that this is very complex, and if the Minister is unable to respond now, perhaps he might write on this. I would be happy to put it in writing if that would be easier.

Also, Regulation 7(8) omits an update to reference points for action that are set out in retained EU law, in Article 8 of regulation 2019/1871. That refers to things such as chloramphenicol, malachite green and nitro- furans. This appears to be a weakening of the previous intent, so do the Government plan to put in place RPAs on or before 28 November 2022 that are as strong as or stronger than those that will exist up until 31 December?

Finally in this section, I come to Regulation 8(3), which removes references to MRL levels, as previously agreed at EU level and set out in regulation 37/2010, and replaces them with references to regulation 470/2009. It has been suggested that administrative processes will be the way this will be achieved, but it has not been clarified when this will happen, and whether the EU levels will be used as a baseline. Can the Minister set out what the Government’s immediate plans are for setting out relevant MRLs and other restrictions relating to the use of veterinary medicines in food-producing animals, and say whether this process will be complete before the end of the transition period?

I will move on to something that is perhaps a little simpler. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to the issue of pet passports. We know that, certainly before Covid, around 300,000 pets were moving into the UK every year through the pet travel scheme. The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that much will depend on the category of third country that Great Britain falls in after the transition period—which in turn, of course, will depend on what happens in the talks that are still going on, with less than a month to go. On the practicalities, and putting this in everyday language, it may be that, despite Covid, some people are thinking of travelling with their pets over the Christmas period. What advice would the Minister give—what security and certainty can he provide—to people travelling with their pets on the circumstances that will prevail when they return to the UK after 1 January?

Finally, I will move on to the Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations. Here I am again relying heavily on Friends of the Earth, to whom I pay tribute for the huge amount of work it has done on this. Again, we have had reassurances that things are not changing, but there appear to be some very clear changes. For example, Regulation 16 omits Regulation 21 of the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011, covering in particular where a consignment is regarded as a serious threat to animal or human health and the official veterinary surgeon or fish inspector must immediately place the consignment under official detention and order that the person responsible for it should destroy it or arrange for the appropriate treatment. This has now been deleted, which could result in consignments being released from border control posts without detention. Can the Minister clarify whether this change illustrates a difference in government intent regarding the way in which goods that may endanger human or animal health are dealt with at border posts? If not, what future legislative or regulatory changes are planned to deal with this apparent gap?

I will refer also to Regulation 17, which amends Regulation 22 of the TARP regulation, covering situations where products entering the UK have been the subject of serious contraventions of an import requirement, or contraventions that form part of a series, or where checks reveal that maximum residue levels have been exceeded. That regulation states that a person

“must carry out a physical check”—

but it seems that this is now being removed. Perhaps the Minister could clarify in what circumstances it would be acceptable for the appropriate person to refrain from carrying out a physical check on goods suspected of being non-compliant with UK import standards. How do the Government envisage that physical checks will be guaranteed in the light of this legislative change?

I move on to Regulation 29(a) to (d), which deletes references to a number of offences. Will the Minister clarify whether it is the intention that activities such as consigning an animal without a health certificate will no longer be considered offences under the TARP regulation? If so, why is enforcement effectively being abandoned? If this provision is seen to be duplicative of provisions elsewhere in legislation or regulations, can the Minister clarify where they are?

I had a question about equine health certificates, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, covered, so I will skip that. I now come to Regulation 40(4), which amends Commission decision 2000/572. I will boil this down, as I am aware of the time. This is all about EU forms. Do the Government intend to replicate EU forms, are they in the process of developing new forms, and how will they ensure ongoing consistency in this area?

I have two final points. The first is on official controls on composite products at the border. This refers to Regulation 49, which adds a new article 3. Will the Minister clarify whether future UK controls on composite products at the border will cover these products, as set out in the annexes of Commission decision 2007/275? Will a complete list be published by the end of the transition period? If not, do the Government expect to be able to clarify which composite products will be subject to controls at the border?

Finally—noble Lords will probably be pleased to hear—I come to Regulation 53(26)(a)(i)(bb), which amends annexe 8 of the Commission’s regulation that refers to poultry and eggs sourced from establishments with conditions

“as strict as those laid down”

in the EU. This appears to be an opportunity for equivalence to be applied in ways that will allow imports that do not meet standards as strict as those laid down in EU legislation. Will the Minister clarify whether there is any significance in the change from reference to standards “laid down” to those described in the regulation? What processes or criteria do the Government plan to use to determine equivalence of standards in future, and how will the Government ensure that, where direct references to standards are replaced with references to equivalence, this does not lead to a weakening of standards in practice?

I can only say at this point that I thank the Committee for its patience.

Animal Welfare and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining this statutory instrument, which clearly is necessary. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for clearly outlining some of the issues arising from it. I will try not to ask the same questions that the noble Baroness asked, but I will address some of the same issues, perhaps sometimes from a different perspective.

I will start with transport. Obviously, there is some concern that a changeover will happen rapidly, in one day. The noble Baroness talked about what might happen in the coming months, particularly from 1 January. Has any consideration been given to asking for a moratorium or even providing a regulatory limit, given that there clearly is a risk of real problems in the early days and weeks, in order to ensure that animals do not get trapped in enormously long queues? Will there be provision to ensure that animal transports with possible welfare issues can be shuffled through those queues, so that the animals do not remain in what could be very cold conditions for an inappropriately long time?

Turning to EU transporters having to apply for all the paperwork listed in the statutory instrument, does the Minister know how many vehicles are likely to be affected? How many that can already apply have already done so? I am thinking of situations that could arise from a shortage of vehicles and new people coming into the industry without the experience that operators might have built up over many years. Have the Government considered whether there are any extra training needs, in order to ensure that there are skilled, experienced people with the right equipment and knowledge to ensure that animals are transported, where necessary, safely?

I also want to address the issue of mink and Covid-19, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised, although I am definitely coming from a different perspective. I consider mink farming to be a disastrous and, as we now know, dangerous practice; it would be very good if no more mink pelts came into the UK—or, indeed, farmed animal pelts of any kind, perhaps. However, given the risk of zoonoses such as Covid-19, what continuing monitoring will the Government bring in to make sure that the risk of transmission of both animal and human disease through pelts is adequately addressed?

