Japanese Knotweed

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to remind us of the continuity of government. It was helpful to be able to take up where the noble Lord left off. He was right to point out that this is a serious matter, particularly for those people who find their properties affected. That is why the Government are investing a considerable amount of money in the area. The cost to the economy is £166 million per annum, which is a sizeable sum. That is why we consider it a priority to find effective control.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, is my noble friend confident that other invasive species will not be permitted to come to this country? Clearly this has been a very long-term problem and we need to make sure that we do not allow in such species in the first place.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend is absolutely right. One of the hazards of climate change is that we may find exotic plant and animal pests coming to this country. Defra is constantly on watch; Fera, our science agency, gives us advice; and we monitor plant imports with the express purpose of trying to make sure that we do not allow such an accident to happen again.

Dogs: Microchipping

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Some 58 per cent of dogs are already microchipped on a voluntary basis. The noble Lord asks about timing. When I say “very shortly”, I do mean “very shortly”, but the timing is not within my gift. I have clearly flagged up the possibility of an expansion of microchipping in the responses that I have given today, and we are working with everybody to make sure that this will happen.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, will the new compulsory system apply to dogs coming to this country? If not, what will the Government do about that?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, my Lords, the pet travel scheme requires that all dogs coming to this country are microchipped.

EUC Report: Agriculture

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, it is a huge joy, if I may use that expression, to follow a friend of mine of many years’ standing, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I first met him many years ago when he was chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission. Noble Lords who have had a chance to look at his CV will have seen that his slightly casual introduction of himself very much understates his record over many years.

The noble Lord said that he came from a farming family, but he has held many important positions for us within the wider context. He was first appointed a commissioner of the Meat and Livestock Commission in 1986. He then went on—he did not mention this—to become a board member of the NFU Mutual insurance company. He became its chairman, a post from which he has only recently stood down. He also chaired, as he did mention, the commission on the Future of Farming and Food, reporting to the Government in January 2002. It was very important and the first one of its kind at that stage. He chaired other things as well, including the Leckford Estate Management Committee and the Better Regulation Executive, to which he referred. His work within his own particular interest and, even more, within the community has been recognised on two other occasions. He was awarded the CBE for his services to agriculture in the 1997 New Year’s Honours List and a knighthood in the Birthday Honours List of 2001. He was appointed a Cross-Bench Peer in the House of Lords in October 2011. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is in no doubt that he is warmly welcomed to this House and we look forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.

I should go back to the beginning and declare my family’s farming interest and the fact that we receive money from the CAP allocation.

It was a great pleasure to be part of this group and, although I was missing for some months because I was unwell, I congratulate the chairman, my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles, and all our advisers who supported us. I particularly congratulate those who gave us evidence. Some did so via an inter-country link, which was quite an interesting way of doing it rather than fetching people over. One of the challenges faced by EU committees is how to take evidence when looking at an EU problem without being able to get people from those countries to give direct evidence. I think it is something that the committee needs to reflect on a bit more overall. I am well aware of the cost and time involved, but certainly the telelinks help, and we were grateful for that opportunity.

I should like to put this report into the context of where we are on producing food and, in particular, on food security. Last May, the NFU briefing stated that agriculture provides £7.169 billion of gross added value and supports some 500,000 jobs in this country. In addition, the food chain contributes over £88 billion per year—7 per cent of GDP—and is responsible for over 3.7 million jobs. Sadly, agriculture and farming are often talked of in a silo but they certainly should not be. The facts and figures speak volumes and they really should get better recognition than is currently the case. It is a huge challenge for all of us throughout the EU and the world to produce enough food in a sustainable manner in the long term.

The Government’s response to the report, however, is not quite as clear on some aspects as it might be, so I have some questions for the Minister. In their response, they say that £400 million will be allocated for research and development, but I am not clear how it will be spent, which people are responsible for it and who will oversee the efficacy of it. The Minister may not have the precise figures with him today but it would be enormously helpful to all of us if a timetable could be brought forward. The response talks very much in terms of “this is going to happen” and “that is going to happen”, but from reading it—and I read it quite carefully—I could not quite tie it up as I would like to have done.

As other noble Lords have said, in the UK we face falling or static yields in crops and in milk and protein production. Water shortage is with us in large parts of the country; water excess in others. The effects of Europe—all the other regulations, the NVZs, the pesticide rules, animal recording systems and so on—place increasing costs on farmers and on the Government.

Sixty years ago today, when the Queen acceded to the throne, agriculture was a genuinely labour-intensive employment area. Automation has drastically reduced the numbers involved. The sectors providing inputs, such as seed suppliers and fertiliser and machinery manufacturers, and those handling outputs—food processors and retailers—employ a high proportion of graduates, and research is an important part of their activities.

The number of specialist agricultural colleges has declined over the years and the proportion of places available for agricultural, as opposed to small animal or pet-related, studies has fallen. I wonder how often schools’ career advisers recommend agriculture as something for students to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, referred to that. FACE, whose strategy group he chairs, tries to put information into schools to help teachers, let alone their pupils, understand how food is grown. It is an enormous challenge not just for our Agriculture Minister but for those involved in education to encourage young people to come into the industry, which offers a tremendously wide variety of opportunities in the long term. More people should be enthused to come into it and given information as to how to go about it.

