Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have spoken for their support. The purpose of putting down this amendment was to be able to be able to talk very broadly about standards right across the piece, to make sure that no movement of animals was permitted to be below really high standards. The wording came about after a number of attempts; this was the one that was considered to be in scope, so that I was able to debate these issues. I am aware that this is about export and not about movement in this country but, again, we need to keep this on the radar and the Government need to look at it, particularly as the EU has toughened up its rules.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, just made a really good point—it was also made at Second Reading— about the potential misuse of the Bill when it is enacted: for example the illegal transport of animals under the guise of them being for breeding but them then being slaughtered. I know that some equine charities have raised concerns about the potential for that to happen. What will be put in place to ensure that it happens absolutely as minimally as possible?

Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

The noble Baroness might like to hear the Minister speak before she withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sorry. It is terribly important that I listen very carefully to everything that the Minister has to say.

Environmental Land Management Schemes

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Benyon on 27 May (HL Deb, col. 1097), when they will publish details of how new Environmental Land Management schemes will deliver the “very clear access commitment, backed by funding”, to which the Minister referred.

Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee Report

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I join with all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his committee and team on producing a report that is remarkably broad and deep. It has been impeccably researched and contains clear recommendations that still stand, despite the time lag since it was written. I also want to congratulate the noble and right reverend Prelate, Lord Sentamu, on his second maiden speech and to wish him a happy birthday. I hope that we can finish our debates early enough for him to enjoy what is left of it.

It does not matter how often you read this report or the evidence that goes along with it: there is always something new to shock and sadden you. That we are still having this debate some three-quarters of a century after Beveridge identified want as one of the “great giants” to be slayed should make us all stop and wonder where our collective system of government has gone wrong.

Much in the personal evidence and testimony is pretty heart-rending, but for those who are of a less emotional disposition than I am, there is also a huge amount of evidence about the cost to the public purse of poor diet in its various forms: an estimated £6 billion to the NHS. Public Health England has predicted that UK-wide costs attributable to obesity alone will reach £9.7 billion by 2050, with wider costs to society being estimated to reach almost £50 billion by then. According to the Sustainable Food Trust, for every £1 spent in shops by UK consumers, another £1 is spent by taxpayers in associated costs. As the report states, continuing with business as usual actually makes no economic sense.

Over the past 15 months we have seen government intervention on a scale we could never have imagined before. Levels of public expenditure and restrictions on our personal liberty have been accepted by the public, by and large, because they can see the need for drastic action at this time of crisis. But as the report demonstrates, failure in the food—[Inaudible]—and has been accelerated by the pandemic. None of the proposals suggested by this report, by noble Lords today or by any of the groups that have given evidence come anywhere near to government intervention on the scale we have seen in the last year, but what they do require is an act of will.

One of the things that comes across clearly in the report, and which has been raised by a number of noble Lords, is that while there is no shortage of data, very little of it is being collected by the Government. They simply do not have any benchmarks or data. The committee received a lot of evidence. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, identified how the Government either do not know about, or are not saying anything about what they regard as, problems in the food system. For example, the food security assessment was last published as a complete document in 2010. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister about this.

There also appears to be a massive disconnect between the Government’s aspirations on one side and their actions on another. A number of noble Lords have raised the point about the standards for a healthy diet and a benefits system that puts such a diet far beyond the reach of recipients. Another example is the childhood obesity plan, which makes recommendations that are very hard for poor families to follow. Five years on, childhood obesity levels are rising—this point was made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady Osamor. As my noble friend Lady Janke said, if you are an obese child, you are much more likely to be an obese adult, so this is an ongoing cost.

The Government are putting a lot of store by their levelling-up agenda, which is usually seen in a geographical context, with solutions that are based on investment in physical infrastructure. However, we need levelling up within communities as well because, even within prosperous communities, there are areas of deprivation and individuals in serious need. Where I live, the Suffolk Community Foundation has done some remarkable work in producing a report called Hidden Needs, which describes the poverty that exists even in a relatively prosperous county such as Suffolk. Diet-related ill health is much more likely to affect those in lower-income groups, and it is reasonable to accept that those who are struggling to afford to eat are struggling to afford to eat properly.

As we have heard in today’s debate, and in the report:

“Food insecurity not only damages physical health but also causes social harm bringing profound anxiety and stress to families and can affect children’s school attendance, achievement and attainment.”