I also want to address some broader issues. As others have already noted, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was told that the Government have ambitions to strengthen welfare and transport standards in the near future. I note that during both the Brexit referendum campaign and the 2019 general election, Boris Johnson, among many others, suggested that, for some people, a reason for leaving a European Union with very little in the way of a level playing field would be a ban on live animal exports. How is that ban coming along, and what are the Government’s plans?

I note the general desire expressed by the Government to strengthen animal welfare provisions; however, some deeply disturbing events are taking place. In the Peak District in recent weeks, mountain hares have been slaughtered and used in stink pits to trap other animals. The Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust, among many others, has been campaigning to end the use of stink pits. Scotland plans to increase the protections for mountain hares. Can the Minister tell me now or at some future point whether the Government are looking at the situation of mountain hares and stink pits? Are there any plans to change the current situation?

The statutory instrument refers to leg-hold traps. We are one of only five countries in Europe in which snares are legal. There are slightly different rules and interpretations in Wales, Scotland and England, but this is of course an area of grave concern to many people. The League Against Cruel Sports calculated, based on the Government’s own research, that 1.7 million animals a year are killed in these traps. Although the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states that they should be set only for rabbits and foxes, given that so many other animals are regularly caught in them—I am thinking of particularly horrific film footage of a badger, and the reports we hear about domestic pets regularly being caught in, injured by and sometimes even killed by such snares—are the Government taking this opportunity, in reconsidering animal welfare, to look at the whole issue of snares and to consider joining most of the countries of Europe in banning them?

I am aware that I have asked lots of questions and I understand that it might not be possible to get answers to all of them today, but I would appreciate answers at some point.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Jones, there is a great deal of agreement between the Opposition and the Government on the importance of the Government’s amendments. The only point that I would make in strong support of what my noble friend has said is that food security is such a vital issue and that things can, through unforeseen circumstances, change so rapidly that, if we are to make what we are attempting to achieve through these amendments effective, shorter time spans are not only necessary but absolutely essential. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 50, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, both of which I have attached my name to.

I start with Amendment 53, which concerns adding household food insecurity to the matters on which the Government must report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, noted earlier, adding to our remarks last week, although we can treasure the contribution of people who donate to food banks and the volunteers who work in them, food banks themselves are a national disgrace. No one should have to rely on charity to feed themselves. The government reports on food security and insecurity should also include not just what food is available but whether everyone has access to a full, healthy diet, and whether it is available to them financially, physically—I am thinking of things such as food deserts—and practically. On that latter point, do they have the cooking facilities and the energy they need to prepare the food?

On Amendments 50 and 52, I agree with an earlier comment that the question of whether the Government should report every three or five years is finely balanced. I welcome the fact that the Government agree that reporting every five years is not nearly often enough. I think that there is an argument to be made either way, although I can probably live with a three-year reporting cycle, and I hope it is something that we can get a real national focus on. Food security is one of the central roles of government—surely making sure that people do not starve has to be right up there.

I did a little survey of the news this morning, looking at what is happening around the world. I discovered that the Chinese corn crop is expected to fall by 10 million tonnes—nearly 4%—from the latest government estimates after heavy wind and rain toppled crops in major production areas in the north-east corn belt. That follows the events in America in August, when, across Iowa, 14 million acres of insured crops were damaged by what is known as the derecho—that is, conditions very similar to those experienced in China. I do not need to rehearse for your Lordships’ House just how difficult a year this has been for our farmers. The idea that we can simply rely on buying food on the global market is a very dangerous approach for all kinds of reasons, but food security has to be top of the list.

Just this morning I was at a Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum policy conference on the future of agricultural land use. There was a very interesting contribution from Adrian Aebi of the Federal Office for Agriculture at the Swiss embassy in the United Kingdom. I was interested to learn that Article 104 of the Swiss constitution provides that the agricultural sector shall sustainably make

“an essential contribution towards … the reliable provision”

of food and

“the conservation of natural resources and the upkeep of the countryside”.

Mr Aebi also informed us that the Swiss Government have clear targets for local food supplies and for improving diets, and they have expressed their intention of pushing towards a more plant-based diet for both environmental and human health reasons. I do not have the information to judge exactly where Switzerland might sit on a global league table of food policy but the UK clearly needs to do better. The Government keep saying that they want to be world leading in these areas, so we need to see clear targets from them on such things, particularly in relation to England.

It is interesting that reference to this issue is made in the Swiss constitution. Of course, we have our unwritten, accidentally accreted over many centuries, constitution that lacks such provisions. That is perhaps something to think about for the future.

I welcome the progress that we have made in this area. We have moved forward but we need to keep focusing on food security as a crucial part of government policy. Seeing all the work that is happening in your Lordships’ House on this issue, I am confident that certainly we will keep working on it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for recognising that the House was very uneasy about there being a five-year period between the initial and subsequent reports. If I understood him correctly when he spoke to this group of amendments, the Government will report at least every three years. However, if, for example, there is a shortage of food supply at home and a big fall in our self-sufficiency from the current 60%, and if, at any time after 1 January, there is any threat to the level of food imports into this country that could cause a future shock or crisis, I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to review this matter and report more frequently than every three years. However, I thank him for listening to the House and to those of us who raised these concerns at Second Reading and in Committee.

I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his Amendment 57, to which I have appended my name. It would require the Government to specify food security targets and implement actions to ensure that those targets were met. I hope that my noble friend would in the course of natural events seek to do that in the reports to which he has referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. I hope it will go to a vote and that we will pass it, because it is so important and requires further discussion, and it would be very helpful for the House of Commons to have to discuss it.

This amendment is like the proverbial good pudding—it is full of good things or plums, or whatever you want to say. In particular, I pick out the question of food waste, which is such an important issue—everybody says it is important but nobody does a huge amount about it. How important it is to support local and regional food identities in the production of quality and diverse food. On restricting the marketing, promotion and advertising of less healthy food, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said.

There has been huge political, economic and commercial pressure in this country in recent years for cheap food. A lot of food in this country is in fact, by historical standards, incredibly cheap—but being cheap does not necessarily mean that it is good food. It can be: in Trawden, an old weaving village just up the valley from where we live, there was no shop left, but a group of volunteers got together to set up a community shop that provides an astonishing range of really good, diverse, nutritious food which is incredibly cheap. Of course, most of the staff there are volunteers; you can do it on that basis, but it is not a basis for everywhere.

