Cost of Living: Support for Farmers

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). It might surprise him and other Members to hear that I very much agree with many of his remarks, especially his point that farmers in Shropshire, like those in my constituency, have long felt that Governments have not always appreciated the importance of their contribution to the nation’s wellbeing, and the importance of food security. I also associate myself with his comments about the strategic importance of fertiliser plants. He proposed the good idea of greater state intervention in those strategically important sites, and I will touch on that in a moment.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this important debate. She eloquently set out the grave backdrop to it and the many challenges our farmers face. It is sobering to reflect on the fact that so many farmers, facing rising input costs and cost of living challenges, are considering leaving the industry. She said that 11.9% of dairy farmers are contemplating that, and I know anecdotally that a number of livestock farmers in Ceredigion are considering whether they have a future in the industry. It is little wonder, given that agflation, or agricultural inflation, stands at 28.4% according to the agricultural price index. The latest estimates from independent consultants the Andersons Centre have agricultural inflation standing at over 25%.

I spoke to some farmers in Wales recently. Many people say that they have better prices at the market, and that of course is true, but we do not always hear about the rising cost of production, so farmers very much need those higher prices. Although the prices have risen, they have seen little difference in their profit margin, and that is fuelling a great fear of a departure from the industry, which we can ill afford given the many concerns that have rightly been raised in recent months about our food security. The war in Ukraine has brought that into sharp relief. The challenge before us is to increase, not reduce, our agricultural productive capacity.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) made several important points, but one that struck a chord with me was about the need for more co-ordinated land use planning to overcome some of the many competing challenges. We need to return to that matter in earnest, because we cannot waste much time.

We have heard about rising fuel prices, and there is room for us to explore expanding the rural fuel duty relief scheme, although I appreciate that that is not within the Minister’s remit. Fertiliser has been mentioned a few times. To add to the remarks of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, I know of farmers who, just this last year, have seen orders for fertiliser increase significantly. They were quoted prices of about £200 per tonne last year, and now it is not uncommon to see prices upwards of £700 per tonne, plus VAT. The inability to plan amid such volatility is a real challenge for our farmers, and puts pressure on their margins. It is often said that farmers find it very difficult to eke out a living even in the best of times, but the added volatility and the price hikes that they have to navigate make it an almost impossible task.

In Wales, the average farm holding is 48 hectares. Anybody who cares to look at farm business incomes in Wales will know that most farms in Wales do not have much discretionary income with which to absorb these additional prices. It is time that we look at interventions to support farmers with rising input prices, particularly the cost of fertiliser.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that the Government need to establish a gas-fertiliser price index to help improve transparency in a very opaque market. That might not necessarily help to bring down prices, but it would at least offer a bit of a helping hand in planning and managing a bit of the volatility.

With regard to how we help with the costs of fertilisers, in addition to those points made by the hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about the strategic importance of fertiliser plants, is it perhaps time for us to consider again the VAT treatment of some of those inputs into agricultural production? I appreciate that that is for the Treasury, but perhaps the Farming Minister could consider having a discussion with Treasury colleagues.

In the short term, many Members representing rural constituencies will know that the price of heating homes is a real concern, especially for those in properties off the mains gas grid, including farmhouses. Under the energy bill support scheme, some £400 is due to come in the autumn, but a question remains as to whether farmhouses will be eligible, primarily due to how they tend to have commercial electricity contracts as opposed to domestic ones. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking at options to ensure that farms do not lose out under the scheme, but will the Minister impress on it the importance of us finding a way to include farmhouses in the scheme? Although it might not make the world of difference, every little will help in the coming economic storm, so it is important that we ensure that farmers do not lose out.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In fact, I was at the agrifood council when the European Court of Justice judgment came in 2018. Even countries that had some scepticism about genetically modified foods, such as Germany and France, were very concerned about that judgment. It is also the case, as he may well know, that the European Union itself is now consulting on a change to its own laws. The EU will be some years behind us, but it recognises that the ECJ judgment in 2018 was scientifically flawed. He asked what other countries around the world do. The vast majority of serious agricultural producers with the scientific expertise to assess these things treat gene editing and these precision breeding techniques as being distinct from genetically modified organisms.

Clause 1 of part 1 describes what a precision-bred organism is. Clause 2 establishes the scope of what is considered a plant and an animal for the purposes of the Bill. Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

On definitions, the Secretary of State may be aware that the British Veterinary Association has expressed some concern that perhaps the definitions have been broadened somewhat in the Bill—in particular, that organisms or techniques that would insert exogenous genetic material could be allowed under those definitions. Can he confirm whether that is indeed the case?