I know that the Government will argue that creating jobs in deprived areas would deal with this, but it is worth noting that food poverty is not just an issue for the workless. Pre pandemic, the biggest growth in food bank use was among people who were working in either low-paid or unpredictable zero-hours-type jobs. As we have heard, child poverty has risen from 3.6 million to 4.1 million since 2010, and seven out of 10 of those children live in a family where at least one parent is working.

Others argue that it is possible to retrain and upskill workers out of poverty. I am very much in favour of doing both, but the fact remains that we need workers in jobs that we tend to call “unskilled”. It cannot be right that people who are doing these jobs, many of whom we simply could not do without—the pandemic has really highlighted their value to society—can work full time in those sectors and still rely on food banks to feed their families.

As the report sets out, food insecurity is largely a “consequence of poverty”. The idea that we could somehow trade our way out of it and that buying cheap food would solve the problem simply flies in the face of the facts in this report and others. As the report also sets out, and as we have heard clearly from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and others, this is not just a matter of food insecurity and poverty. There is a fundamental problem with our whole food system. Evidence from the Food Foundation, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and others has shown that the least healthy diets actually produce more carbon emissions than the most healthy ones.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out, there are still high levels of food waste in the UK. An estimated 10.2 million tonnes of food and drink are wasted virtually at the farm gate. This is worth £20 billion, and to that we can add food waste at every stage, through production, retailers, the food service sector and consumers.

Many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in particular, have talked about the link with agriculture and the Environment Bill. These are based on principles of, first, public money for public goods and, secondly, the polluter pays. So I would be interested to hear the noble Lord’s thoughts about how those principles can be reflected in our attitude to food.

In 2014, I chaired a committee looking into the subject of food waste; it was the first time that this had ever been done, and the resulting report got attention right across the world. As a result, I was asked to speak at conferences across Europe. Inevitably, the subject of food banks came up in discussions, and it is worth reflecting on the fact that this is not just a UK problem. What struck me was the reluctance of all Governments, everywhere, to admit that some of their citizens are going hungry. No Government seem to want to admit that they are not meeting one of the basic needs of the people whom they are elected to serve—and that is the big problem because, if you do not admit that there is an issue, you will never put it right and the problem will get worse.

The Government always say they are world leading. We have not heard it today, but I have no doubt we shall in weeks to come. They could show genuine leadership in this area by acknowledging that there is a problem of food poverty. They could develop metrics to measure it and then create an action plan to deal with the worst of these problems, so that we are not debating this in 75 years’ time.

There are many immediate measures, outlined in this and in other reports, that could be taken to ameliorate the situation. Scrapping the five-week wait for universal credit, retaining the £20 uplift, reforming the scheme for paying back advances, and having another look at the free school meals system so that it does not rely on a campaign by a young footballer every time we have a school holiday—all these could be done relatively quickly and without primary legislation.

Other changes, such as reforming the food system, will take longer, but the Government could show leadership. The vaccination programme has shown us that when all the different sectors in our society—from government, through to academia, business and the charity sector—pull together, we can achieve a huge amount. This is something we could tackle.

Agri-environment Schemes: Permissive Access

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Under what we hope will be an increasing network of permissive footpaths that can be used by not just walkers but cyclists and horse riders—with greater access, as I said, for disabled people— it is hoped that we can design them with farmers and land managers. We will be taking people who are currently walking on roads into a safer place for them and rewarding the farmer for providing that facility. There is an opportunity. I am aware of the problems that have been caused, particularly in recent months, with increased access, where road users are not safe, and we want to make sure that farmers and land managers are helping us solve that problem.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the rights-of-way network tends to reflect historic usage and is often not very useful for new developments and towns. To address that, we need co-operation between landowners and local communities. Will funding be available for partnerships, such as those created by local access forums?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Local access fora are absolutely vital in this, and what is decided at governmental level is often unimportant when you get down to the ground. Local access fora have been brilliant at bringing together farming and landowning interests with the desires and needs of walkers. I will also say that we are also encouraging farms to group together in clusters as part of the environmental land management scheme, so we can get improved access across a landscape, rather than just across an existing farm.

Rural Landlords and Land Letting: Reform

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, these Benches support many of the proposals and share the concerns articulated this afternoon, particularly the idea that we now need some reforms as a matter of urgency. TRIG has done some great work in pointing the way to the most urgent of those. The fact is that the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 has not achieved what it set out to do to improve the land; nor has it brought in a new generation of farmers.

It is clear that landlords and tenants should be free to exercise a degree of reasonable flexibility where change can lead to more efficient and effective farming of the holding. It is essential for farmers to be able, within reason, to extend their activities to become more viable.