The world is facing starvation. During the past two or three years, high-level investigations have resulted in several reports, already mentioned, and they all agree. The Lords’ committee stressed three areas of great concern: the need to increase spending on scientific research in agriculture; the communication of its findings to those working in agriculture; and the alteration of the attitudes of Brussels bureaucrats—I hope that I am allowed to say that.

Reforms coming to the CAP give us an opportunity to think again. I pay tribute to the EU Select Committee, which has just issued a fairly strongly worded press release supporting our thoughts on the opportunities for innovation that lie in looking at the way in which the CAP is delegated. The government response acknowledges the problems, but I should be grateful if the Minister could go further and tell us about what is proposed and how it will be implemented.

The quality of evidence given to the committee, the depth of the analysis of the problems, the revelation of the range of work that is going on and the levels of achievement are enlightening and heartening. One finds in any journal related to food production articles on pest-resistant crops, water-saving cultivation methods and the use of inedible plants for the production of energy. There is no shortage of innovative ideas. However, as the report states, bringing them to fruition is fraught with difficulties, not least of which are duplication in development and fragmentation in application. One obvious route is to encourage larger-scale farming, where most of these innovations will take place, but that produces the problem of what happens to smaller farmers. They, too, are a vital part of producing food, particularly in eastern European countries.

I am well aware of the difficulties being experienced in establishing such concerns even within the EU regarding large versus small, and I wonder whether there is a role here for government. I particularly refer the Minister to the whole question of large-scale animal husbandry, which is one way in which we could produce more food. However, there is huge resistance and education will have to play an important role as a result. That is within our own country but I suspect that it is replicated across the whole of Europe.

My noble friend Lord Caithness raised the question of the GM debate. GM crops have many advantages to offer, but I would be glad to hear whether European co-operation has resulted in the start of an investigation that will add greater balance to how GM may develop in the longer term. It has been suggested that member states can make those decisions for themselves, but that is not the basis of the argument; rather, it should be about whether the science is right, whether it will produce the right food and how we should go about it. I should be glad if the Minister could reflect on that a little from the UK perspective and also from his experience of it across Europe.

I am proud to be president of LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming—and I am convinced that UK agriculture has demonstrated that it has the right tools to increase yields, improve animal welfare, preserve biodiversity and conserve natural resources, all with the enthusiastic backing of consumers. However, progress needs to be faster. One way that we can make this happen—to go back to the point that my noble friend raised—is to think about how to attract more people into this industry. I also raise the question of how we give them continuous professional development in the same way that people in other trades and professions expect. I should like to see a recognised route from school through GCSEs to apprenticeships to a diploma and, if wished, to graduate status to match the opportunities being offered by other industries such as the Armed Forces, retail and manufacturing.

If I may digress, I have the great honour of being a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Farmers. I should also reflect to the Committee that here is a practical example of the way in which the livery tries to encourage and support young people coming through. We give awards each year to students at agricultural colleges. We also run two leadership courses. One has just been completed and the other is still going on. They are for the more mature student, if I may reflect it in that manner. This point is crucial, and although we did not touch on it quite so much in the report, I hope that my colleagues recognise that somehow we have to make agriculture and food production a much more lively and desirable vocation to follow. It is crucial because all the other industries depend on us producing worldwide enough food for future populations.

I would like to see an increase in the movement of people between the various sections of food and production, particularly between research and practical farming. I have no doubt that it can and will be done, but we need to move from the old image of farming in the early 1920s with long hours in the dirt and the cold to reflecting the industry as it is—one that responds to innovation, that uses technology and relies on science. We have a wonderful opportunity, and I thank the Committee for giving us a chance to look at this important report on innovation in agriculture.

Agriculture: Animal Feed

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington for introducing this short debate. It is actually very timely. She asked us to consider the environmental and economic impacts of the proposed changes, at a time when we have so much waste, which she has clearly identified. I should perhaps remind the House of our family’s farming interests. My original profession was in fact breeding poultry and we also had pigs on our farm, neither of which I am involved in any more.

As my noble friend has indicated, the pig industry already uses over 1 million tonnes per annum of co- and by-products from food manufacturing, mainly in the form of wheat feed, biscuit meal, cake, bread and cereals products, starch extract products, and whey products. However, it is a highly regulated industry. I cannot stress this enough. All the products have to be FEMAS-assured and do not come from manufacturing plants that have any meat products, in order to minimise the risk of cross-contamination.

I was shadow Minister at the time of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, and I cannot stress enough the huge impact it had across the country, not just closing farms but movements of markets, countryside access, and rural concerns put out of business in the long term as a result of it. The ban on pigswill also, sadly, put 60 of those swill feeders out of business. What has come through from the NPA and NFU briefings is a note of real caution, and I hope my noble friend will reflect that caution when he responds—that it is not totally dismissed—as there have to be very strong rigours to ensure there is no question of cross-contamination.