[George Eustice]

The Bill defines this quite tightly and lists what classes of animals are to be included. On some of these very specific technical issues, I am sure that hon. Members who have read clauses 1 and 2 will see that there are quite a lot of different processes, which we will all have to make sure that we learn a lot more about as the Bill progresses. I am sure that this will be discussed in great detail.

Food Price Inflation

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

The Secretary of State may be aware that in Wales a policy of providing free school meals to all primary school children is being progressed thanks to an agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government. Will he speak with colleagues in the Treasury about potentially uprating the public sector budget so that that important provision is not affected by rising food prices?

[George Eustice]

These matters are often covered in the Barnett formula and the complexities of Treasury settlements with the devolved Administrations, so I advise the hon. Gentleman to write to the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Wales to raise his issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

On my hon. Friend’s final point, we published a highly comprehensive analysis of our food security, including a focus on the production to supply ratio, which showed that we produce roughly three quarters of the food that we are able to grow and consume here. On his specific point, we were aware of the risk of these events in Ukraine and set up a dedicated group within DEFRA at the beginning of January to do contingency planning for the possible impacts on food. We do not import wheat from Ukraine, or only very small quantities; we are largely self-sufficient in wheat and we import the balance from Canada. However, we are looking at the cost of inputs, particularly for the livestock sector, such as poultry.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of widespread concern that the rising cost of fertiliser will add further inflationary pressures to the price of food. Indeed, I have been told by one farmer of a quote for £930 a tonne plus VAT for a shipment that last year cost about £280. What steps can the Government take to address this crisis and ensure that our food security is not undermined?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Fertiliser prices had spiked even before current events in Ukraine, because the cost of ammonium nitrate is heavily dependent on the cost of gas, as he knows. We have been working closely with our own domestic producer in the UK to ensure that it maintains production. Most farms will now have purchased their fertiliser and have it on farm for the current growing season or the beginning of it, but we are setting up a special group with industry to work on this challenge and to identify better long-term solutions that rely less on the price of gas.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 39, page 23, line 12, at beginning insert

“where keeping a dog on a lead of 1.8 metres or less would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog,”.

This amendment would broaden the definition of “at large” dogs, by requiring non-exempt dogs in fields with relevant livestock present to be on a lead to be deemed under control unless keeping the dog on a lead poses a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.

During the evidence sessions on the Bill, much of the debate on this topic came down to whether a dog should be on a lead or not, and we heard many people give their view on that question. As we understand it, the position in the Bill is that it is acceptable for a dog to be in a field with livestock without a lead as long as the owner is aware of its actions and reasonably confident that the dog will return to the person on command. We heard a number of people discussing that, and I think many of us feel that that is not always likely to be the situation. Certainly, the majority of wildlife organisations feel that it is time to make a change here. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross, the Canine and Feline Sector Group and many more have come out in support of a provision that would require dogs to be on leads when in a field that contains livestock.

Ultimately, dogs on leads are not in a position to run off from their owners and attack livestock, so, in my view, keeping them on a lead protects farm animals. That seems fairly straightforward to me. I appreciate that there may be more complexity, but that is the basic proposition. Given the serious financial and mental hardship that livestock worrying has been causing farmers, the need for someone to keep their dog on a lead does not seem to me to be a major sacrifice.

This was probably the issue that came up most in the evidence sessions. So far as I recall, most witnesses wanted dogs to be on a lead, and we agree. We recognise that near cattle, there is a risk to human life should the person with the dog not be able to release it swiftly. However, by my reading—I am willing to be corrected—clause 39(4) defines the relevant livestock for those purposes as

“poultry, enclosed gamebirds or sheep.”

The memo to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is helpful, referring on page 6 to the relevant livestock:

“It covers animals that will respond to being scared by a dog by running and clumping together, which can result in these animals getting trampled and smothered, sometimes leading to fatalities.”

While keeping the dog on a lead may not stop that altogether, I cannot help thinking that it would help.

When preparing for the Bill, Baroness Hayman—who worked on Labour’s 2019 animal welfare manifesto, and who is a guiding light for us—told me that requiring dogs to be kept on leads could, in some instances, result in harm to the dog owner. Most notably, if a dog on a lead attacks a herd of cows, they may decide to protect themselves by attacking the dog. When a dog is off the lead, it can run away fast enough to avoid danger.