Many noble Lords have expressed concerns about the lack of information on how the new agriculture regime will play out in the relationship between tenants and landowners. Those concerns were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Greaves, and others. It is also clear that we need a more open, less confrontational and faster system of dispute resolution, ideally based on real understanding and collaboration between landlords and their tenants.

I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about close relatives. We should give some consideration to extending this. It might be more likely that farmers will retire if they think someone close to them will take over the holding. We run the risk of missing chances to bring new people in.

We support the extension of the tenancies and hope that the Minister will respond positively to many of the suggestions that have come forward.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I point out for the benefit of the House that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. There is concern in some quarters, not least the Law Society of Scotland —as alluded to by the noble Lord—that there may be insufficient consultation of all the parties in this regard. I welcome the opportunity for my noble friend the Minister, in summing up this short debate, to address the role of the devolved Assemblies and, in this case, the Scottish Parliament in negotiating future trade deals. We will discuss Amendment 97 and others in that group, but the Bill is silent on the role of the devolved Assemblies and the extent to which they will be consulted and involved in drafting and negotiating these trade agreements. It behoves the Government to set out their plans at this stage.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it seems to me that this interesting amendment bridges very nicely the gap between the last group and the next, because there was some discussion in the last group about the importance of consultation—albeit in a different context—and the next group is about the role of the devolved assemblies and parliaments. This one sits rather squarely in between.

From the point of view of our Benches, there are a couple of points we wish to make. First of all, it is increasingly becoming the case that delegated legislation is rushed and is not always particularly well drafted. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and it is a weekly task to go through imperfectly drafted regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, it is much better to pick these things up earlier rather than later. Therefore, proper consultation and some almost pre-legislative scrutiny by the devolved assemblies could only be helpful.

We need to be clear about how serious it would be if the Government were using these powers. Many of the things we would all support and like about the WTO provisions do not cover agriculture at all, so with the possibility of high tariffs and the removal of quantitative restrictions, the impact on agriculture could be very serious indeed. Therefore, the involvement of the devolved parliaments and assemblies, both in preparing for it and hopefully mitigating some of this, would be important. I am definitely supportive of the principle behind this amendment and interested to hear what the Minister says.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Foulkes for tabling the amendment to probe the process envisaged by the Government when they use the powers under Clause 40, and, in particular, for his suggestion to consult with the Scottish Government and go forward with agreement. Of course, I add that consultation with Wales and Northern Ireland is also necessary.

As we have seen in relation to certain powers within the internal market Bill, the Government seem to exercise, let us say, a degree of discretion when it comes to their understanding of compliance with international law. While the amendment presents a perfectly sensible proposal, there is a serious worry that the Government’s approach to trade matters—and with it the future prosperity of the United Kingdom—is largely driven by ideology rather than evidence from stakeholders. Indeed, in the Commons yesterday, the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said she would not back the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which contains the provision, and gave a strong warning that it would

“lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/9/20; col. 668.]

and threaten the union.

I therefore hope that the Minister can give some indicative examples of how the powers may be used, as well as providing an estimate of how frequently the Government expect to make such regulations. Ultimately, while it is not much of a safeguard and may not be a completely acceptable substitute for meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders, the regulations will at least be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

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

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in 2016, before the referendum, I chaired the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. We carried out an inquiry into resilience in agriculture, so I can say from the beginning that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that insurance is quite often not an appropriate solution for farmers, however it might appear to be so superficially.

Having said that, I find these amendments somewhat problematic. I will explain why. First, it is because the Bill as drafted talks about the disturbances being acute. The amendments would add “chronic” to the description of the disturbances, but all the interventions have been about the results of that disturbance. To my mind, that is quite an important distinction, because you could have a short-term problem with a long-term impact. I am not clear whether, as drafted, this talks about the original problem or the impact.

I am also genuinely unsure why existing provisions are not good enough. I heard with some interest what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, so I look forward to the Minister clarifying that, but this is one area where I feel the Government have farmers’ backs in the event of these sorts of disturbances. I do not recall seeing anything from the NFU on this so I am not sure it regards it as a big issue, but perhaps when he winds up the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will enlighten me on that.

I am reassured that the amendment would provide a power, not a duty, because a duty to continue to offer support for a “chronic” disturbance could be for years and years. I do not think that would be appropriate; I would be pleased to see it as a power and not a duty. Nevertheless, the Government can move quickly when they need to, as they did in bringing in the furlough scheme, for example. I am not entirely convinced by these amendments, I am afraid.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for returning to the subject of crisis management in his amendments. The clauses in Chapter 2 bring further into domestic legislation the powers that the European Commission exercised to provide emergency assistance in extreme market circumstances. The Secretary of State may modify the retained direct EU legislation from the withdrawal Act. This would usually involve intervention on storage. At this stage, once again, as I join another day’s proceedings on the Bill, I declare my interest as recorded in the register as being in receipt of funds from existing systems derived from the CAP.