On the other hand, in June, when I came down before the recess, the facilities here were not all that great, due to the position that we are in. So I called at a convenience store on the way in and bought a couple of what, from the pictures on the packet, looked like rather nice ready meals. I could not believe how ridiculously cheap they were—less than a couple of bags of crisps, really. I put them in the microwave in the pantry on our corridor and thought I would have my tea. I have not eaten such nasty food for a long time. It was awful. You can tell that I do not do much shopping, given that I was buying these things. Nevertheless, it was an eye-opener as to how nasty cheap food can be.

The problem is that people who are living on the absolute minimum income—the sort of people whom the Minister was talking about earlier, who rely on the DWP—have to buy the cheapest food that they can get, because of their circumstances. So, for the people who buy a lot of the cheapest food because they cannot afford more, not only is the food cheap, it is not good. This is so important.

This amendment, in a way, underlines the whole Bill. We have talked about food production; the environment in which it is produced; the effect of food production on the environment; the quality of food; the standards that will be applied to food that is imported and to the production of that food—and all the rest of it. But where is the food strategy itself? What is the Government’s view on the food strategy? The Minister spoke of “safe, healthy, affordable food” and was quoted again by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. But we do not know what the present Government’s overall strategy will be when it comes to the trade-offs between incomes for farmers, quality of food, price of food and where it all rests with international trade. We are still waiting for the Government to tell us.

We know what the different systems can be. First, if farmers are to produce food in this country, they must have sufficient income—that is pretty obvious—but the question is how that income will be put together. We know that the existing CAP system, which is mainly, though not entirely, based on the area of land in a farm, will be replaced by payments for public goods. In Committee, I tried to tease out from the Government a definition of “public goods” but such a definition was not forthcoming. It means different things to different people, according to what they think is important. I think that access is an important public good; other people do not necessarily disagree but put more priority on other things—even I might put more priority on other things. What is a public good? Is the production of good, healthy, affordable food a public good or is it, as the Minister said several times previously in his replies on this Bill, a private good, because it is something that can be left to the market and the price that farmers and producers get for that food is a private, not public, good? There is a muddle about this.

You can put tariffs up, which is basically what the Common Market did originally. It protected the European farmers behind tariffs in order to provide food security in Europe. That then turned into production subsidies and a level of intervention in the market that resulted in the famous beefs mountains—which people out there still think are part of the CAP, although they disappeared long ago. Then it was all decoupled from production and the farm payments were based on land; that is the system that we have more or less got to now, with some environmental bells and whistles added. Now it is going to be decoupled from land and based on public goods. That is all very well, but none of that says what our trade relationships with other countries will be—the countries that we import food from and export food to—or what trade arrangements we will have. Deal or no deal, we will have arrangements with the European Union and with countries in the rest of the world. The nature of those arrangements and how they will work will have as much effect on the future of farming and of food—the price and what we get—in this country as everything in this Bill. They must be looked at together.

I would say that we need to concentrate on fair trade, health and well-being and environmental sustainability, putting the whole trade thing in the context of the environment. One of the best books I have read in the last year or two was Doughnut Economics, by Kate Raworth, an economist. She puts economics into the framework of society and the environment, rather than at the top. I recommend it to all noble Lords—and to the Minister. I hope he can tell us what our strategy for food will be in the future, in relation not just to all the things in this Bill but to our trading relationships with the rest of the world.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I rise to offer the Green Party’s wholehearted support for this amendment. I reflect, as I did yesterday with the immigration Bill, that the current system of a maximum of four signatures does not allow the full breadth of cross-party support for an amendment to be shown on the Marshalled List. This is something that I may be raising with the House authorities.

I begin by returning to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in introducing this amendment: neither human health nor the environment can wait any longer. That made me think of Oral Questions yesterday when the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in a supplementary question, asked the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, where our peat strategy was. This is an extremely urgent climate matter. I heard the chief scientist from Defra reflecting this morning on how crucial this was, how the UN will soon be including peat emissions in its global calculations and how we need to act. Yet we are still waiting. We have no legislative framework and we do not know when we will get this delayed strategy. When we are talking about the food, health and diet of the nation and the well-being of our agricultural land, we cannot afford to leave this hanging.

It is often said that we are talking about creating, for the first time, a food strategy for England. Wales and Scotland have been well ahead of us in this area for many years—particularly Scotland. But we do have a food strategy. Our current strategy, although it is not written down, is to let supermarkets and multinational manufacturing companies decide what we eat. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, set out in her extremely informed speech—she is of course your Lordships’ House’s expert in these areas—how that has given us a truly dreadful diet and a truly dreadful environment. We have to give people the chance to eat well and healthily, which simply is not available to them at the moment through our current food strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have attached my name, and I also wish to express my support for Amendments 60 and 92.

On Amendment 60, which concerns a promise to consult, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, indicated, the Government have said that that commitment has already been made, so surely it would not be too difficult to agree to put it on the face of the Bill. Securing consent would be stronger, and to avoid conflict or rows, and to make things clear, transparent and open, surely that would be the best way forward.

To address primarily Amendment 109, the absence of a sunset clause in the Bill as it currently stands presents a risk that Northern Ireland will be left with basic payments regulations indefinitely. A sunset clause such as proposed would create an expectation that Northern Ireland’s Government would develop their own specialised agriculture legislation and a fairer, more environmentally friendly alternative to the basic payment scheme. Of course, they could just decide to roll over the existing provisions in 2026. The amendment, or something like it, would not force action but would open up a democratic window and opportunity for debate about action.

In yesterday’s debate on the immigration Bill, the Government Benches spent a great deal of time expressing a desire for non-discrimination. Surely this proposed new clause would put Northern Ireland on the same footing as Scotland and Wales in deciding agricultural policy. This is non-discrimination that should surely apply in this crucial case, given that agriculture is very important to the economies of all three of those nations.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, the absence of a sitting Assembly from 2017 to 2020 meant that little consultation took place on this issue, but the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, in a single day of very packed evidence on a number of issues, said that it wanted this sunset clause, and that is surely where the Government should take their guidance from. It recommended a timescale of 2024, but in terms of the electoral cycle there are good reasons to provide a bit more time. Your Lordships certainly know how long these considerations can take.