From the briefings that we have had, the other big issue that has been raised is—as at the time of the foot and mouth outbreak—public concern and public confidence. Certainly the one thing the farming industry does not wish to see is another shake of that confidence, which has been restored over the years so that people trust the food they eat. Whatever the European Commission or our Government decide to do, very strong systems should be built in to make sure that there is no contamination.

The National Pig Association also goes on to say quite clearly:

“Whilst the focus should be on reducing the amount of waste produced in the first place, we would support alternative methods of dealing with waste food such as anaerobic digestion and gasification”.

Obviously these are also useful forms of energy. Taken with the briefing from the National Farmers’ Union that has been quoted by others already, it is important to recognise that here are two organisations that you think would be very much in favour of it, which say, “Yes, we will consider it but there are indeed questions attached to it”.

As I mentioned earlier, we are in an era where we have waste on one hand and increasing costs on the other. This debate gives me an opportunity to raise a couple of questions with the Minister. As the briefing from the NFU says:

“This waste utilisation issue coincides with a severe shortage of availability of GM free animal feed protein, particularly soya, which is grown predominantly in South America, and used by the pig and poultry sectors. Whilst EU GM feed restrictions continue, the price of GM-free soya is rocketing”—

which my noble friend referred to earlier—

“putting inflationary pricing pressures on UK produced pig and poultry products, whilst perversely, imported products are allowed to have been fed GM diets”.

So my question to the Minister is: should this aspect not be looked at again? Should the EU not be reconsidering its stance on GM? If it wants to maintain that stance, surely it should be looking at ways to protect UK pig and poultry producers from having to compete unfairly with products that are allowed to be brought into this country. It is an important part of the debate we are having tonight.

I have also looked up the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, sent on behalf of the Food Standards Agency. While I do not always agree with the Food Standards Agency, it too recognises the need for caution. The letter to my honourable friend Jim Paice on 15 September, discussing the current feed ban, also says that,

“provided effective controls to prevent infective material from entering feed are maintained, the proposed changes would give rise to a negligible risk of exposing farmed animals to BSE. Hence the risk to consumers would also be negligible. The Board was concerned, however, that this assessment relies on controls and enforcement, and that the risk would be negligible only if the controls were effective”.

Therefore, the recommendation from its recent meeting was that,

“the Board agreed to advise Ministers that the UK should not support the proposed\ changes”.

This is a very important discussion and I am really grateful to my noble friend for raising it. For me, it raises some very basic issues. We have waste; we need to deal with it. It would be better not to have it in the first place, to be perfectly honest, but there are ways in which we can use that waste without necessarily feeding it to pigs and poultry. We can use it in biofuels, anaerobic digesters and pet foods. We have the cost of purchasing and getting non-GM food for our producers here. The EU has to look at both sides of the equation.

I am very grateful for this short debate tonight to give us a chance to think about the ways in which we produce food in this country and where we would aim to go in the future. At the end of it all, the main goal should be to reduce food waste. Something like a third of the food that we produce here in this country is wasted. My noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned countries overseas. Their problem is different. Their waste is not what is actually put on the plate, but is a result of a lack of infrastructure to get it from the field where it is grown into the shops or markets—wherever people buy their food. Internationally, it is a slightly different challenge that they face.

I say to my noble friend Lady Jenkin that, while I support her thoughts behind her debate tonight, I cannot emphasise enough the degree to which we must be very careful, whichever way we go in the future. We could look back at the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001; if one accepts that it came from pigswill, it would mean that there was a system in place which should have made that not happen, but sadly it did happen. Therefore, whatever system goes on in the future, those controls and inspections need to be in place and reviewed regularly. I thank the noble Baroness for giving us this opportunity to speak tonight.

Subsidiarity Assessment: Food Distribution (EUC Report)

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Lords Chamber

I concur entirely with what she said this time last year. Nothing has changed since then to alter the conclusion. I fully endorse it and, in so doing, support the Motion to issue another reasoned opinion of the same ilk.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I should like to reinforce what my noble friend Lady Sharp has just said. I declare that I am also a member of Sub-Committee D. Unfortunately, through illness, I could not be here last year to participate in the discussions. I have one or two basic questions for my noble friend when he comes to reply. Like others, I certainly think it is the responsibility of individual member states to look after those who are in need; that is the best way to supply it.

However, the proposal was to raise the sum of money to €500 million. My question to my noble friend is: which countries have benefited from it and how much have they had? Although the UK takes the very clear stance that it should be done locally, which I hope my noble friend will reflect in his comments, clearly the money will come from Europe, to which we contribute. If the Minister has figures that he can share with us tonight, I would be interested to hear them. If he does not, perhaps he will write to us to let us know. It seems a very unusual situation—to be opposed to something that is being proposed and will be imposed, over which we have no control except to have the debate that we are having here tonight. I should just like to reinforce my concerns about the way in which it is being proposed.