We noted the Minister’s reply in Committee that

“farmers already manage the effects of fluctuating everyday weather conditions”,

and that the existing powers contained here and elsewhere

“are sufficiently broad to ensure that agricultural producers will be covered”

should it be necessary to provide emergency financial assistance

“due to exceptional market conditions”—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2184.]

brought about by unforeseen economic, environmental or welfare factors.

The term “chronic conditions” is interesting, as this would suggest exceptional circumstances becoming endemic and longer lasting. This would suggest that the market would need to adapt on a wider basis after any exceptional market disturbances caused by economic or environmental factors had been provided. It would suggest that the adverse effect on the price achievable for agricultural products may not return to normal. This circumstance would become subject to far more extensive dialogue and analysis, and when such a situation may warrant the actions wanted by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, needless to say it would be controversial and subject to much debate.

We understand that Welsh Ministers are aware of these details and have not drawn attention to any aspect with which they are uncomfortable. The Minister has advised the House that the Welsh Government have agreed to these provisions; that would be our position also. We are generally content with the current drafting. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her remarks, which reflect many of our thoughts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in the absence of, and at his request and with his permission, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who has been unavoidably called away and sends his apologies. His two amendments refer to Clause 27. They are minor amendments but would have significant consequences.

The clause relates to fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products and enables the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of them. The regulations may be sector specific or in general terms. As we learn from the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power

“to make regulations to introduce obligations that promote fair contractual relationships between primary producers, producer organisations, associations of producer organisations, produce aggregators and the business purchasers of their products.”

Obviously, there is a great desire for fairness and for protection from unfair trading practices.

At the kernel of the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is a wish to ensure a better relationship between the processors, the supermarkets and primary producers. I am sure that this is a concept with which all noble Lords agree. Rather than press his amendments at this stage, he seeks to ensure that we enable primary producers to make the investments they wish to make to meet the new responsibilities they face as set out in Clause 27.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, went to great pains to state, and I am sure that he has reassured my noble friend the Minister of it, that rather than press the amendments to a vote at this stage, he is grateful for the opportunity to set out the views expressed in them and seeks an early meeting with the Minister if it would be possible. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I had an exchange of emails yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, to make sure that I understood his amendments correctly. He basically put it to me that he wishes to place an obligation on government rather than for it to have a discretion, which is as the Bill is drafted, to make regulations on fair dealing. I have told him that I support the fair dealing provisions in the Bill—I said so in Committee—particularly with regard to food waste, which is often in effect forced on farmers, making them less competitive and environmentally more wasteful, by the requirements of supermarkets, which I do not think is fair dealing. I am all in favour of that, but I am less convinced about the placing of such an obligation on Ministers. However, these issues can be well discussed in the next set of amendments, about the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his amendments, for the significance in which he holds them as necessary for the Bill, and for leading the House in returning to Clause 27 on fair dealing obligations. I am sorry he has not been able to stay tonight to make his case due to personal circumstances, and I hope all continues well. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for stepping in and moving his amendment. I concur with much of what she said. The distribution of market returns from food between the primary producer and the rest of the supply chain, especially in regard to the retail sector, certainly appears unbalanced. The proportion returned to the farmer has steadily declined over many years.

That regulation is needed to ensure further provision to introduce a greater measure of fair dealing obligations on the supply chain is recognised in Clause 27. Following the establishment and workings of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, the specific task of monitoring relationships between the UK’s largest supermarkets and their direct suppliers has proved very effective. I would go so far as to say it has proved critical in delivering effective change down the supply chain.

We would not be able to support the noble Lord should he wish to press his amendment. The specific details of each statutory code are being developed in consultation with industry and will be set out in secondary legislation. It will be extended across all sectors of agriculture. This is already in progress.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

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

[The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to contribute to this Bill, and I declare my interests as a farmer in Scotland and a member of NFU Scotland. Even so, Part 1, to which most of these amendments apply, only affects England and Wales.

I add my support for Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. This is one of a number of amendments noble Lords have referred to which are aimed at bringing the benefits of agriculture to health and well-being. It will be important if this Bill gives official recognition to this element.