I think that the Government have solved the problem. Amendment 89 strikes the right balance between the two issues. It requires dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead in fields where the relevant livestock are present, except in instances where doing so would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mr Davies. I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge.

Last week, we heard quite a bit of convincing evidence on the need to curtail and clarify the definitions in this regard. Mr Rob Taylor from the police force explained that although the Bill, as worded, might not necessarily cause a problem for the prosecution or investigation of such crimes under the Bill, such clarifications might help public understanding—so that people know, when walking in the countryside where there are livestock in the fields, that they need to keep their dog on a lead.

Furthermore, we heard from both the National Farmers Union and Dr Hazel Wright of the Farmers Union of Wales that such clarifications would perhaps embolden farmers to look at their signage and keep it current. Dr Wright mentioned that, as the law stands, farmers do not always feel encouraged or, indeed, incentivised to keep signage up to date, especially when it pertains to whether livestock are present in a particular field. Her argument was very convincing: if we were to clarify and strengthen the law so that it is clear when a dog needs to be kept on a lead, farmers would react positively and make the effort to keep their signage current and up to date. That would benefit those wishing to enjoy the countryside and be in the interests of farmers.

Representing a rural constituency, I have sadly had to see many photographs of the consequences of a dog attack. If we were able to clarify the law in this regard, it would not only greatly benefit farmers, but improve public understanding. Ultimately, that is the only real way to tackle and reduce instances of dog attacks. I again place on record my support for amendment 89.

[The Chair]

Diolch yn fawr.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I thought that the evidence we were given was pretty overwhelming. I think the concern that a number of people have expressed to us about the potential danger with cattle has been dealt with by the Government themselves in their definition of relevant livestock. I was grateful for the hon. Member for Ceredigion’s expertise and knowledge, and his point about the signage—which was strongly made in the evidence session—was well made.

I suggest to the Minister that people of my generation, and possibly hers, grew up with many of the promotions about the countryside code and so on. It was drummed into people, but I am not convinced that younger generations have got that message in quite the same way. Sometimes, when I see accounts of some offences by younger people, I am struck by the fact that what would seem obvious to me does not seem obvious to them. One of the most difficult things for a person to do is to put themselves in other people’s shoes. Particularly during lockdown, people went out with dogs for the first time, and we know that on a whole range of issues—not just livestock worrying—people behaved in ways that were challenging to many of the authorities.

[Ben Lake]

In support of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, one of the most surprising aspects of lockdown was how few people understood that they needed to close gates, which can cause a whole host of issues, both for the farmer and for the local communities that find a herd of cows or a flock of sheep going down the road. Those of us who are well versed in the countryside perhaps have a higher sensitivity to things such as the countryside code, but the younger generation and also, perhaps, those visiting or enjoying the countryside for the first time would respond with a very bemused expression if the countryside code was ever raised with them.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Listening to his comments, I realise that I am in danger of stigmatising younger people. I do not think it is their fault at all. It is partly because we have moved away from some of the public health and public information campaigns that we used to have.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[James Daly]

Thank you.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Q I also want to ask Mr Taylor a few questions, sticking to part 2 of the Bill, specifically clause 39, on the meaning of “worrying livestock”. We heard in evidence this morning from both the Blue Cross and the RSPCA that there are some concerns that the definition of a dog “at large” is far too broad and that it could have unintended consequences. I am interested to know whether you share any concerns about clause 39(3)(b), which elaborates that a dog is “at large” unless it is

“within sight of a person and the person—

(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and

(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.”

Do you think that this may have unintended consequences for your ability to enforce to the law?

Rob Taylor: No, not at all. It needs to be clarified here that an act that takes somebody to court is the upper echelon. I can see five phases with regards to a livestock attack. If a dog is at large in a field or is loose beyond the control of the handler and no sheep have been chased or worried, that would be a word of advice or a lead letter, which is a standard letter that we send off. If there is an attack where a dog is chased, it moves up to a community resolution, whereby we can impose things such as the dog owner having to have control. It is a bit like a yellow card in a football match. It can then move up to a caution, then it moves up again to a prosecution. The prosecutions and destruction orders tend to be the ones that are repeat offences or where the dog handler is irresponsible from day one. That is a decision for the police managers, such as me, to make.

There are five phases. It does not mean that every single offence would go straight in at level 5 and that we would prosecute; there are various ways we deal with this. The problem we have is that the people who are at level 5, who are irresponsible and keep committing the same offences, keep buying dogs and keep going out and letting their dogs attack sheep. The problem we have is at the level 5 area, but I should say level 1 is that we do not take any action. Level 2 would be advice, level 3 would be community resolution, level 4 would be a caution and level 5 would be prosecution and possibly destruction.