In the interests of ensuring that the Minister does not feel too uncomfortable, I shall not refer specifically to internal market issues, which have been creating difficulties for some of his colleagues, but I hope that the Government will take on board this call. It is not political, except in the broadest sense of seeking to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have democratic control over their own future. Amendment 109 would provide flexibility and the opportunity for action, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, these powers under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill make a declaration that exceptional market conditions which trigger financial assistance of a varying kind are to be exercised by the English Minister by way of regulations made under the negative procedure. That means that they will escape extensive parliamentary scrutiny, as we are well aware.

The sort of market conditions that Clause 18 has in mind is where there is a severe disturbance or a threat of such disturbance to agricultural markets that would have such a significantly adverse effect on producers in England as to constitute exceptional market conditions. That is to be judged by the limited criterion of the prices farmers receive for the sale of their agricultural produce. It is made clear in the Explanatory Notes that the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland have the ability, under their devolved powers, to make similar arrangements within their own jurisdictions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Bennett, have outlined the unsatisfactory position in Northern Ireland, and I support their call for clarity. However, I suppose that that is the reason it is thought these clauses do not require legislative consent from the Welsh Senedd or the Scottish Parliament —let them do their own thing.

But of course, if exceptional market conditions exist in England, they are bound to have an effect, certainly in the borders of Wales that I know best. I recall that Welshpool was once the largest market for sheep in Europe, but there are equally strong markets in both Oswestry and Shrewsbury, and what happens in one affects the others. I remember that when I was chair of Marcher Sound, broadcasting to north Wales and Cheshire, our farming report every morning at six o’clock broadcast the price of hoggets in markets on both sides of the border. This was vital early intelligence as I headed for the London train.

It seems common sense that introducing financial assistance to English farmers under Chapter 2 would have a vital effect on prices and risk unfair competition. Moreover, agriculture is a significant part of both the Welsh and Scottish economies, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, pointed out. Surely decisions of this nature should be subject to consultation with, and consent by, the devolved nations. I have no knowledge of the markets of Carlisle and Berwick, but I have no doubt that there would be serious financial implications for those agricultural markets, and equally for those in Northern Ireland.

It may be suggested that exceptional market conditions could be so exceptional that an English Secretary of State would have to move quickly with no time for consultation, but surely he would move and should move in step with the devolved Administrations, and certainly not with any of the belligerence to which my noble friend Lady Humphreys referred.

The Minister will recall that, at the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill, I raised the issue of internal markets and price stability, not knowing that the now infamous Internal Market Bill was about to be unveiled to the world. Did the devolved Administrations know of the contents of that Bill? Their alarmed reaction demonstrates that they did not. It is a Bill that is perceived to be a unilateral grab at former EU powers which ought to be directed immediately to the devolved Administrations, and I promise that I will not even mention the attack on the rule of law.

The Government sometimes tell us that we have already left the EU, so get over it. Well, devolution is a fact of 20 years’ standing, and it is about time that the Government understood that one of its main implications is the need for consultation and consent. There is a limit to the extent to which lack of time can be pushed when there is no consultation. As the whole country knows, the reason for the rush and haste and us being here until midnight discussing this Bill is due to the hazard which this Government chose to construct for themselves. I support Amendments 60 and 92 in this group, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I have added my name to those of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee on Amendment 5, because, as has been said, it is important that we get clarification. We must also ensure that farmers and other land managers realise that the access provisions are voluntary and will not be imposed. We need to take everybody along with the new framework, and the new way of looking at how we finance our agricultural system. If land managers fear that this will be compulsory they may not take part in it. Obviously, there is a good reason why we want more access—but it must be voluntary.

I echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about making paths, if possible, accessible to all, not just to what he called the hardened rambler. I also concur that there are occasions when paths and access must be curbed, for various reasons. Even nature reserves have to close paths because a bird—or some other creature, but it is normally a bird—has decided to nest right by them, and the last thing it needs is a lot of people walking past. I hope that the Minister can give us the clarification that we desire.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I offer the Green group’s support for Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will speak on other amendments, so I shall confine myself to this one. Amendment 2 has multiple benefits. As the noble Earl explained, it would improve the clarity of the Bill, with “health and wellbeing” being measurable and quantifiable terms rather than the—if I may say so—rather woolly drafting of “enjoyment”.

This also helps us to come to terms with the rest of the debate and to set out clearly what the Bill is trying to achieve. We need our countryside to provide multiple services for us. In terms of our health and well-being, we need a great improvement from our present diet, to one packed with fruit and vegetables. We also need widespread broadly available leisure opportunities, and we need to look after the health and well-being of the natural world so that it can maintain biodiversity and bio-abundance, store carbon, prevent flooding, provide clean water, et cetera.

The economy is a complete sub-set of the environment, and ours is in a parlous state, as the RSPB reminded us this week with its reflections on our “lost decade for nature”. There is a context to the Bill involving contesting views, summed up as “sparing versus sharing”. The idea behind sparing is that we trash much of the land—the soils, the biodiversity and the waters—but we leave some of it, in its still surviving or restored state, as pristine as possible. Spare some, and the devil—or the agrochemical companies—take the rest.

Sharing involves looking after all our land—the soils, the wildlife, the air and the water. Those are things that everybody needs around them all the time for health and well-being—rural and town residents, visitors, and those who eat the food that comes from them. That is, as the noble Earl’s amendment says, for their health and well-being. An occasional visit to a specially protected treasured area will not deliver health and well-being if the rest of our countryside is trashed.

When we reach Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and consider the damage done by pesticide application, this will all come into acute focus. Amendment 2 gives us a chance, in the early stages of the Bill, at the start of today’s debates, to set out a crucial understanding of how our health and well-being, and our future, depend on looking after every inch of our environment. If we live in a healthy land, we will have a healthy society.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I too thank the Minister for the timeliness and succinctness of the brief we have received. As we will be on this subject for a while, I had better declare an interest, in that I own woodland, which is managed by a professional and with the agreement of the Forestry Commission. And if anything comes up about horticulture, Bedfordshire is part of the heart of the horticultural world, so I will be interested in that.

We should pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I too worried about “enjoyment” for a while and wrestled with it but could not think of anything better at the time. Then I found that he had produced something very helpful, which gives precision. In law, precision is very important, so I hope the Minister will consider it.

I say that particularly because I happen to have some footpaths close to where I live and, as my noble friend will be aware, there is a new hobby of flying drones, which is not necessarily for the enjoyment of anybody other than the person flying the drone. Certainly, if people are walking along a footpath and find somebody else in the middle of the path flying a drone—which is allegedly, but not actually, flying within sight—that is not to the enjoyment of anyone at all.