I have been listening with much interest to the proposals surrounding Amendments 3 and 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, particularly his extensive list of what constitutes “water”. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked that financial assistance be sought for access—it is a bit of a longer shot to diagnose what assistance is actually needed for the water itself. It might be necessary to define the context in which the words listed should be taken, as they are likely to have different meanings in different parts of the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew your Lordships’ attention to the legislation in Scotland, which gives unlimited right of access to land and water, but allows access only by foot, horseback or bicycle. Motor-driven transport can go only where there is an appropriate right of way, unless the occupant is disabled. We have yet to learn if this distinction will apply to water, but this needs to be thought about. This helps to ensure that the countryside is accessed in a way that provides the most benefit. Even so, there are already examples of the approach of different users conflicting, in spite of the fact that, with one-tenth of the population of England, one might expect there should be less of a risk.

Something which deserves consideration when talking of extending access is that historically, Scotland had a more general right of access before our current legislation was introduced, whereas in the majority of England any access is limited to defined rights of way. During the Bill’s passage, it has been only proper that we give these proposals some consideration. However, the extent and location of acceptable access has not been discussed.

The changes envisaged in these amendments are a complete departure from the current situation. My noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out the way in which they extend the present position. The subject should be introduced with more care than we can readily give in the context of this Bill. I would not be prepared to support the amendments at this time.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. A number of noble Lords have made the point that this an agriculture Bill—of course it is—but we cannot get away from the fact that the principle which underpins it is public money for public goods, and the Government are quite right to make that the principle. The link between citizens as taxpayers and the farming industry is now going to be clearer and more direct than at any time in the last half-century. Therefore, anything which helps public understanding of farming and agriculture is actually in the best interests of farmers and landowners.

Many noble Lords have highlighted the importance of public access and recreation in the fresh air and countryside as part of a broad strategy for improved health, well-being and mental well-being, and I agree absolutely with that. I have observed in this debate and in Committee some conflation of the public rights of way network—which is often historic and enshrined in law—and public access more generally. I am not going to give a lecture on that, your Lordships will be pleased to hear. However, it is important that we understand that these are two separate things.

This comes across very clearly in the Bill, in understanding the extent to which compliance with the law on the part of landowners will be taken into account in assessing eligibility. The other issue is public access: opening up not new public rights of way but new voluntary access. My view—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—is that nothing in the Bill or in any of the amendments would create a new public good or in any way force landowners to do something they do not want to do.

A number of noble Lords have talked about the problems of vandalism, fly-tipping and so on. I understand that: I live in a small village, and the lane out of here is often full of litter. Nobody suggests banning cars, even though people are chucking McDonald’s boxes out of car windows; we do not do that. We try to educate, to enforce, and that is the approach we should be taking with public access, not trying to ban the many for the misdeeds of the few.

I would really like the Minister to make it clear whether financial assistance will be available where landowners voluntarily decide to provide new access opportunities or to improve existing ones. I would also appreciate the Minister’s saying whether any of the ELM tests and trials have been related to water and public access to waterways.

Finally, there is the question of what used to be called cross-compliance, to which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred: whether a landowner who blocks a footpath or a public right of way will still be eligible for grants, or whether that will be taken into account. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. As we are talking about access, I should declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority.

I do not intend to speak at length as we have a great deal to get through today. We had a good debate on these issues in Committee, and I think we all acknowledged the important health benefits from being in the open air and walking in the countryside. Noble Lords have raised many of these important issues again today and, of course, we concur with many of the arguments that have been put forward.

There is clearly a great deal more that can be done to open up the countryside and provide safe and secure footpaths, particularly for those with disabilities. We also recognise the importance of enhancing public understanding of farming and nature. As we know, the Bill already spells out a commitment to provide financial assistance for public access to the countryside and for greater public understanding.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, again raised the issue of access to water—to canals, lakes and the other things listed in his amendment. As I said in Committee, this Bill is about farming and the environment; extending its remit to the recreational enjoyment of waterways is perhaps pushing its boundaries too far.

On reflection, since Committee, I have had a more fundamental issue with these amendments. We believe that the purposes set out in Clause 1(1) have the right balance of interests between the farming community and the environment. It is a delicate balance, which is nevertheless broadly accepted by those whose livelihoods depend on it. This is why we have refrained from putting amendments to this clause, and it is why, even now, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

All of the amendments in this group are worthy in their own way. The issues that they raise are important and we will happily work with noble Lords to pursue them elsewhere—but not in this Bill or at this time, when there is so much else at stake and the future funding of farming is so fragile.