Not every prosecution ends in a destruction. That would be a decision for me as to whether there are aggravated features within the offence, such as the dog has done it twice or three time before, it is a continued offence or the number of animals killed is on such a massive scale. For example, 11 cows were chased in Anglesey and had their udders ripped off. They ran across walls, broke all their legs and died—£22,000-worth. In my opinion, that would be a high-scale offence. Sadly, that offender was never caught.

[Ben Lake]

Q On enforcement, there may not be any merit, but do you think that there is any benefit, in terms of public awareness and understanding of owners’ responsibilities, in limiting the definition of “at large” to a dog that is on a lead of a particular length?

Rob Taylor: It would possibly make it simpler.

[Ben Lake]

Q Minette, other witnesses this morning suggested that there is an omission from the Bill, in that there are no provisions to offer compensation to livestock owners when they have suffered a dog attack in this way. I am interested in whether the National Farmers Union has a position on that and whether it would like to see such clauses inserted into the Bill.

Minette Batters: An attack can cost tens of thousands of pounds to that farming business. We feel that it has to be proportionate to the crime committed and at the moment it is not. It is probably not for us to put a figure on it, but it is not proportionate to the crime at the moment.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Q I have a question about the list of exempted dogs in clause 39(2)(b). Do you have a view on whether that list of dogs might be too broad given that it includes

“a working gun dog or a pack of hounds”,

and given their use in the countryside? Rob or Minette?

Minette Batters: I am simply not close enough to the detail. I think it would be an extraordinary situation for a pack of hounds that are hunting by trail anyway to end up in this position, so I cannot see either scenario happening in my opinion.

Rob Taylor: I think that was previously included in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, and it was just left in as it stands. I agree with Minette. I do not think it is contentious and it is quite limited if it were to occur. That is the reason it is in there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Absolutely.

[Ben Lake]

Q Thank you, Mr Flynn, for your evidence. May I take you back to the issue of livestock worrying? I was interested to hear your comments about the Scottish example, and that the wording of the definition in the Scottish Act of a dog under control or at large had, in practice, proven a bit problematic. I have an idea why that may be, but I am keen to hear of your thoughts and experiences on the wording in the Scottish Act.

Mike Flynn: I know that David Bowles from the RSPCA voiced a concern earlier. From my 34 years’ experience—we do not directly deal with this, but we assist the police quite often—I have never known a dog that has attacked or savaged a sheep that has been on a lead in the field with its owner attached to it. It is very rarely intentional. The majority say, “My dog would never do that,” until the day that it does. The dog runs wild. Some people say, “But the sheep was still standing when I got my dog back.” They do not realise that it has aborted about an hour later. From the trauma, they can die of stress an hour after you have regained your dog. If your animal is on a lead, it cannot attack something; it is as simple as that.

[The Chair]

Mike Flynn, chief superintendent of the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, thank you very much indeed for your time.

Examination of Witness

Dr Hazel Wright gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Given what a big issue it is, do you think that the fines and the compensation mechanisms to farmers are sufficient?

Dr Wright: No, I do not, actually. Because there are repeat offences, I feel that the seriousness of this in the past has not reached the critical level to be a deterrent for people. If we want it to be a deterrent and we want it to work, the fines have to be serious. They have to relate to the amount of financial devastation that there has been on farms. We are talking about tens of thousands of pounds of losses on some farms—and those losses are just financial, and do not include the other indirect losses with breeding stock, and so on. We have to take it seriously, and the fines should be increased.

[Ben Lake]

Q It is lovely to see you, Dr Wright. I want to come back to the previous questions and the definition of what is under control. You made it very clear that the Bill could be strengthened by omitting the second part of the definition and keeping it to a leash. Do you want to comment further as to whether we should look at the length of the lead? You made it very clear that it should be the case that a dog is under control if it is on a lead. Is there anything further that you want to add on that?

Dr Wright: The length of “1.8 metres or less” seems reasonable. I cannot see a problem with that in and of itself. As you say, the Bill says “under proper control”, which is an arbitrary statement. It depends on the confidence of the dog walker, which may or may not be real-life situation confidence. I think that many people assume that their dog would come back when, actually, in that situation, it would not. It is a lack of understanding. I know I am reiterating what I said before, but it is so important for our membership to get this part right. I do not have a problem with the 1.8 metres, but I think dogs have to be on a lead when near or adjacent to livestock.