Some 17 member states and some 18 million people benefited back in 2010, but, as other noble Lords have said, when there was a surplus it made sense to use it and distribute it. However, that is not the situation that we face today. I assure noble Lords that buying in from the market is not the cheapest way to do things. Therefore, we look to my noble friend for some steer on the Government’s thinking about how they will deal with what is proposed, and how we can say, “No, we don’t think this is a good idea”. As one of the member states, we are presumably committed to providing that money up front.

I apologise to other noble Lords for not being able to take part in discussions last year through illness, but I am very glad that we have had the debate tonight. I reinforce my support for the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and for the comments of other noble Lords. Clearly the situation should not continue.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, it is very good to hear the principle of subsidiarity being upheld and defended. I am also inclined to think that this House should be consistent in maintaining the reasoned opinions that it has previously given.

The Commission, and perhaps some member states, might like to examine how food stamps in the United States have worked out in practice. The United States probably has less comprehensive and less long-term social welfare arrangements, compared to many European countries. On the other hand, I expect those who devised the food stamp scheme took full account of the interests of commercial food producers and of the market generally.

I conclude by asking the Government how many civil servants within the Commission have been employed, or are still employed, in dealing with these matters. If things go ahead in the way that we wish, will some of them no longer be needed? What will happen to them? Having said that, I support the Motion.

Defra: Research and Development

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Byford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to encourage more research and development work in the areas of food, environment and rural affairs; and, if so, how.

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

My Lords, the Government continue to invest heavily in research and development in these areas through the research councils, the Technology Strategy Board, Defra and its network and other Government departments. Much of the investment is co-ordinated through large national and international partnerships and is currently supporting world-class basic and applied research to meet the challenge of increasing sustainable food production.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his response, I remind the House of my family’s farming interests. Given the excellent basic research to which the Minister referred, what are the Government doing to get this into practical use on farms?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Government have taken on board the findings of the Taylor review, which is a commitment of Defra’s business plan. As the Minister responsible for science and research in the department, I can assure her that the issue is high on the department’s agenda.

Agriculture: Global Food Security

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Byford]

To call attention to the future contribution of British agriculture to global food security; and to move for Papers.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as set out in the Register.

It is a year since the formation of the coalition Government and I welcome the fact that the new Government have welcomed the importance of farming and placed food security high on the agenda. We have seen: the establishment of the regulation task force, which is due to report next week; the setting up of the new animal health and welfare board; a reduction in the number of quangos; and a welcome £26 million of new money for research at Norwich research park after years of research programme cuts. In the pipeline are the natural environment White Paper, the grocery market ombudsman, disease controls relating in particular to bovine TB, decisions on the use of GM technology, and, finally, CAP reform beyond 2013.

All of these issues affect the way in which we produce food and the level of security that we achieve. The RASE report, Working for the Future of Agriculture, offers this definition:

“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active, healthy life”.

The report states that food production will have to increase by 40 per cent by 2030 to meet world demand.

Raising world food output is a mammoth task. Even as world population expands, agricultural productivity in some areas is falling. David Richardson, writing last month in Farmers Weekly, quoted some frightening figures. In 1985, there were some 74 million ewes in New Zealand; today, there are 30 million. In Australia, the number of ewes has fallen from 200 million to 70 million. In the UK, in 1990 there were 21 million ewes; today there are fewer than 15 million, and the number of sows has fallen from 700,000 to fewer than 400,000. Over that period, annual net migration into the UK has been between 200,000 and 400,000, and our self-sufficiency in food has fallen. In part this reflects the growth in world trade that has enabled UK citizens to eat a wider range of food and consume some foods out of season. It also reflects the paltry rewards received by many farmers.

In a Written Answer in March, my honourable friend Jim Paice stated that the farm business survey calculated that the average farm business income from grazing livestock in 2009-10 was £22,000, which is below average earnings. The figure is an average; many farmers’ incomes are lower than that. The fall is partly due to the higher input costs and lower prices for finished cattle. Pig prices are dire: farmers are currently losing £16 to £18 per pig. This reflects the volatility and uncertainty that producers face when formulating their business plans.

Thankfully, many people are now aware of the threat to food security worldwide, and a number of committees and research groups are turning their attention to finding solutions to these problems. In January this year, the Foresight report into the future of food and farming was published. It bids fair to be to this decade what the Curry report was to the last. The report drew on the expertise of several hundred specialists across the world and received more than 100 evidence papers. It identifies the main future pressures as: the growing population; more demand for a variety of high-quality foods; greater competition for land and, in particular, for water and energy; the emerging effects of climate change; and new economic and political pressures.

The CAP after 2013 will be a crucial influence on the progress of European agriculture. The Commons Select Committee described the CAP’s role as the achievement of sustainable intensification of agriculture without causing irrevocable damage to the environment, and stressed the need for this to be done without disadvantaging UK farmers. I believe that the promised alteration to the CAP will be successful only if it does not disincentivise the production of any staple commodity. The world needs large quantities of high-quality nutritional food. However, it cannot be right to cap those who achieve higher production levels, just as it cannot be right to award subsidies for growing items such as tobacco.