I hope that, despite the good debate that we have had, the noble Lord will reflect on this and feel able to withdraw his amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

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

I am very supportive of Amendment 271 and most of the other amendments in this group. I have heard some fine speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Inglewood, Lord Bruce and Lord Hain, and my noble friend Lady Quin, but at the end of the day, there is unity in this Committee on this Bill. We have to commit as much as we can in primary legislation because unless it is in primary legislation, the Executive will defeat the legislature and, I believe, will not provide us with the agricultural Bill that we and the country need.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I confess that I have some sympathy with the Minister. He is universally admired and respected in this House but he faces a weight of opinion that I have rarely seen in my 20 years in the House of Lords. Members from all Benches and from right across the UK, including some of the country’s leading experts in their field—backed by the NFU, a coalition of more than 20 environmental and animal welfare groups, the British press and more than a million signatories to a petition—have major concerns about standards going forward after Brexit.

However, I have no sympathy at all with the Government, who profess to have an absolute, unwavering commitment to standards but refuse to put them in the Bill. If they thought that the creation and announcement of the Trade and Agriculture Commission was going to be a sop to noble Lords, today should have disabused them of that idea. As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, highlighted, this body is advisory only. If ever there were a time when we should have the lessons of advisory bodies foremost in our minds, it is now, when we have the recent experience of SAGE.

A number of noble Lords asked why the commission has been set for only six months. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, we are likely still to be negotiating trade deals in three to 10 years’ time.

Among many others, the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised issues such as good husbandry and the way in which poor husbandry elsewhere can be used to undercut British farmers. They highlighted important issues, such as stock density and the overuse of antibiotics.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Boycott, highlighted the question of where this cheap food is likely to end up and suggested that it will be with the poorest in our society. I think that they are right. No one should have to choose between their health and conscience on one hand and their budget on the other. These standards should be guaranteed for everyone.

Many noble Lords commented that this is the most important sets of amendments that we face. I agree: they are important in their own right but they are also important when it comes to thinking about parliamentary sovereignty. It is of course correct that Parliament did not approve, or even properly scrutinise, trade deals negotiated on our behalf when we were members of the EU, but that was entirely our decision; other member states chose to do it differently. Now, having apparently taken back control, the Government still see no role for Parliament in negotiating future trade deals, including on the important issues that we have debated today and despite the enormous public interest in relation to not just food but health, environmental and safety standards.

In recent weeks, we have heard a lot about how these commitments are enshrined in the Conservative manifesto. Manifestoes are meant to be an indicator of the Government’s legislative programme—they are not an end in themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, commented that this is a question of trust in government. I absolutely agree. The Government have a problem here because they are telling business that, post Brexit, there will be a deregulatory bonanza and the creation of Singapore-on-Thames, yet in this regard, we are supposed to believe that these protections and such regulation are absolutely guaranteed. For many people, that is not credible, which is why we need something guaranteeing these standards in the Bill. My party has consistently called for the retention of high standards for food, the environment, safety and animal welfare after Brexit. We seek to ensure that this Bill and others will protect UK consumers and UK farmers.

The Minister has quite a job ahead of him on Report.

[Lord Grantchester]

This has been another very good debate on a key issue in the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who spoke on these amendments, which cover the key variances in opinion on approaches to food standards.

Amendment 276 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain, which other noble Lords have signed, is essentially the amendment proposed in the other place by Neil Parish and others. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. I spoke on this in regard to my Amendment 271, which answers various deficiencies that that amendment encountered. However, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his remarks on the amendment, as he underlined the huge support that it secured with so many of the industry’s representative bodies, including the National Farmers’ Union.

If I may, I will group together Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which other noble Lords signed, and Amendment 278 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, signed. Both approach the issue of food standards from the position that, after IP completion day, existing UK standards must not be undermined. Amendment 273 underlines the importance of equivalence of standards protecting food safety, the environment and animal welfare. It is clear in its objectives but, unfortunately, it does not provide for how this process will be conducted or implemented, including how the ratification—or denial of ratification—of any international trade deal will be endorsed or refused.

Amendment 278 specifies that the Secretary of State must produce a register of UK production standards, against which agricultural goods must be assessed, which must be updated annually. I do not know whether this is necessary when there is a statute book, or how this process will be judged. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Wigley, for Amendment 280, which is focused on the situation should the UK Government not conclude a satisfactory agreement with the EU in time. It requires that the Secretary of State report to Parliament on the impact of this on the beef and lamb sectors. There have been many debates on the no-deal Brexit situation and its impacts. Even after the Government’s announcements on the temporary tariffs that would apply in that situation, I share the amendment’s concerns. However, I remain confident that there will be an agreement between the UK and the EU in time.