[Ben Lake]

Q Two further questions, if I may, Ms McVey. On one hand, we have heard a few people refer to the fact that a great number of the cases of livestock worrying occur when dogs escape their owners or when owners are not aware that their dog has escaped their garden, or wherever it is being kept. Do you have any proposals or ideas as to how the Bill could try to address that set of circumstances? We heard evidence from Mr Rob Taylor, suggesting that the vast majority of dog attacks occur when dogs escape their owners’ control.

Dr Wright: According to the National Police Chiefs Council’s data, that is about 80% of attacks. Obviously, keeping dogs on leads would combat many of those issues.

First, the powers in the Bill for DNA sampling and evidence gathering are essentially crucial for that. Even when dogs are with dog walkers, the attack might not be witnessed and the dog might not be in the field when the farmer approaches it. We need to have a situation where police can gather evidence. Quite often, the police are aware of the dogs in the area that are the likely culprits of an attack because they tend to be repeat offenders.

The other thing we need to look at is mandatory reporting of those attacks, which allows you to look at regional approaches that might be different in different areas. For example, if you have data that says it is dogs escaping from dog walkers in one area, but it is dogs that have escaped from home in another, you can tailor your mitigation measures based on that data. Without data, you waste resources because you use them ineffectively.

The FUW ran a Your Dog, Your Responsibility campaign last year, which asked members of the public if they knew where their dog was when they were not at home. We talked about appropriate boundaries in fencing for those animals because we know, from the data, that 80% of dog attacks occur when the owner is not around. We would not have run that campaign without those data, so we have to start making sure that we record such information in order to adopt regional approaches and, as I say, to have the mitigation measures match where the problems are.

[Ben Lake]

Q I know that the matter of compensation has already been touched on, and you have made it very clear that the financial cost, let alone the emotional trauma that a dog attack can have on a farming business, is significant. Do you have any comments about how we may go about trying to offer some sort of compensation regime? Perhaps you could also comment on the situation regarding the financial cost for a farmer who loses livestock. Is there any way at the moment for them to recoup some of that financial cost?

Dr Wright: You could do it through the civil courts, but that is very onerous and difficult for the farmer. In the past, it has been very difficult to prove which dog was responsible for an attack. I am hoping that the new powers offered to police under the Bill—as opposed to the 1953 Act, which basically left them powerless—will give people more confidence in forces dealing with the attacks, which will bring more farmers forward in order to start proceedings against individuals. I would like to see that it is easy, simple and straightforward, and not expensive, for a farmer to do that. At the moment, farmers are victims of a crime, but they are not being recompensed for that in the way that maybe another victim of a crime would have support.

We need a support network for farmers who have gone through this ordeal. We have 12 regional county officers who provide support to our members. Official and proper support is also needed to deal with the emotional and financial impact, and to signpost farmers to how they go about launching legal proceedings. We should not expect them to take the burden upon themselves, especially at a time when it could be very difficult financially for them.

[Ben Lake]

Diolch; thank you.

[James Grundy]

Q We discussed earlier today the propensity of dogs to potentially commit repeat attacks. Is it your opinion that once a dog has become a sheep killer, it is highly likely to attack and/or kill sheep again?

Dr Wright: Yes, I do think that. I also think that that is part and parcel of poor ownership. We talk about dog attacks, but a lot of this is actually to do with the irresponsible ownership of a dog and how a dog has been allowed to behave in the past. I am certainly not an advocate for saying that every dog that attacks sheep should be destroyed—of course not. Every case has to go on its merits, but given the data that I have seen and the conversations that I have had, it tends to be repeat offenders in many cases.

COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who quoted the IPCC’s most recent report, which stated that

“unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to…1.5 °C…will be beyond reach.”

Today, we live in a world with global warming of 1.1°C, yet it is a world already ravaged by forest fires and increasingly frequent extreme weather events. It is a world made poorer by rapid biodiversity loss and made more geopolitically unstable by profoundly changing climate patterns. Despite that, my generation may be living through the last days of relative climatic, environmental and ecological stability. It is this realisation that makes COP26 and its outcome so important.

Like others, I can see that the Government’s net zero strategy published this week was an important but overdue intervention. Its ambitions for renewable electricity generation are laudable, the emphasis on decarbonising household heating welcome, and the desire to reduce the greenhouse footprint of our transport sector commendable. And yet, action falls short of the rhetoric, especially when addressing the costs of the transition for households. The heat pump strategy, for example, needs to go further. Indeed, it will benefit only about 0.3% of Welsh households. Instead, greater capital resourcing should be given to the Welsh Government, who are responsible for housing as a devolved competence, so that they can implement a whole-house approach, addressing both insulation and heating supply.