Most taxpayers seem to be in favour of the ending of subsidies, but that will be viable only when primary producers receive a fair reward for their efforts. The CLA briefing makes the point that, over the past two years, Governments have made positive statements that must be achieved, but it queries where the action is. The CLA considers the CAP to be a major policy for the protection of managing Europe’s natural resources. This implies not only a cohesive structure but also the dedication of considerable funds—certainly not less than now.

The NFU in its latest paper, The Recovery: Why Farming Matters, states that the industry must be able to respond to domestic demand and contribute to global food supply. I heartily endorse those sentiments and ask the Minister how the Government will ensure that we make common cause with agriculture in the devolved Administrations. The interdependence of the agri-food sector as a whole should not be undervalued. An efficient viable farming base is critical for UK food processors to ensure their long-term access to raw materials.

We must farm in an environmentally sensitive way. Water, as I said, is key to food production, and we know that less will be available in the future. This is particularly true of countries in the southern hemisphere, where water and food shortages have caused riots recently. Dr Bruce Lankford from the University of East Anglia has produced a paper which expresses his concerns and explains his concept of virtual water. He claims that the UK received some 65 billion litres of water from other parts of the world embedded in imported goods. That comes in the main from areas which have less water than we have and which are likely to have less in the future. Every day each of us uses more of this virtual water than we consume for drinks, food preparation and hygiene. Can that situation continue? Surely, it is not sustainable when we know that the ground-water supplies are dangerously low. How much longer can we rely on access and global trading to meet our needs?

The whole question of food security is endlessly challenging. The traditional farming questions include what to plant, when to plant it, how to grow it, how to harvest it, how to conserve the soil, how to ensure sufficient water supply and how to maximise output. Farmers have no control over the weather. March and April have been the driest for years. Planting and harvesting are planned but often disrupted. Add to that the conundrums which include the use of energy and water for processing, transport, extension of shelf life and the reduction and disposal of waste, and one realises that food production is indeed a complex task.

I am glad that initiatives are being taken. The TSB sustainable agriculture and food innovation platform is funded to the tune of some £18 million per annum—50 per cent from BIS, 30 per cent from Defra, 10 per cent from BBSRC and the remainder by Scotland and AHDB. Its first programme was on new approaches to crop protection and its second will be on protein production and utilisation, including aquaculture.

The farming industry is also contributing to looking at new methods. In April this year, the English pig industry launched its road map, Towards Better Performance, which testifies its commitment to reducing the pigs’ carbon footprint and detailing targets it has set for itself. Earlier this week, I was at the launch of the dairy forum’s road map, which reflects the commitment of the whole dairy sector to minimising environmental impact throughout the chain. It sets targets for dairy farmers, processors and retailers, and shows how reducing the carbon footprint has already made economic sense.

Many other projects are underway, funded, for example, by the companies which supply seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and machinery. Government departments and agencies fund basic research. There is still some central support for applied research and the process of translating laboratory results into farming practices. In his response, will the Minister outline the Government’s programme for extending field trials and the application of research results into general farming, and will he also update us on the progress being made on the Taylor report?

Knowledge and skills development is essential if we are to meet the challenges of the future. EU Sub-Committee D is currently involved in considering innovations in agriculture. While I cannot predict its recommendations, knowledge transfer from scientific discovery taken through to farm application has been included in much of the evidence taken. Advances in machinery technologies such as GPS systems have resulted in fewer applications of chemicals on to the land, saving farmers money and, more importantly, lessening pollution. That is a win-win situation.

Sharing knowledge is crucial if we are to meet the predicted demand for food. I am glad that universities and colleges worldwide have become involved in this. For example, for the past 10 years Harper Adams University College has been working with a Beijing agricultural college on a joint degree programme that involves two years of study in China and a final year at Harper Adams. The focus is on food production and food quality. In addition, 18 out of the 30 applied research students are from overseas. They are looking at various aspects of agriculture such as poultry production, crop production, the effects of climate change and, what is most important, ways of improving food production both here and worldwide.

One of the important things facing us is the use of genetic modification. It has been around for a long time. The USA has embraced it in principle and parts of the Far East are using it widely. Its rejection in Europe and many parts of Africa can be traced to a number of factors that, quite honestly, I find irritating. Does the use of an antibiotic marker gene really threaten the health and safety of any of our population? How far can seeds travel unassisted? The French put it at 3 kilometres, a considerable distance. However, there are people who take a different view. I believe that we cannot go forward without appreciating and accepting in principle this technology. However, should the growing of GM crops be approved for the UK, which I hope it will, we must have regular scientific reviews. Climate change seems to be worsening and the incidence of animal and plant diseases spreading further afield is rising. Genetic modification, provided that it is carefully controlled, seems to be a logical and preferred way of helping to reduce some of these new challenges.

The “Farming Today” programme broadcast on Monday had an item on renewable energy, but I am afraid that it was not hopeful of success in meeting the stated targets. Once again, I feel that many more targets could be met if only we were able to unlock sufficient funding to take the necessary steps of monitoring and reviewing progress, as well as to chuck out what is not working and speed up that which is. Organisations such as LEAF and many others produce commercial food for us but are also working closely with others to link in with the environment. There is an enormous role for this type of farming enterprise in the future.