A food and trade commission has been proposed by the National Farmers Union for some time. While we can support such a commission, it does not replace our Amendment 271. Depending on its terms of reference, membership and powers, it could become a welcome means to monitor ongoing improvement in food standards and production standards equivalence in all future trade deals, but only as a second step, having secured the importance of the provisions enshrined in Amendment 271. There was always an apprehension that any food and trade commission would just continue anxiety about whether it will be effective in maintaining the UK’s production standards.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who led on Amendment 270, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who spoke in support of the NFU’s Amendment 279. I have great regard for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, coming as they do from a former chair of the important Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in the other place. I also greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has achieved over many years. I have attended many conferences where he has spoken and have sought his advice on one or two issues in the past. However, both speakers struggled to reconcile their amendments’ proposals with what has now been set up. It was rather confusing: were they really promoting their amendments? On this side of the House, we would not be able to support the present proposals, or able to welcome the version of a food and trade commission launched today. That is a very disappointing position to be in.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, spelled it out himself: it is not permanent and it does not follow any legislative step to enshrine UK standards. It is not independent; it is merely advisory. It has no formal powers and does not envisage any role for Parliament. His amendment makes no provision regarding wide representation of the many interests that need to be included on any commission. The obvious omissions of consumer interests, animal welfare and environmental organisations and others, have resulted in a crescendo of objections following the announcements. The British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, Greener UK and Which? have all issued statements of disappointment.

This puts the National Farmers Union and proponents of the commission in a difficult position. Do they withdraw their amendments? They will feel embarrassed in farming circles. We do not need another talking shop for the NFU and its sister organisations in the devolved Administrations to debate for a few months. How does this differ from the trade advisory group that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis asked about? We need decisive and independent scrutiny, after having secured provision for our position. The co-operation between the commission proponents and the Government is interesting. Will the Minister confirm whether Amendment 279, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, was drawn up with his department’s help before it was agreed with the NFU? I understand that his department was taken aback when the Department for International Trade seized it as a method to buy off Back-Bench Conservative dismay at the Government’s position, so that Neil Parish expressed anxiety at the department’s approach to food production standards.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 227, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. England—not Britain, but England—is the fifth most densely populated country in the world, from a list that includes the city state of Singapore. The south-east of England, with London at its commuter heart, is obviously very crowded, but so too are the Midlands. For instance, the Peak District National Park has 21 million people within an hour’s drive of it. That is a staggering number of human beings.

The second fact to note is that, as Bill Bryson once said, the unique feature of the English countryside is that its citizens love it to death. We all feel it belongs to us. Furthermore, most of us want to live in it and to have a home there. A survey in the 1990s showed that more than 80% of those living in southern England wanted to live in the countryside, where less than 20% currently live, so there are immense pressures on our countryside, even before we start to plan our nation’s food production. There are demands for leisure, housing, transport, energy, forestry and business property, as well as our obligations in relation to biodiversity, landscape and climate change.

How do we deal with all these pressures? At the moment, the way our countryside produces all those services and goods is a matter of haphazard chance. There are, of course, myriad strategic and neighbourhood plans, guided by the national planning policy framework, but there is a difference between what people need to get planning permission for and how we actually want to use the land on the ground.

At the moment, most of the usage is dictated by the marketplace and responded to—admirably, in a way—by a new generation of young, entrepreneurial landowners and others who look for whatever possible use the land might be suitable for. But we have already decided in this Bill that the marketplace cannot and should not drive all land usage. With the powers in the Bill, the state is going to step in with large amounts of money—£3 billion per annum is promised—to buy land uses that the market does not cater for.

This brings us to the question of what we should use our land for, and where. The answer may be that we need a plan, or rather a framework or frameworks, possibly at different levels—we possibly need a national framework and a regional framework. Personally, I would avoid local frameworks as I fear they might encourage too much nimbyism, which could destroy the innovation we so badly need for our future land use. The one thing we do not need, of course, is a Soviet-style plan that knocks local enterprise on the head.