That is just one example, but unfortunately, there are many more, which prompts the question: why? It seems that the answer lies in the Treasury and perhaps its hesitancy to accept the climate crisis for what it is: an existential crisis. It is short-sighted in the extreme for some to suggest that we cannot afford the transition. It is the cost of inaction that is unaffordable. The Treasury’s “Net Zero Review” details that the number of natural catastrophes has risen markedly since the 1980s and Munich Re has calculated that global disasters exacerbated by climate change caused $210 billion-worth of losses in 2020 alone. Meanwhile, the Climate Change Committee found the annual net cost over the next 30 years for the UK’s transition to net zero to be £10 billion, or 0.5% of GDP.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to find positive ways to allow our constituents to be involved in making our cities and towns greener? For example, the new 110,000-tree Hempsted woods in my constituency will give every schoolchild the chance to plant at least one tree. That will be alongside the green energy from solar, wind and hydrogen that we hope to produce there. Does he agree that this is the sort of local initiative that goes alongside the national commitments?

[Ben Lake]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree wholeheartedly. If we are to get to grips with the crisis, it will require both the national and local action that he described so eloquently.

The cost of inaction is unaffordable. Even if we were to disagree on that point, the alternative—a world aflame, flooded and barren—outweighs any short-term Treasury reservations about the cost of the green transition. To put it simply, we can and must do more. I urge the Government to support the COP26 President in the final weeks before the summit so that we achieve global successes on emissions commitments and ensure that the Chancellor’s forthcoming Budget meets the biggest challenge of our age.

Environment Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]]

I am speaking from the Isle of Wight, where, in addition to being a UNESCO biosphere, we hope in the next couple of years to become the UK’s first island park, if the Government intend to bring forward the new protected landscapes Bill, as I clearly I hope they do.

I support this Bill very much—I think it is a great Bill—but I wish to speak in favour of new clauses 14 and 15 to argue the case for minimising the impact of housing on the environment. It is great that the Government want to design better, and frankly we need better design in this country, but a well-designed low-density greenfield housing estate is still a low-density greenfield housing estate, and these housing estates are, by nature, unsustainable. New clause 14 would allow for a handbrake to stop environmentally damaging housing, because it would, by law, prioritise carbon-efficient housing and carbon-efficient locations.

House building, along with everything else that we do, needs to align with the UK’s binding obligations in the Paris climate accords and carbon-efficient obligations, as well as the Government’s justified world-leading commitment to net zero by 2050. To do that, we need carbon-efficient housing solutions, and that implies a focus on cities as opposed to suburban and rural development. If we do not get that carbon-efficient housing in this Bill, as mandated by this new clause, then can we look at it for the housing Bill?

For me, this also means that we need to do more to incentivise brownfield development in not only suburban but rural areas. Very often brownfield sites are too small to be used efficiently under the current financial regime, and it is much cheaper to build inefficiently on greenfield sites. Greenfield sites, as well as being the most carbon-intensive because we are building detached houses, are also dependent on car use outside existing communities, which means dependence not only on carbon-emitting cars but on people having to travel to get to amenities rather than those amenities being built near them. Research provided by the House of Commons Library shows that homes built in urban areas are significantly less carbon-emitting than those built in suburban and rural areas.

I welcome this Bill, but can we please look at the legal requirement for the most carbon-efficient housing in the most carbon-efficient locations, not only for our climate change commitments but for quality of life in cities, in suburbs and in rural areas?

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Like other Members, I am disappointed that the Government have failed to make significant progress with this Bill, especially given the urgent need to act to address not only the causes of climate change but biodiversity loss. In such an important year for climate change mitigation and adaptation, I hope that the Government will make a meaningful effort to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible in the next Session.

It is a pleasure to speak to several amendments, including new clause 9, which draws attention to our international commitments and the importance of action to protect our natural environment both here at home and abroad. In particular, I hope that the new clause will draw further attention to the plight of our forests—the lungs of our world and vital habitats for species great and small—in addition to the need for measures to discourage trade in products of deforestation abroad.

I hope that new clause 9 will also draw attention to an equally pertinent issue: the offshoring of our emissions and associated resource consumption. WWF believes that as much as 46% of the UK’s carbon footprint is not currently accounted for by national reporting or included in the UK’s net zero target. This simply must be addressed if we are serious about our role in tackling climate change.