Finally, we have just two or three months of extremely cold weather followed by several weeks with very little rain. Watching the frantic efforts of birds to find enough food to eat, I was struck by the similarity between their plight and that of millions of people in other parts of the world. The UK is vibrant and positive. Over the centuries her people have travelled the world, using their skills to enable others to progress and live better lives. The threats facing us now are perhaps the most serious yet, but I believe that if we abandon entrenched attitudes and encourage our most original thinkers to devote their time to solving these problems, we will master them and we will survive. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which reflected the enormity of the challenge that we face—not just within the UK but globally. I am very grateful for the variety of contributions that we received. As my noble friend has just said, the report warns that doing nothing is not an option. That was the thing that struck me straightaway. Another thing that struck me was the huge urgency of this. The sad thing is that while we have food on our shelves 24 hours a day, people do not stop and think that it may not always be there. Clearly, the Foresight report draws to our attention the challenges that are coming with coping with greater numbers of people.

Many noble Lords spoke about GM technology. I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for saying that it is nothing new. It is not, but for some reason the general public people think that it is new and it is bad news. In fact, it is an extension of what has happened over the years as we have managed to increase yields. Our continued care for water and soil quality is the most important thing we can do. It is of huge import for the future.

Volatility was mentioned, particularly in terms of the cost of imports. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury talked about the egg industry. At the age of 16 that was the profession I wanted to go into. The problem was raised with me only this week by one of our big suppliers of eggs. He said that he could not get GM-free feed and how difficult the problem is—not only the expense, but in getting hold of it. It is something that the debate has highlighted, which is well worth while.

I again thank noble Lords for participating in the debate. I also take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for the work that she did when she was in another place and was an Agriculture Minister. We are grateful for the way she has done her work and led for the Opposition in this House. My sincere thanks go to everybody for enabling this debate to take place. I wish it would go across all government departments to say, “Wake up, there is a huge challenge ahead”. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Agriculture: Regulation

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Byford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce regulatory burdens on British agriculture.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, the creation of Richard Macdonald’s task force on the reduction of regulation is most welcome. Its report is due shortly, so I know the Minister will be limited in his ability to respond to our individual comments. However, I still consider that a debate of this nature will be valuable. I look forward to hearing from noble Lords and thank them for their participation in this short debate. I should remind the House of my family’s farming interests and my membership and support of farming organisations and charities. I also record my thanks to the NFU, the CLA, the National Pig Association and the CPRE, all of which sent me briefing papers in advance of this debate.

My main concern is with regulations that affect agriculture, but I should point out that we all suffer from the increase in regulation and the resulting bureaucracy that was the hallmark of the previous Government. Only last Thursday, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, stated that,

“the previous Government produced more than 1 million … mainly unproductive jobs in the public sector”.—[Official Report, 24/3/11; col. 881.]

These post holders implement regulations, process an ever increasing tide of forms, and analyse the questionnaires. We have to fill in those forms and questionnaires, and often waste our time at the end of the telephone because government departments do not appear to read or answer our letters. Speak to any small or medium-sized business and they will tell you of the excessive time given to keeping up with the ever increasing bureaucracy. In a recent NFU farmer confidence survey, farmers cited regulation as the issue of most concern to their businesses.

Farmers suffer just as we do, but are also subject to regulation specific to them and to time constraints that do not affect many of us when we have to respond. Weather is all important. Getting the hay in at certain times is critical, just when regulations say that the registration of the birth of livestock is required. Delay in providing such required information usually results in penalties that are excessive by any standards. The NFU Pro magazine last April noted that failure to supply a specific food chain information form prior to the slaughter of any animal may result in the carcass being condemned as unfit for human consumption. There are aspects of livestock control that are important. They should be regulated and the regulations strictly enforced. Other factors should be subject to guidelines, backed up by punishment of those who deliberately flout them. However, why should a farmer who has a number of fields dotted around a village have to fill in forms—movement records—for transferring his sheep from one of those fields to another? Can the Minister tell us whether these existing rules are likely to be reviewed?

Another aspect of regulation that fills me with despair is the lack of computerised information-sharing between Defra and other agencies, resulting in yet more unnecessary form-filling. For instance, in June farmers will be required to complete the census, even though three-quarters of the information is already held on their SFP application forms. This brings to mind the constant barrage of complaints from the farming community about faulty computer systems. The best known culprit is surely the Rural Payments Agency’s single farm payment system. My right honourable friend the Minister, Jim Paice, has recently acknowledged that the thing is so faulty that even he cannot make it work within the timetable he had set himself. His statement on 4 March acknowledged that there had been 140 fixes to that computer system. Many farmers are still awaiting their single farm payments, not just for this year but for previous years, and the Farm Crisis Network is overburdened with requests for help. The net effect on our farmers has been little short of disastrous. Talk to the Farm Crisis Network about the despair that it has to deal with. Look at the statistics on these disadvantaged people and on suicides within agriculture.