Although I think a land use strategy is a good and useful idea, I strongly support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his wish to have a one-off Select Committee in this House to really examine how best we could set up and implement such a land use strategy. There are now many new variables to go into the mix, including the need to plant more trees to absorb CO₂, maybe the need for more domestic tourism venues now that overseas travel has taken such a hit, and maybe even the imminent arrival of lab-produced meat and milk, which could dramatically change our farming landscape and what we want from our land. I strongly believe that this is just the sort of issue that a Lords Select Committee could get its teeth into to produce an illuminating and compelling message for government.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell remarked that this is a wide-ranging debate and that the whole Committee stage has been. There is an inevitability about that, because our shared objective of a thriving agricultural sector delivering a range of public goods can be met only if certain foundations are in place. It is those foundations that I think are troubling many Members of your Lordships’ House. We discussed one in the previous Committee session, namely the lack of an overall food strategy.

Today we discuss another: the total absence of any kind of comprehensive land use strategy. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had it exactly right when he remarked about having no framework on which to balance and manage the competing demands we make of our land. In May the RSA published a report and said:

“Land use is not an aspect of policy that can be compartmentalised, parcelled away and deemed to matter only in certain places and to certain people. We all live with the choices over how land is used every day.”


The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, highlighted that this was just one of a whole number of reports and organisations doing a lot of thinking in this area.

We know that Scotland has a land use strategy, Wales has a spatial plan and Northern Ireland has a regional development strategy. It was fascinating to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, how that is used to help new entrants. On the other hand, England has no overall framework. What it has for planning is a morass of strategies, plans and initiatives, so I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her cosignatories for tabling the amendment to set out the vision for a land use strategy that could help the Government to deliver their agriculture and forestry aspirations, as we are debating today, but also the 25-year environment plan, the 12 policy statements for critical infrastructure, and this sense of place, which is something on which the Government have based their civil society strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was quite right to highlight just what a crowded island this is, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked about the lack of coherence; he is quite right too.

Amendment 228, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, addresses this problem of new entrants to agriculture and the difficulties they face. In some ways this links with amendments on county farms in earlier groups, because county farms were intended to do just this, but, as we have heard, are becoming rarer. That links with land use, of course, because if you are a cash-strapped council and can sell some land on the edge of town for a housing development, I am afraid you are likely to do that. It is a fact that land for agricultural purposes will struggle to compete against the land demands of housing, for example.

Finally, Amendment 228A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, would create this link with local development plans and the neighbourhood plan process. This is absolutely the right thing to do. It has seemed to me for some time—clearly the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, tends to feel the same—that in this country we are very good at development control but not very good at planning. We had some elements of it up until about 2004 in the form of county structure plans. They did not cover the whole country, but they were at least strategic. However, they often got stymied by differences with district councils, which had the development control function. County structure plans disappeared in 2004, replaced by regional development plans, which bit the dust in 2010. It seems sensible to include local planning in any provisions and thought in Amendment 227.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for raising the case for an integrated land use framework today and in her very good contribution at Second Reading. She makes a very important point.

As all noble Lords have said, there are huge competing pressures on land use, and we do not currently have a mechanism to resolve the priorities among those competing claims. We already have expectations on land to deliver carbon storage, extensive tree planting, renewed biodiversity, flood management, water storage and, of course, food, and we are about to add the pressures of all the environmental and habitat improvements set out in Clause 1.

In his excellent speech on food security on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, reminded us that population growth and urban development are producing demands to build 2 million to 3 million more houses, with all the services and infrastructure needed to underpin those communities—new shops, schools, hospitals and so on. This will inevitably put the squeeze on land available for food production.

As we have debated several times, we are busy making policy and legislative decisions in silos and not taking account of the impact of one on the other. This is a major criticism in the latest report by the Natural Capital Committee. It quite rightly identifies the need for a “natural capital assets baseline” against which priorities can be assessed and progress measured.

A land use framework could comprehensively map out the opportunities and benefits of different forms of land use. It could provide clear guidance on cross-departmental priorities and mechanisms for resolving conflicts over land use. It could join up resources and money to rural areas, providing funding on a game-changing scale rather than separate pots of money and layers of bureaucracy. It could also ensure that overarching government priorities such as tackling climate change are delivered coherently, utilising national, local and private funding. I see great benefits in this approach.

I also have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. These are issues that we have debated in other groups, most notably in the debate on county farms and tenancies. I think we all agree that we need to find new ways to bring new blood and business skills into the sector. The question remains: where will that land come from? How can we make that aspiration a reality?

Finally, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would make it more explicit that local planning should be part of the land use strategy. This is understood as one of the competing forces that needs to be balanced by the mechanisms in my noble friend’s amendment, but it is nevertheless helpful to have it spelt out.

This debate has raised some important questions about competing pressures on a scarce, finite and precious resource. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance that the proposal laid out so ably by my noble friend is being taken seriously.