On Amendment 4, which is the other one that caught my eye, there is no doubt that “accessibility” is vital. There cannot be a Member of your Lordships’ House who has not taken a walk along a footpath and found either a stile broken, something overgrown or another hazard that has appeared, so it is vital. I am slightly worried, though, in that some years ago I experienced that a section of the “rambling community” had gone back to the original maps showing where the closed footpaths were. Those had been closed whenever it was, legally et cetera, but there was then a move to open them up again. There may be a case for opening some of them, but it seems to me that that campaign does not fit with what we require today. However, I come back to the point that accessibility is vital. New public access is much more difficult in today’s world, and I think one has to tread very carefully in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Dundee. I thank him for introducing my Amendment 16 so eloquently. He has done a brilliant job and it reduces much of what I have to say.

It is quite clear that when nature suffers, we all suffer. That is why I believe that nature-friendly farming should be front and centre of the Bill. When anybody coming into farming picks up such a Bill and reads it—as I did when I started way back in the late 1960s, when I read the 1947 Act—it should say that nature-friendly farming is the route forward. It is the only way that agriculture will survive in the long term.

I hope all your Lordships have read the recent Living Planet Report, which is pretty horrific reading. It says that the populations of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have declined by an alarming 68% since 1970. That is not all farming’s fault, but farming has been a contributor to that decline. For that reason I welcome subsections (a) to (j), but nature-friendly farming should also be in the Bill. I chose to insert it at this point because of its importance. In Committee it was an amendment after (j), but I thought it deserved a paragraph of its own.

I will correct one myth that seems to perpetuate in some quarters: that you cannot farm successfully and profitably if you also farm for nature. Many farmers have signed up to the Nature Friendly Farming Network, but I also draw the House’s attention to the amazing work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Allerton Project, which I know my noble friend the Minister knows about. It has done years of research on this subject and proved time and again that farmers can improve yields, output and productivity at the same time as improving biodiversity and wildlife on farms.

I will take one example in conclusion: the grey partridge, which is mentioned in the Living Planet Report. There has been a huge decline in this country, of some 85%, in the grey partridge population since 1970. The work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust has proven that farmers can get the grey partridge back in large numbers, as well as being successful and profitable. I commend that template to all farmers and to the House. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister implements ELMS, he will bear that very much in mind.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has already addressed the Green group’s support for a number of amendments in this group. I will not repeat that, but I will address a number to which I have attached my name, starting with Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which focuses on the whole-farm agroecological and agroforestry systems. I thank him for tabling it, and the noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Caithness, for supporting it.

It is clear that the age of industrial monoculture has given us the dreadful condition of our countryside that the noble Earl addressed in his speech. Its waters are polluted and its soil degraded, and biodiversity is in collapse. Yet, at the same time, we have a public with an awful diet and poor health. We need a whole new approach. Actually, agroecological farming is the only kind of farming we should see, with whole-farm systems. Agroforestry is a crucial part of that: trees sheltering animals, holding water, storing carbon, supporting biodiversity, and producing healthier food, including fruits and nuts, and healthier and more varied fodder for livestock. We need the Government to support this transformation, although ultimately that needs to be how all our land is managed.

We have already seen a significant move across most of the farming sector in its approach to soils. It has been a rediscovery of the understanding that the natural facility of soils depends on a flourishing ecosystem of microscopic animals, plants and fungi. I hope the Minister will think about this: I continue to hope that the Government will sort out the Bill’s description of fungi to make it scientifically literate—it currently is not—following the issues I raised in Committee, which are in no way political. They merely seek to ensure technical accuracy. When we focus on agroecology and, indeed, agroforestry, we need to move towards crop diversity. That is part of whole-farm varied systems. It means a system that works with nature, rather than trying to cosh it into submission.

I move to Amendment 9, to which I have also attached my name, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and backed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We have almost lost track of the fact that this is the Agriculture Bill. We are talking about environmental elements, but agriculture is also about food. We need joined-up thinking and systems thinking. There is really no point in producing more sugar, which the world has and consumes far too much of and does massive damage to rich and valuable soils. By contrast, growing fruit and vegetables is a super-policy—the kind of thing the Government should support and which they will have to, if they are to have regard to health and well-being policies.

Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, focuses on peri-urban land. I have probably done this myself: in the Bill we talk about the countryside, but fringe areas and patches of land in cities, towns and villages that might be quite small are crucial for environmental benefits and healthy food production. I am sure the Minister is aware of an excellent article from 2019 published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, which found that allotments and gardens often had 10 times more bees and other pollinators than even the rich environments, as we regard them, of parks, cemeteries and urban nature reserves. Increasing allotment use and food growing can be a positive sign for nature and, of course, for people.

I also express support for Amendment 6 on food security, to which Amendment 20 relates. Relying on the market to supply us with food has given us a dreadfully unhealthy diet, as the impact of Covid-19 has sadly demonstrated—one more weakness the pandemic has exposed rather than caused. However, it is also an insecure approach to rely on the market to supply food. Hundreds of millions of people in the world go hungry now not because there is a lack of food, but because of a lack of access to it. There is enormous waste in the system, particularly factory farming, feeding what could be perfectly good human food to animals.

However, we are in the age of shocks. We have just seen harvests in the US in particular be hit hard by extreme weather. Sadly, a lot more like that is on the way. The state of soils is parlous. To assume we can just buy what we need is dangerously uncertain. There is also a moral question: why should we take food out of the mouths of people in other countries when we could and should be growing our own? Those are two powerful reasons for the Government to provide direct, clear support for food security. There can be few more foundational roles for a Government then ensuring that people do not starve.

Finally, I support Amendment 48. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I agree with them.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who put their names to Amendment 9. I have a little confession: the original intention was to discuss it in the context of the part of the Bill dealing with access, because of the idea of tying health and well-being into public legislation. It is clear, as I have already said—and nobody has argued otherwise—that if you are fit and active, you tend to have better health. However, does the amendment fit in its allocated group? Having thought about it, those organising the Bill have got it right. It fits because it ties in with the general thrust of what we are saying.