The Bill also focuses minds on the constraints imposed by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 on action to protect our natural world across the four nations of the UK. This is reflected in amendment 40 and new clause 1, both of which Plaid Cymru will be supporting.

Wales is rightfully proud of its status as a world leader in recycling and a nation where sustainable development is a constitutional duty, yet one of the many reasons why the Senedd withheld consent from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and why the Welsh Government are now taking legal action against the UK Government is the issue of plastic pollution, as raised by the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Wales would be legally prohibited from taking action to restrict the use of single-use plastic under the Act’s non-discrimination clauses. These clauses not only make the Bill’s lack of ambition even more egregious, but draw attention to how the Government are hindering environmental action by working against, rather than with, the devolved nations and their record of action in this field.

We have a duty to do all we can to protect our natural world for present and future generations. We cannot afford to ignore this most profound duty, so I hope the Government will actively listen and reflect on the constructive debate we have had here today.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]]

Listening to the contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House on this Bill today has been a real pleasure; it is clear that there is widespread support for its ambitions and I share that. It has also been a pleasure to listen to my constituents over the past 12 months —to the schoolchildren, the farmers, the businesses and most of all to Laurinda and The Time is Now group—because it is clear that out in the country the ambitions that the Government have set in this Bill are equally shared and, as many have said, we are eager to see this Bill get on the statute book.

I want to focus on issues of biodiversity and housing and draw the Minister’s attention to the new clauses in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). In North East Bedfordshire we look to have one of the fastest rates of growth in housing development, and it is crucially important that whatever the level of housing—and of course those numbers need to come down—that housing development takes into account the maintenance, encouragement and resilience of the biodiversity in our local communities. I urge the Minister to listen to representations from the CPRE and also from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, based in my constituency, about the importance of biodiversity being incorporated in legislation when it comes to the expansion of housing developments and new developments across the country.

Finally, on the Minister and her team, it is clear that these ambitions, coming from all directions, at some point have to be corralled into a piece of legislation for the whole, and there are lots of tensions between what people want to achieve, but, as she and her colleagues will know, in addition to setting targets we must make sure that we maintain support and buy-in from the various constituents who are affected by those targets. I wish her all the best in bringing forward this Bill and give it my strong support today.

Welsh Food: Protected Status

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Virginia Crosbie]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to tasting those delicious plums he talks about.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I fully agree with her on the importance of protected indicators. A few applications for Welsh produce, such as Gower salt marsh lamb and Cambrian meat, have been going through the European certification process but have not been able to complete it. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a good idea that these products and others that started the European journey are prioritised under the new UK scheme?

[Virginia Crosbie]

I absolutely agree that Wales does punch above its weight. Welsh lamb and beef have long been recognised for their quality. Our farmers practise high standards of animal husbandry and pastureland management, working primarily on family-run farms. That means that, when people see the prestigious GI mark on our meat, they will know that those lambs and cattle were born and reared in Wales, that they roamed freely and ate from our lush, naturally watered pastures. All of that means that customers are assured that the meat they are buying is of the very best quality.

Welsh products make up 10 of the 12 most recent GI applications for the UK, showing the position of Welsh farmers and producers at the forefront of this important scheme. The Welsh holders of GIs make best use of the opportunity made available to them, working collaboratively to support each other’s businesses. Producers often support and champion each other to grow together. That feeling was echoed by Fay Francis, the GI consultant, who recently spoke to members of the all-party parliamentary group on geographically protected foods, who said,

“Wales has an impressive ‘family’ of Welsh GI products which promote the heritage and culture of Wales. Hopefully, with the UK GI scheme, Wales will have more new GI applications from Welsh producers who recognise the potential value attaining GI status can have for their business.”

As we prepare for our departure from the European Union, we are investigating methods to ensure that the high standards of British goods enhance our trade opportunities overseas. To that end, the UK Government are working with their global trading partners to transition the EU free trade and other sectoral agreements. We are exploring the potential for new agreements with international trading partners, including commitments relevant to the recognition and protection of UK GIs, and GIs from the rest of the world. As GIs represent around 25% of UK food and drink exports by value, approaching £6 billion in export value, it is clear that they will play a central role in future trade.

The recently announced UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement is an example of how we will offer new protection for more iconic UK goods in future. That will clearly improve the awareness and recognition of key UK brands within the Japanese market, which includes protection for Anglesey sea salt from my constituency.