The original choice of how to interpret the European edict was always going to make implementation difficult, but Germany—the only other country to make the same choice—has managed it successfully. I wonder what lessons can be learnt there. Our systems, on the other hand, have cost the taxpayer billions of pounds in administration alone. On top of that, financial penalties have been levied by Europe for our failure to pay within the required timeframes. British farmers are let down by regulation in other ways, as well as through the RPA. The EU promulgates its directives and member Governments translate them into national legislation. The UK has been in the habit of ensuring that every agricultural and environmental directive is fully incorporated, by letter and in spirit, and gold-plated. Other Governments have not been so fastidious.

Our farmers, for instance, have to comply with a number of welfare standards introduced following European legislation that has not been enforced by other European countries. Many shoppers in the UK know full well that our pigs and poultry are produced in more humane circumstances than in our continental neighbours. Many retailers in the UK are, however, happy to purchase cheaper European products, slaughter and process them, pack them and label them—fully in compliance with existing regulations—as produced in the UK. This is not fair. It matters very much, as farmers who produce food compete in a global market. When someone undercuts their required price, they either accept less and take a loss or fail to make the sale—and take a loss. Good regulation would not allow this to happen, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us when the grocery ombudsman will be introduced. This appointment is urgently needed.

Labelling is key to giving the consumer the right information on which they make their purchases. At a minimum, country of origin should be clearly stated on each product, along with assurance scheme logos. It is surely not right that Thai chicken comes from farms that have not been inspected by the EU for years. Beef comes from countries where FMD is endemic, but we may not inspect it before we accept it. The WTO will not allow us to exclude from our trading agreements livestock, or livestock products, produced under poor or non-existent welfare standards. There has to be a wholesale change in our culture. Instead of multiple regulations contained in multiple instruments of turgid prose, laying out the musts and the must-nots for our farmers, there should be guidelines in simple English. Instead of multiple on-farm and in-abattoir inspections for all, there should be a regime of spot checks and proportionate punishment for wrong-doing.

Richard Macdonald’s task force will identify ways to reduce the regulatory burden through the review of the relevant regulations and their implementation, as well as advise how best to achieve a risk-based system of regulation in the future. I hope that it will also consider achieving improvements to farm systems through the use of voluntary agreements. The Campaign for the Farmed Environment is just such a step. I hope that farmers will respond positively, or we may be faced with introducing yet another regulation.

We need a sea change in attitude between farmers and Government. We need to develop a culture of trust: trust of our farmers by officialdom and trust of Government by the agriculture sector. Regulation must be reduced. Regulation should be proportionate and reviewed regularly. Inspection must be reduced for those farmers involved in assurance schemes—they have surely earned their recognition. A clear labelling scheme should be introduced and trust restored.

If we are to meet the challenges of feeding the growing population, we must free up businesses from overregulation and allow them to innovate. I hope that the task force review will herald a new era of working together for the benefit of all.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I apologise for the fact that, for health reasons, I could not unfortunately participate in Committee. I also send my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who certainly is a great fighter on behalf of these matters. We do not always agree, and on this occasion I do not agree with this amendment. I know there were powerful contributions in Committee and, had I been here, I would have raised one or two points.

As the noble Baroness has just said, the introduction of the minimum wage has altered the way we look at things. The Agricultural Wages Board came in many years ago and fulfilled a very necessary function, but nowadays many agricultural workers are paid well above the minimum wage because what farmers are looking for these days are skilled workers, not just people to do menial jobs, as they used to. The wages that people were paid in those days reflected that. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, will remember, as a former Minister, the various difficulties that one has to go through to qualify for many of the jobs that one has to do on a farm. Clearly farmers are not looking for the same skills as before, so I do not support her amendment, but there are a couple of points that I would be grateful if she would pick up from me. She mentioned that the National Farmers’ Union is, on the whole, in favour of the board. It will have explained its reasons and she will know those very clearly. I do not agree with her that the abolition of this board will drive wages down for the reason that I have already indicated: the needs of agriculture in today’s modern world.

According to the Foresight report that came out in January, which I have had the pleasure of reading, the thrust in the future is to produce more food to feed the world. Therefore, we need to raise the profile of agriculture for those coming into the industry and those who are already there, and we need to pay them well. Those whom I have been in contact with are well aware that we normally pay above the minimum wage. For the benefit of newer Members, I remind the House of my family’s farming interests, although sadly, for various reasons, we do not employ anyone ourselves now but have contracts with our neighbouring farmer. There were certainly low wages and long hours in the past, and the long hours continue, but during the winter in the quieter season workers are quite rightly paid for when they are not so busy. The agricultural working week, if you look at it over a year, is very different from the working week of someone who works in an office from nine until five.