What are we doing to try to improve life for the whole planet and for ourselves together? I am afraid it sounds rather meaningless when I put it like that. The idea is that it is a whole, so we are taking something on board and relating it to other activities. If one thing is done under this Bill, it should be to ensure that we look at the whole of what we are doing. The amendment sits better in this group because we have to consider people’s health and well-being and the public good when we are putting money in. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will not totally dismiss the idea that we should have better access to public spaces in order to undertake physical activity. However, that does not fit in with some of the other concerns being raised here about better diet and so on, because it is part of that whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. No? Then we will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, during the dinner break, I went for a brief walk and reflected then on what feels like ancient history: my honours thesis in 1983, which was on abomasal bloat in goat kids. Your Lordships can be reassured that I am aware it is dinner time, so I will not venture further into that subject. However, one thing that emerged during that year, as I was completing that honours thesis, was that the work had received some modest support from a milk manufacturer. It had donated the supplies for the goat kids, and in return got an awful lot of free student labour and the imprimatur of a university using its product. Soon, however, we found that there was a conflict between the commercial interest of the manufacturer and that of the science. It was private profit versus public good.

My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and I have been reflecting on that again and again today. Relying on the market rather than public service’s guidance and rules has led us to the society and countryside we have today. The market will, and by law our commercial companies have to, maximise private profit. All too often, that is at the cost of public good.

A seed company, fertiliser or pesticide manufacturer, or tractor company will want to sell more of their products, but moving in the direction we are talking about—agroecology, agroforestry, looking after the land—often means reducing, and using fewer, inputs: for example, using a local tree nursery for hedges and fruits rather than a multinational seed company. Yet, so much of the advice and information that farmers have been forced to rely on over recent decades has come from those commercial sources, which do not want to head in the direction provided by this Bill. So, we have to provide an alternative source of advice.

If we look at the history of this—to where we went backwards and went wrong—we go back to 1996 and the debate in your Lordships’ House on the privatisation of ADAS. Lord Mackie of Benshie said then that charging for its services had led to less advice being requested, a shift towards commercial suppliers’ advice and a concern about how public opinion of farmers had declined. In Committee on this Bill, I put forward a modest little amendment, 234, suggesting that a service be established by means of which farmers could associate, lead research and work with the experts we have now.

I ask the Minister at some point to look back to that discussion. One interesting, original contribution came from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who developed this proposal into something like a NICE for farming. Where otherwise is the advice and support in this clause to come from? It is clear that we need a duty to provide that advice, as so many other noble Lords have said in this debate. Farmers cannot be left on their own in this fast-changing, uncertain situation. This is not just about the Agriculture Bill; so many other aspects of the world are changing—the climate emergency, for example, and different markets and economic situations. We need to develop the expertise; we need the Government to do this. I would argue that this amendment is a crucial step in that direction, and I commend it to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the same amendment in Committee and I continue to support him. I will not repeat my previous remarks but emphasise that, without access to funding for advice, the take-up of the proposed environmental land management schemes will be more limited. I certainly agree with the interesting hypothecation idea of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.

Farmers will be considering new ventures of which they may have no experience, so they need funding for advice. The average farmer is not a rich man; his success is likely to have come from concentrating on what he knows best. Our capricious climate has clearly demonstrated that sticking to what you do best is a sensible policy in farming. The farmer is therefore unlikely to rush into a new scheme without considerable thought and encouragement. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, he is also aware that under previous schemes, including BPS, the sanction regime has been tough. So, once again, he is unlikely to move swiftly into ELMS without a great deal of thought and advice.

I raised in Committee the issue of the digital divide, which was identified by the University of Sheffield and the Institute for Sustainable Food. For many in rural areas, access to good broadband may be limited. This, together with lack of time and, perhaps, age and social isolation, has made it difficult to follow developments on the ELM schemes. All this means that it is so important to provide financial advice to farmers for training and guidance so that they can be encouraged into ELMS on the basis of knowledge and confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will resist Amendment 36, which would delay the start of the agricultural transition. Climate change and the biodiversity challenge are urgent, and we need to provide the financial support and the advice and guidance as soon as possible to equip farmers and land managers to tackle these challenges.

On Amendment 38, in his name, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, admitted that he was not a great fan of organic farming in the past. I have not exactly waved a flag for it either—but he, like me, is concerned about the decline in the area of land farmed organically in the UK compared with most other developed countries. Organic production accounts for only about 2.5% of agricultural land in the UK; the EU average is 7.5%, and Austria has a whacking great 24%. Yet the UK organic market is growing like a mushroom—far faster—and we are sucking in imports as a result. UK farmers are basically missing out on the growth in the organic market.

The public benefits of organic production are well attested in things like biodiversity, environmental performance and animal welfare, so growth in the organic acreage would be a good thing. What is needed is not only support for the organic transition to be enhanced into the future; it needs to be coupled with the provision of advice. It is a big step change for farmers and to do the transition well they need support. There used to be something called the Organic Conversion Information Service, but support for peer-to-peer learning would be a help.

We also need to see help with ongoing market development, as other countries have done. Using public procurement to increase the amount of organic food consumed in public settings would be an excellent thing. Copenhagen, for example, can now boast of over 80% of food consumed in public settings being organic. What support can the Minister give to organic growth?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

I support Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. There is really no doubt that UK performance in the area of organic conversion has been astonishingly poor, and we have not seen a will or determination from the Government to make the progress that we might have hoped for in the past but can now hope for in the future. This amendment is a very modest step in that direction.

We can only look with envy at what is happening across the channel. The EU’s farm to fork strategy aims to see a 50% reduction in the use of pesticides by 2030 and a 50% reduction in the use of antimicrobials for farmed animals and aquaculture, as well as 25% of farmland being used for organic farming—roughly 10 times as much as we have now—by 2030. We are being horribly left behind. We look at countries around the EU and see that Austria is already at 24% and Italy at 15%.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, one of the things our failure to support this conversion means is that we are seeing more imported food. It is often food of higher value and it is being denied to our farmers—that is, farmers do not have access to that market because they are not growing organic food.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that other forms of farming can be environmentally friendly and sensitive. I would certainly say that of course you do not have to be organically certified to be environmentally sensitive, but this is the only system of registration, recognition and guidance that we have for agroecology. Organic systems by definition are agroecological. Anything else is just making a claim or suggesting that it is happening. Many of us probably feel we know it when we see it when we walk into a field, but that is not the same as something that immediately pushes in that direction.

I encourage the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to consider pushing this issue forward if we do not hear a satisfactory answer from the Minister. We need to take at least this modest step forward.