I know, having spoken with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who chairs the APPG on geographically protected foods, about the clearly huge significance that the status can have for businesses. My hon. Friend has many protected foods in her constituency: Rutland bitter, Stilton cheese and the delicious Melton Mowbray pork pie, whose GI was vital to stop external manufacturers counterfeiting the economically valuable Melton Mowbray moniker. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) has the celebrated Lakeland Herdwick sheep in her constituency. The meat from those sheep is famous for its flavour, which is, of course, second only to Welsh lamb.

I also welcome the new research funded by the UK Government recently which will advise on how to better promote UK GI brands and underpin a new promotional strategy. Over the coming weeks and months, we will see an increased awareness of our GI brands, within the UK and overseas. GIs not only give a quality mark when a product is retailed, but they have a natural affinity to food tourism. The Welsh products with GI status epitomise our culture, heritage and tradition. Tourists and locals alike flock to events such as the Beaumaris food festival to sample local delicacies ranging from cheese to ice cream and sausages to cider, all made using high quality, locally sourced produce.

One of the first geographical indicators awarded in Wales was for Halen Môn, Anglesey sea salt, which has opened an award-winning saltcote and visitor centre, encouraging tourists to learn about the production process and purchase their products. On my recent visit, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about its products and meet the wonderful staff, including Eifion Jones, the dispatch team leader. As the UK county most dependent on tourism, it is vital that Anglesey’s businesses take every opportunity to boost revenue and re-invest in our community.

I would like to end by asking the Minister to confirm that the UK Government will continue to invest in the new scheme to secure its future. Do the Government recognise the importance of supporting food producers, especially post-Brexit? Is her Department working closely with the Department for International Trade to bring meaningful benefits to food producers? I look forward to a future where Anglesey sea salt is found in the finest foreign cuisines all over the globe and Welsh lamb and beef are even more recognised delicacies internationally. I especially look forward to tasting more food that is awarded the special recognition of a geographical indicator.

We are soon approaching our departure from the European Union and across the country a year of unrest has led to concerns about the opportunities for businesses in the upcoming years. As the party of business, we must open doors for UK producers. One of these is the geographical indicator that elevates our products above their world-wide competitors and drives success for their owners.

Agriculture Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), although I fear I am about to disagree with some of the points he made.

This evening’s debate presented an opportunity for the Government to reassert parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals and to put into law their rhetorical support for UK agriculture. During the course of this debate, we have seen valid concerns about the importance of maintaining a level playing field for domestic producers and about importers given short shrift. It is disappointing that the Government will not support the measures in Lords amendment 16, which would address those concerns, as well as enhance parliamentary oversight of trade agreements.

I understand that we cannot vote on Lord Curry’s amendment 18 this evening, but the Government should nevertheless ensure that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is made permanent. That would improve the transparency of negotiations, give much-needed reassurances that the interests of food producers will be championed in negotiations, and offer some redress to farmers whose concerns have, I am afraid, often been dismissed as mere protectionism—allegations that are, frankly, an insult to the commitment and professionalism of farmers throughout the UK.

The Government have not sufficiently explained their approach to the sensitive matter of standards in trade negotiations or how they will reconcile different production systems. We have heard mention of measures being introduced in the Trade Bill but we have yet to see them in practice. Against such a confused backdrop, this Bill’s failure to require agricultural imports to meet equivalent domestic standards of production should concern all the political parties. If we fail to ensure a level playing field between domestic production and imports, we run the risk of endangering the viability of many of our producers. We need only think of the experience of the UK pig industry to understand the consequences of allowing imports that are produced to standards that would be illegal for domestic production. The Government have tried to claim that such a requirement is unnecessary, as they have no intention of allowing imports of lower standards to enter the UK, but at the same time we hear Ministers claim that such a requirement would tie the hands of UK negotiators. These are irreconcilable claims.

This Government have long talked up the benefits of taking back control and of how, post-EU, we will be able to set the terms of our trade with the world. Those terms should be quite simple: UK market access for imports should be dependent on meeting equivalent UK food production standards. I fear that this Bill fetters the success and the future of Welsh farming. I urge the Government to reconsider their position on amendment 16, as the Bill in its current form misses a golden opportunity to safeguard the long-term success and viability of our food producers.

[Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)]

I feel like a bit of an interloper in this debate, because many Members have talked about their heritage in farming and agriculture, and the constituencies they represent have vast amounts of farms and fields, but I am a city boy and represent a city seat. I have no farms in my constituency. I have two fields and no sheep. I have two horses, which sit at the side of the beautiful Kings Norton nature reserve. To my shame, I do not even own a pair of wellies.