The noble Baroness said that the abolition of the board would not save much money. If her Government had dealt with the problem, we might not have to save money now, but that is another point. How much has the board cost over the past 10 years, for example? I hope she has that sort of response for me. She expressed her concerns about the relationship between those employing people on the farm and the workers themselves. Nowadays that relationship is much closer than it was in the old days, for the various reasons I have given. I hope that she will be able to fill in the gaps because I missed the detailed discussions in Committee, and that, once she has heard the Minister’s and other noble Lords’ responses, she will think again about the amendment.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, we are not going to get consistency throughout the United Kingdom on this because in Northern Ireland we have already decided to abolish our Agricultural Wages Board. The reason for that in no way challenges the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. A variety of things have collided here—not only the activities of the Low Pay Commission but the problems in the industry arising in different areas: for instance, the activities of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the fact that many part-time workers were being brought in, a number of whom we felt were being exploited. As Employment Minister, I was charged with bringing in special measures. We found that the best way of dealing with this was within the framework of national law, with particular emphasis on the Low Pay Commission. We found that many part-time workers, even if they were not indigenous, as many of them were not, were undoubtedly being abused in the contracts to which they were being asked to work, even being forced to pay for temporary accommodation, the cost of which was deducted from their wages by some unscrupulous agents. We introduced a law to prevent that.

The profile of the industry where I come from is different, because many more farmers today are part time. As the noble Baroness has just stipulated, very few people can employ workers in the same way as in the past. Given the difference in profile—the fact that farms tend to be either part time or much larger and much more sophisticated organisations—we feel that, although the agricultural wages boards as originally envisaged had a good and valid purpose, time has moved on and the profile of the sector today is radically different. The bodies have a very proud track record and we all strongly support what they have done, but, as with so many of the other bodies that we will discuss later today and on other occasions, time has moved on. We feel, and felt, that other measures that would bring the sector more into the mainstream of employment generally would make more sense in today’s world, because fewer people are employed in the sector and there are fewer farms, which have a totally different profile from the profile of those that were previously envisaged. However strongly the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, might feel about their amendment, I can say only that, in our circumstances, we looked at it and came to the conclusion that the time had come to move on.

Rural Communities: Prince’s Countryside Fund

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble on securing this debate. I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that we could have done with a five-hour debate. I remind the House of my family’s farming interests and of my association with several rural charities which are on the register. This debate reflects the concerns that many of us have about the future of the countryside and is very timely. The recent launch of the Prince's Countryside Fund aims to improve the long-term viability of the British countryside and its rural communities. I refer to a project that has already been mentioned as it is hugely important: that is, the hill farming succession scheme, which will train eight young people in hill farming skills. They will gain experience from working with farmers and will have the chance to attend local agricultural colleges.

In that vein, only three weeks ago I attended the graduation ceremony at Harper Adams University College and was struck by the diversification of courses and the range of ages of those receiving their awards. I am pleased to say that the pure agriculture course attracted 26 per cent of the students, the agricultural engineering course, which is the only national one left, 13 per cent and the rural enterprise and land management course 17 per cent. Other courses included animal and veterinary nursing, food business and environmental, leisure and tourism courses. For me that underlined the variety of jobs within the countryside and the need for all of us to work together to strengthen those communities.

The NFU briefing reported that the rural economy turns over £300 billion each year, employs 5.5 million people and, most importantly, has farming at its centre. Twenty per cent of registered farm holdings produce 80 per cent of the output value, which reminds us that we have many smaller farm holdings, some of which, as we have heard, particularly those in the upland areas, struggle to make a living. The Prince’s Trust offers them great opportunities. On my travels around farms one of the commonest gripes I still hear from farmers and others in business is about the amount of regulation and red tape that has dogged industry. I particularly welcome the steps this Government are taking to review regulatory burdens. The other gripe, which I am afraid is still ongoing, is about the continued failure of the Rural Payments Agency to deliver payments on time and about the maladministration and poor communication that only adds to farmers’ frustration.

This short debate gives me the opportunity to pose questions, as others have done, about the long-term sustainability of the countryside, and to ask how the Government see this objective being achieved. How will we manage to feed the expected growing populations, rising from 6.5 billion to 9 billion, on less land, with increasing climate change reflected in extreme droughts and floods worldwide, and at a time when we see natural resources being depleted? Certainly, the UK may well benefit from a warmer climate, with extended growing seasons, but that carries the increased risk of pest and disease outbreaks.

For me, research and development are key to the challenges we face and I know that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach has been doing some important work on this issue, which we will, I hope, hear more about shortly. Scientific research is expensive, be it undertaken by governments or private businesses, but surely we should encourage co-operative work projects and research findings to be shared, which would benefit our country and developing countries.

As other noble Lords have suggested, I believe that there is an urgent challenge to tell people about their food, where it comes from and how it has been produced. It is a great sadness to me that too many have become detached from basic food production. Organisations such as FACE, the NFU, WFU and LEAF, with all of which I am associated, and others regularly engage in this work but it is a huge job. Some 180,000 people visited LEAF farms in June this year. That is a start but it needs to be replicated on many occasions. I hope that people will continue to visit farms and the countryside to gain that wonderful experience of understanding where their food comes from and how it is produced. I welcome the proposed national citizen service which is due to start next year and ask the Government please not to forget the countryside in that regard. It would be an ideal place for some of the projects to take place, even perhaps working with our wildlife trusts. This is a very important opportunity for us to speak on this topic. There is much more to be said. I look forward to hearing other contributions.