I also want briefly to express support for Amendment 42. We know that farmers, like many other small and medium-sized enterprises, can have huge problems with payments from the large companies they supply, such as multinational manufacturers and supermarkets, but they really should not be waiting for payment from the Government; they should be able to rely on that.

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the proposed legislation will inevitably cause a great deal of extra work for not only Whitehall but many farmers on the front line. They have a lot of burden and a lot of challenges; their time is scarce.

In recent years, but particularly in the context of Covid-19, we have seen the consequences of ill planning, of the rushed implementation of new measures and of promises unfulfilled, including the consequent maximum disruption. Rationalisations after the event are no substitute for all the promises at the beginning. For those reasons, there must be time for civil servants and others, and particularly farmers themselves, to prepare properly. In that context, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has insight and sensitivity and realises the practicalities of what is involved.

When it comes to Amendment 41, in the name of my noble friend, the same arguments that I have just applied are highly relevant. What is important about this amendment is that it sets out in detail the things that must be in place and tested. That means not just uttering words off the back of an envelope or making a press statement from No. 10 Downing Street, but ensuring that these things are tested and proven. At stake is the success of the new arrangements. That will be very important, as we do not want disruption of agriculture and total chaos for farmers. From that standpoint, I believe that Parliament has an overriding duty to make sure that it is convinced about what is proposed and that we are able to vet it and give, or withhold, our approval. This is an important amendment and I am glad to be able to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support both amendments. In the case of Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I believe that, with our existing knowledge of the precarious existence of farmers—particularly in upland areas—and their importance to the physical and social landscape of their localities, it is important to be able to support them through non-production-related schemes, as many of the existing and proposed schemes may not work for them. I hate to bang on about this, but it is particularly relevant in the light of the proposed cuts to BPS—even if it is only 5% in the first year, although some of us argue about how important 5% is. There is a lack of detail about what will follow in subsequent years, and also a lack of detail on ELMS.

I see no reason why Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, cannot be adopted, as it should cost the Government nothing since contributions to the RDP should already have been budgeted and, as I understand it, are expected to be rolled into the new proposed UK Shared Prosperity Fund. It is therefore just a timing issue, and correctly gives the necessary reassurances to the current RDPs.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I am in favour of both these amendments. I was just reflecting on a visit I made to a small town in south Shropshire called Clun, which was then home to what was said to be the food bank in the smallest community anywhere in the UK. I am glad that both noble Lords introducing these amendments have focused not just on the individual situations, as pressing as they often are, but on the need for communities to be assured that money is coming in. On that basis, we want a Britain where there is no need for any food banks; we should not rest until the last food bank closes due to lack of demand. In the meantime, we have to find other ways to make sure that money is going into communities that sometimes are, and have for some time been, really struggling.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington. He is godfather to my daughter and one of my oldest friends. When I say that, I mean that I have known him forever, not that he is old in age, obviously.

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from: the needs of farmers and their households, along with rural communities, must be supported through the challenges they face. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to drive enterprise and jobs by re-energising our rural areas and those who live and work in them, and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund will do just that. It will cut out bureaucracy and create a fund that invests in UK priorities and is easier for local areas to access. To that end, I know that departments are working closely together to address the challenges faced by our rural communities. I hope that the Minister can elaborate on how that will pan out, with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund being very much part of dealing with those challenges.

Importantly, the problem with the support programme suggested by my noble friend is, I believe, that it would bring unintended consequences, taking money away from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and therefore muddying the waters—which, I am sure, is not what was intended by this amendment.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

It has been very interesting and, as I say, I have found it very valuable to have the intricacies of some of the points that have been made about particular amendments. However, this evening, I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, speaking in this particular spot I feel I have to echo the thanks and compliments to the Minister from many noble Lords in this debate for his usual detailed answers that fully engaged with the issues, as we have seen throughout this debate and particularly in this marathon session.

I note what the Minister said about food standards and attempts to guarantee those in the UK, which—if we think back the horsemeat scandal—have not always been successful. In establishing the Trade and Agriculture Commission, the Government have acknowledged that there are issues here to be addressed, which the amendments in this group are seeking to get to grips with on perhaps a deeper and longer level.

I am sure the Minister knows that, just this month, the first shipment of Chinese-cooked chicken went into the United States market—unlabelled—and, were chicken to be shipped from the US to here, it could equally make its way here. It is planned that, by the end of the year, uncooked chicken will be going from China to the US, despite the issues of food adulteration that have occurred in that country, and also the issues of avian influenza, for example.

My question is not specifically about the Chinese chicken in the US potentially coming here; it is a broader question. How can the Trade and Agriculture Commission, operating for six months, deal with the situation of the continually changing global trade in food and issues that will keep arising after its six-month term?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. As I say, that is precisely why we have established stakeholder groups as well. I think the commission is going to be invaluable to the Government; it will set the parameters and the issues at large with an expert group, but we will always continue to work with stakeholders because we want to have successful trading partnerships around the world, particularly—as I say—promoting great British food and drink.

--- Later in debate ---

The potential to help our plant scientists and British-based seed companies to address global challenges such as food and nutrition security, climate change and sustainable development means that we should adopt this technology. What the amendment suggests, and what I believe is correct, is a real and practical opportunity to have a public debate about reframing our legislation on gene editing and to help develop a post-Brexit food and agricultural sector driven by science-led and evidence-based policy.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for leading the way for those of us speaking in opposition to the amendment. As a relatively new Member of your Lordships’ House, I am very glad that such a respected Member went first.

I begin by reflecting on the scope of this debate. I think it was the Minister who said that it had taken 54 hours a couple of hours ago. There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with this Bill. That is very obvious. We have just spent a long time on the trade issues. There is also the lack of agroecology at its centre, where it should be; the lack of duties on the Government, only access to powers; food not being a public good; and the lack of regular reporting.

I refer to all of that, not to try to use this speech as a round-up but to make a specific point about the amendment. In a discussion before Committee started, the Minister said that the Government were minded to consider this amendment outside the Bill’s scope at this time. I find myself in a slightly odd situation, since I am often in the Bill office arguing for things to be in Bills that I am told are outside scope. However, I put it to the Government that they need to ask themselves whether they want to engage in this debate in this Bill when so many other issues will be hugely contentious when we get to Report. Indeed, a noble Lord who has been in the House for many years suggested earlier that Report might be as long as Committee.

I will pick up on a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made. Some people, primarily advocates for this technology blazing ahead, try to turn this into a culture war. They try to label those who say, “Hang on, slow down, what are you doing?” as anti-science. I regret that, because my first training was as a scientist. I very much embrace and am fascinated by agroecology. I share the interest in soil science of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I am very much interested in the science of nutrition. All these sciences take a holistic approach to our interaction with the natural world and with our food system. They are fundamentally different kinds of science and approaches from the silver bullet, single-step approach that GM technology represents.

In the past, we have seen that kind of approach and technology dominate for decades. It is the approach that produced the green revolution. We have seen quite a few reports coming out of India reflecting on the huge damage that taking that approach has caused, including enormous problems with water, pests, pesticides and a lack of variety in diet.

I refer to some of the issues that noble Lords have already raised. In an earlier debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about rapeseed and the difficulty of growing it here without neonicotinoids. Of course, that crop was only introduced to Britain in the 1970s. There has been quite a bit of discussion about sugar beet, a crop that is responsible for 10% of the entire soil loss of some of the richest soils, certainly in England. This crop also produces sugar, which we already have far too much of.

We need to think about what crops we grow and whether we grow them in the right places. I often discuss with farmers the growing of wheat in Scotland. There is a reason why Scotland is famous for oatcakes. Wheat is a crop that is fundamentally unsuited to the Scottish climate. We need to look at these things holistically, rather than essentially trying to ram square pegs into round holes, often for the convenience of large multinational companies that want a small number of certain crops and their food to taste the same all around the world.

I referred to the issue of time. I do not think that this is the place to engage fully with the issue of technology and its potential dangers, but I want to pick the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, up on a phrase he used, which I think another noble Lord repeated. He said that GM technology is producing precise changes. I refer noble Lords to a report in Nature on 25 June. The headline read: “CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem.” This actually refers to a series of pre-print reports that have not yet been peer reviewed, which, in the age of Covid, is very much the way a lot of medicine is going. If noble Lords want to wait and see on that one, I refer them to a debate in your Lordships’ House on gene editing, when the House considered a Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I quote from that debate the noble Lord, Lord Winston, whom I am sure noble Lords would wish to listen to on these issues. He said:

“CRISPR is not an accurate technique.”—[Official Report, 30/1/20; col. 1530.]


So, there are far more issues and questions about these technologies than has been suggested in the debate thus far.

I want to come back to the practical arguments that those who do not really want to engage with the scientific debate might be interested in listening to. I want to make a point about subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by the amendment. It states:

“Regulations under subsection (1) may only be made in relation to England.”


If you were to bring an amendment such as this at the next stage of the Bill—whether a government amendment or otherwise—certainly, it should refer to widespread consultation and discussion with the other nations of the United Kingdom. Seeds and pollen and other such crops will not be stopped by Hadrian’s Wall—even less so by Offa’s Dyke. This issue has to be considered on a scale across the United Kingdom; then, of course, Ireland may raise some pretty interesting concerns about and issues with the land border.

That brings me to a final point and gives me a chance to engage with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who talked about the wonders of Devon cream teas. I am going to indulge in Yorkshire parkin and the wonderful products of the rhubarb triangle. Many noble Lords at many stages in this debate have spoken about the reputation of food from the UK, its potential in export markets and how that reputation is founded on images of cleanness, wholesomeness and quality. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, reflected on international views of the use of GM technology in crops and how that affects people’s views. If noble Lords are concerned about promoting in that area of export markets—it is not my personal focus, which is on producing local food for local consumption—some of which can be small volumes of high-value products that are valuable and useful ambassadors for Britain around the world, they want to look very carefully at this amendment and consider what its impact would be.

[Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, this is my first contribution on this Bill since Second Reading, but I will be brief and I declare my farming interests. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, is one that the Government and the House should embrace with enthusiasm. Noble Lords will recognise that I have been raising precisely this issue of gene editing in plants in Oral Questions for some years. I have become something of a cracked record on the subject. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the amendment would not change British policy on biotechnology; it would merely require the Government to consider doing so after consultation. Who can be against debate? If we then decide to go ahead, we would be in a position to rescue the British plant breeding industry, as my noble friend Lord Taylor said, which has a perfect safety record but is being left behind in the rush to make crops that need fewer pesticides and less fertiliser, are more nutritious and more drought-tolerant and can be grown with fewer emissions. If we fail to act today, British farming will be using more chemicals and generating more emissions than it would otherwise.

I was therefore surprised at Second Reading to hear the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, argue against this proposal. I genuinely do not understand why Liberal Democrats or Greens would argue effectively in favour of more chemicals and more emissions in agriculture. Indeed, harking back to the very lengthy debate on previous amendments today, I suggest that if we do not take steps in this direction we may find that other countries reject our agricultural exports because of the low environmental standards of this country. That is where we are headed. We will be hoist by our own petard.

Many modern varieties are produced by scrambling the genes of seeds with gamma rays or chemical mutagens and then selecting from the resulting hopeful monsters. That is an extremely imprecise technology, but it is the one, I am afraid, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is recommending because that is the method by which much-loved organic varieties, such as Golden Promise, the barley variety used in brewing, were generated. To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Young, once these varieties are released, it is irreversible. They cannot come back. Is that not a worse technology? However, that method is not subject to strict regulation, despite the fact that it produces lots of unintended changes to DNA. It is specifically exempted from the GMO rules in the European Union.

In July 2018, as we have heard, the European Court of Justice decided, against the advice of its Advocate-General and virtually all European scientists, not to give gene editing the same exemption as that mutagenesis method. This puts the EU and the UK at odds with the rest of the world. Japan, Australia, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Israel, Canada and the US all say that if no foreign DNA is introduced, the plant is not a GMO, which is what the Cartagena protocol gathered by the United Nations also says. India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, Paraguay, Uruguay and Norway are all moving towards enshrining the same position in law. Only New Zealand is still in the same camp as the European Union.

I refer to one other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young: if we use gene editing or genetic modification to make crops resistant to insects we will reduce the biomass of insects. That is not the case because, as the example of sugar beet, raised by my noble friend Lord Taylor shows, the alternative is not no resistance against insects but using pesticides—insecticides, in the case of sugar beet. We have had to give up on neonicotinoids, so it is worse pesticides. They kill not just the aphids you are aiming at but innocent bystanders—other insects that happen to be about—so the effect on the biomass of insects of introducing insect-resistant crops has been shown to be positive, not negative.